Sit Doon An' Haud Yir Wheesht, Ruth

Ruth Davidson MSP ~ Proud to be ???

Oan 1 June 1999, the devolved Scottish Parliament wis convened for the first time. Amang the opening ceremony, singer Sheena Wellington sang the Robert Burns sang "Is There for Honest Poverty", alsae kent as "A Man's a Man for A' That". The sang wis performit as written, in the Scots leid whit the bard penned it in.

It is efter a' the Scottish Parliament; the parliament o' Scotland, whaur people commonly spik their ain tongue. So whit wad be mair fitting than tae open it wi' Burns's anthem o international britherhood in the Scots leid?

No' good enouch it seems for the Scottish Conservative Party leader, Ruth Davidson MSP. Oan Monday, 28 March, during the debate oan whether or no' tae ask Westminster tae rin a second referendum oan independence, the Tory leader quoted the words o' SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, and then added "I won't do the accent."

The accent! I ask ye? It's aye lang been kent that the Tories dinnae and wullna recognise the Scots Leid in it's ain richt, and there's yir proof. The leader o' the Scots Tories decided tae deride oor native tongue in the debating chamber o' Scotland's ain parliament.

Joan McAlpine, for her pairt, later Tweeted "I'm a member of the Scottish Parliament who speaks with a Scottish accent - like vast majority of the population. Tories find it funny."

Weel said, Joan, but jist ane thing; ye dinnae spik wi' a "Scottish accent" ~ ye spik the Scots leid.

And it's no' like Ruth spiks perfect RP English either. Aiblings she micht want tae, but ends up wi' a sort o' strangulated 'Edinburgh Fine' / ploom in the mou English, which because o' the inflection she pits oan it, ends up sounding mair Scots.

It seems tae me that becoming the leader o' the opposition in the Scottish Parliament, when the Tories owertook Labour in the 2016 elections, the power has gane tae Ruth's heid. At anither point First Minister Nicola Sturgeon MSP tried tae intervene oan her speech, and Ruth Davidson snapped at the leader o' Scotland "Sit down."

Cud ye imagine whit wad happen if Theresa May attemptit tae interrupt Jeremy Corbyn in the Palace o' Westminster, an' the Labour leader tellt the Prime Minister o' the UK tae "Sit down"? There wad be mayhem and wee Johnnie Bercow wad hae tae tak steps agin the leader o' the opposition, and wad be weel within his ricths tae dae sae. Why the Prisiding Officer o' the Scottish Parliament didna therefore intervene and ask Ruth Davidson tae withdraw her remarks and apologise is ayont me.

We a' weel ken jist how high-falutin the Tories think themseels tae be. But Ruth Davidson's behaviour went weel ayont the boundaries o' common decency and respect we should expect in the Scottish Parliament. Grantit, the debate wis a heated ane, but sic outbursts shouldna e'er be allowed tae gae unpunished.

But whit's really got ma dander up is Ruth Davidson's denial o' her ain culture, by ridiculing the Scots Tongue. When ony English person derides Scots, then as odious as it may be, it comes o' ignorance, and because o' that, if the person apologises and is contrite aboot it, it kin be forgien, and e'en understood tae an extent.

Ruth Davidson, has nae sic excuse. She is Scots through and through, wis brocht up wi' the mither tongue, an' for her tae therefore deride it canna e'er be forgien. I can stomach an anti-Scots English person tae an extent. The ane thing I canna, and wullna, e'er respect or forgie is an anti-Scots Scot, which is mair than a hunnert times warse, forbye.

Fowk like Ruth Davidson aye claim tae be "Proud to be Scottish. Proud to be British." but by their ain words aye gie awey whaur their true loyalites lie. These are the fowk o' the same ilk o' thae wha systematically erodit the Scots Leid in the schules, in law, and in everyday life. They claim tae be Scots, but in reality they're ashamed o' their ain culture; ashamed o' being Scots.

We see the same frae 'Scottish' Labour, whae claim to be proud Scots, but gae oot o' there wey tae e'en appear remotely Scots. The Labour cooncil in Glesca ance tried tae pressurise the SNP group tae tak doon a 'nationalist' banner frae a windae lookin' oan tae George Square. Whit wis this 'nationalist' symbol whit made Labour sae black affrontit? A Saltire flag. The national flag o' Scotland, the auldest national flag in existence, their ain flag, that's whit. Is it ony wonder I refer tae Labour in Scotland as "Labour (North British Branch)"?

I dinnae mind fowk haein opposin' political views tae ma ain pro-independence anes. Thon's democracy. I ken weel that there are fowk whae are proud Scots but support the Union, e'en in ma ain family. But when someone claims tae be a Scot, I expect them tae staund staunchly by thon statement. When they fail tae dae sae, then I canna consider them tae be Scots at a'.  Ian Hamilton, ane o' the lads whae walked aff wi' the Stone o' Destiny oan Christmas Day 1950, hud it richt aboot sic fowk in a magazine article he ance wrote, 'Bringing it Home' (Daily Record Story of Scotland, 1995), Hamilton said o' fowk like Ruth Davidson, "They're not Scots; they are North Britons."

But e'en then, when ye consider fowk frae the north o' England kin weel understaund we Scots, and that there are thae Scots wha dae spik RP English (but dinna deride the Scots leid) yet are Scots a' the same, and wi' her owerstepping her ain authority, ablings Ruth Davidson disnae e'en see herseel as a 'North Briton', but rather as a Middle Englander wannabe.  Efter a', it wis jist in September 2016, when Ruth wis invitit tae an event attendit by the Prime Minister, she respondit "Usually they put the Scots in a place where nothing can be broken. Or stolen for that matter!"  Sae as heated as the debate wis, she kin hardly claim it wis a momentary lack o' judgement.  Naw, Ruth is an anti-Scots Scot, richt enouch.

Weel, Ruth is nae Miss Jean Brodie (wha in the buik wis actually a very proud Scot), sae she kin tak her schoolmarm strictness, and her derision an' denial o' her ain tongue and culture elsewhere. But as she does, tae return tae Burns she may weel consider that when Burns decidit tae publish his poems in the Scots Leid, ayebody said they wad ne'er sell. Aroond thrie hunnert years later, a pair o' young laddies ca'in' themseels The Proclaimers decidit tae record sangs in the Scots Leid, and ayebody said they wad ne'er sell.

Perhaps Ruth Davidson wad like tae teel us jist whae wis richt, and whae wis wrang, oan baith occasions?

An' whiles she ponders thon, she may herseel want tae consider some o' the words o' "Is There for Honest Poverty":

Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a couf for a' that:

For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

Theresa May ~ face of the Union?

On 27 March, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, visited the Scottish offices of the Department for International Development - a Westminster government agency - to deliver a speech on her plans for Scotland under the UK plans to leave the EU.

The speech came on the eve of the Prime Minister triggering Article 50 to begin the exit strategy form the EU - and also in the same week the Scottish Government will table a motion to ask Westminster to hold a second referendum on independence, which the PM is deeply opposed to.

The speech was therefore also going to be about propaganda rather than plans. What followed however was pitiful. Having read through the transcript of the speech, I add some of my own thoughts.

"the work you do here – in conjunction with your colleagues at the Department for International Development in London – says something important about Britain. It says that we are a kind and generous country. It says that we are a big country that will never let down – or turn our back on – those in need."

In February 2017, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson syphoned off £700 million from foreign aid, to set up a "pro-democracy" fund to spread western influence in former Soviet states and the Middle East.

Under the Immigration Act 2016, as part of the 'Dubs Amendment', the UK government agreed to take in child refugees from the "Jungle" migrant camp in Calais. Lord Dubs said this could be as high as 3000 children. In February 2017 the government reneged on this commitment after taking in only 350 children. A move which Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon described as inhumane, and urged the Prime Minister to reconsider.

So the Prime Minister does not have to lecture me on not turning our backs on those in need - her government has a shameful track record of doing so.

"Indeed, we are going to take this opportunity to forge a more Global Britain. The closest friend and ally with Europe, but also a country that looks beyond Europe to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike."

The UK is not going to be the closest friend and ally of Europe. Far from it, the decision to leave and the hard line which Theresa May is taking is already alienating many EU states and other countries in Europe. And of course by 'old friends' she means the USA. Oh, and the Commonwealth countries, which the Brexiteers are determined are to become the British Empire Mark II. As to the 'new allies', there's the reference to the UK trying to interfere in former Soviet states and the Middle East.

"For example, your work is leading the world in efforts to end the outrage of violence against women and girls, a cause that is particularly close to my heart."

Cases of Female Genital Mutilation are on the increase in the UK, with WHO reporting in 2015 that it averaged a new case every 109 minutes.

From 2010 to 2015 familial abuse of women stayed largely static, while sexual abuse actually increased slightly from 2014 to 2015.

"the work to tackle the awful Zika virus that is a source of such anguish for people across Latin America is being led by researchers at Glasgow University, supported by teams here."

Scottish academia and education is and always has been devolved. Even under the auspices of the Act of Union of 1707, it was agreed that Scotland and England would maintain control over their own education systems. And Scotland has been a leader in medicine since the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh was founded in 1505 - 202 years before the Union. Therefore, for Theresa May to try and make it look like Glasgow University could not fight Zika without UK input is as disingenuous as it is insulting. This is a typical example of Westminster saying that every success in Scotland is a direct consequence of the Union, but every failure is all of our own doing.

"One of the legacies of years of conflict in that country is the deadly phenomenon of landmines that still lie strewn across hundreds of acres of that land."

Many of which landmines were supplied by the USA and the UK to the Mujaheddin, before they became the Taliban.

"thanks to the work of organisations such as the Halo Trust that has its headquarters right here in Scotland – almost 100 square kilometres of contaminated land has been cleared. And around half a million people have benefitted as a result. We will continue with that work – and continue to support Afghanistan’s security"

"The HALO Trust is a non-political and non-religious registered British charity and American non-profit organization which removes debris left behind by war." (Wikipedia)

So, nice one Theresa, for attempting to politicise and claim credit for the HALO Trust, which are nothing to do with either the UK or the Scottish governments. And no, you won't 'continue with that work', because it is organisations like HALO doing it.

"UK Aid is a badge of hope for so many around the world – and I hope that everyone here feels proud to be able to play their part in bringing light where there is darkness, and hope where there is despair. But that badge – UK Aid – says something else. It appears on the side of buildings, school books, medical supplies and food parcels in some of the toughest environments and most hard-to-reach countries on the planet."

While at the same time, the UK sells arms to countries in return for giving foreign aid, or sells arms to those countries which create humanitarian crises. An example from September 2016 is Theresa May's government sending a drop-in-the-bucket £100 million to Yemen, whilst selling arms to Saudi Arabia worth £3 billion; arms which the Saudis are attacking Yemen with.

"And it says this: that when this great union of nations – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – sets its mind on something and works together with determination, we are an unstoppable force."

If a union of peoples can work as a greater force together than apart, then surely the same must be true of the European Union?  Or is that 'different'?

"That is why the Plan for Britain I have set out – a plan to get the right deal for Britain abroad as well as a better deal for ordinary, working people at home"

By bringing absolutely nothing to the table in Brexit negotiations, and expecting several concessions in return? The fact is that May has absolutely no plan and no idea what she is doing. And as for working people at home, just how are they going to feel when their rights to liveable wages, decent working conditions, the right to leave, all cut from under them, with no EU to turn to?

"has as its heart one over-arching goal: to build a more united nation."

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer?

"A more united nation means working actively to bring people and communities together by promoting policies which support integration and social cohesion."

EU citizens residing in the UK were denied a vote in the EU referendum, and the UK leaving the UK shall see many of these same people stripped of their right to remain. I therefore fail to see how that is supporting integration and social cohesion.

And there are many other policies of the Westminster government which are dividing communities and eroding integration and social cohesion. Theresa May only look at the gentrified areas of London such as Notting Hill and Streatham, where the working class - and largely black - communities have been priced out of these areas, and many out of London altogether.

"In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that means fully respecting, and indeed strengthening, the devolution settlements."

If Theresa May is at all serious about respecting the devolution settlements, then she should respect the wishes of the devolved Scottish Government to seek a second referendum on independence by early 2019 at the latest.

"But never allowing our Union to become looser and weaker, or our people to drift apart. So in those policy areas where the UK Government holds responsibility, I am determined that we will put the interests of the Union – both the parts and the whole – at the heart of our decision-making."

Are therein lies the contradiction; she won't recognise the call for a second referendum by early 2019. For all Theresa May's fine words, this is nothing more a repeat of the 'Vow' Scotland was promised in 2014 of sweeping new powers both in Holyrood and as part of the UK parliament at Westminster, only to see the Scottish budget slashed, powers never delivered, and 'English Votes for English Laws' (EVEL) introduced, whereby Scots MPs may not vote on English issues, even if they make have a knock-on effect upon Scotland.

"It is about the values we share in our family of nations. Values of freedom of speech, democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law. This proud shared heritage provides the bedrock of our lives together in the UK."

Freedom of speech, where SNP MPs have been silenced in the House of Commons. Freedom of speech and expression where the government already has our computers and other internet devices under surveillance and have jumped on the attack on Westminster to call for that to be extended. Democracy where the Prime Minister will not honour the wishes of 62% of the Scots electorate to stay in the UK. Both the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Amnesty International have condemned the Westminster government for human rights abuses, at home and abroad, and particularly in the case of those most vulnerable. May's 'clean Brexit' will see the UK removed from human rights protection we enjoy within the EU AND the European Court of Justice.

"And on that foundation we have built a country where we share the challenges that we face, and bring all the expertise, ingenuity and goodwill we share across this Union to bear to tackle them. That allows us to do amazing things,"

And on that foundation the European Union grew out of the EEC, which allows us to do many, many more amazing things - across Europe and around the world.

"So as Britain leaves the European Union, and we forge a new role for ourselves in the world"

An isolationist one of raising the drawbridge, pulling up the ladder, and cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world, save a select few. And given how Donald Trump is blowing hot and cold on the "Special Relationship", don't count on that either.

"But also for the good we can do together in the world, as a Global Britain. A force for good, helping to build a better future for everyone."

Yes, I can just hear the Little Englanders agreeing to a "Global Britain", especially when these are the same people who continually call for foreign aid to be cut - or even scrapped, for cuts in immigration and refugees, and for deportations. And these are the same people who voted the Tories in, and to leave the EU remember.

All in all it was a poor speech. It was largely an appeal to emotion; a tug at the collective heart strings of Scotland, in an effort desperate effort to keep us in the Union. In that, it was little different from the pathetic pleas of David Cameron in 2014.

Theresa May's logic escapes me. On one hand she speaks of forming new alliances across Europe and the world, then on the other hand is insisting that Scotland can only be an effective force in the world if we are in union with England, but at the same time as speaking in glowing terms of unions being strong, is determined to take out of the EU on the hardest terms possible. Does May somehow imagine that an independent Scotland could not enter into some sort of joint aid agency with the remainder of the UK? Or is she threatening that if Scotland becomes independent, that she will childishly go home and take her ball with her? And if the latter, then just how outward-looking, how embracing of the world would that be? And just how does such an attitude at all help those most in need across the world?

I would never for one moment denigrate the work of the consummate professionals of the Department for International Development, but the fact is we do not need to be in an all-encompassing political union to deliver aid across the world.

The UK already works in conjunction within the EU, and with several other countries to deliver aid where it is needed. Asides from which, aid is often delivered by non-governmental organisations, as May herself illustrated by the amazing work of the HALO Trust - which she disgustingly tried to take the credit for. Yes, groups like HALO often rely upon governmental monetary donations and physical help on the ground. There is absolutely no reason Scotland and England as independent countries could not continue supplying both. Or is May also threatening to huffily pull governmental help for HALO and other such organisations?

The rest of the speech, full of rhetoric and hyperbole, truly was nothing more than "Vow Mk II"; it had the same condescending, crawling tones of David Cameron when he pleaded with Scotland in 2014 to stay in the Union, promising us the earth - and delivered nothing.

I do not for the life of me know what the point of all that was. Nicola Sturgeon will table Article 30 to the Scottish Parliament, calling for a second referendum on independence, and it will pass through the house. We will have a second referendum, by early 2019 at the latest, whatever what Theresa May thinks or wishes, whether it be an official one or not.

If Theresa May however was trying to lay down the law, trying to be another Thatcher rather than Cameron, she would do well to consider just how much Margaret Thatcher was despised in Scotland. Not least because she too tried to tell Scotland to "dae as yir tellt", and imposed her will upon us against our wishes when she imposed the hated 'Poll Tax' on Scotland a year before the rest of the UK.

Theresa May can of course utterly refuse to grant Scotland a second referendum on independence. If she is at all serious about keeping the UK together and making it more cohesive, then she would be strongly advised not to. If there is one thing we Scots hate is being told what to do. It just makes us all the more determined to do it. Refusing a second referendum could very well see Theresa May go down in history as the Prime Minister who broke up the UK, which of course would be fine with me.

And of course, you can forget all the rhetoric about a second referendum 'not now, but later'. Because by her very words of 'strengthening' the UK, Theresa May has made it perfectly clear she has absolutely no intention of ever granting a second referendum. That is why it has to be now; that is why it has to be we who are active now of delivering it.

So, all in all, it was a pretty pathetic and pointless speech. That's no disparagement to the workers of the DfID. They like all public sector workers, know better than Theresa May or any other politician just how hard their jobs are, and how professional they are. They neither need nor want their egos massaged nor smoke blown up their asses.

I have some personal thoughts upon this. In my time I have worked in the public sector at UK government, Scottish government, and local authority levels. If there was one thing which was strongly emphasised in all three sectors it is that you remain completely objective and non-partisan at all times. It is never a good idea to bring your politics into the workplace, but in the public sector it is absolutely sacrosanct that you do not. And like the absolute professionals they are, the overwhelming majority of public sector workers leave their politics at home; I have even rarely heard them discuss politics in the pub after work.

Yet, here we had the UK Prime Minister visiting the offices of a major government department, and giving a speech overladen with her political asperations, pleading to them to follow her political vision, to reject any ideas of a second referendum or of Scottish independence. Theresa May used what should have been a speech about aid and development to preach propaganda to a non-partisan government department, and that should concern each and every one of us.

One can only hope that there were few within the East Kilbride office of the DfID who actually paid any attention to one word of what she said. After all, they know from bitter experience what happened to their public sector colleagues. Before the 2014 referendum Westminster government said that 1200 Scottish tax workers would not lose their jobs if we stayed in the Union. True to their word, after Scotland voted No to independence, the government didn't sack 1200 - they transferred the jobs of no fewer than 2000 tax workers from East Kilbride to Croydon.

Fool me once, Theresa, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Doing The Right Thing

London is not cowed ~ neither should we be

On Wednesday, 23 March 2017, the Scottish Parliament was debating whether to seek a second referendum on independence, with the vote due to take place at 5.30pm that day.  At approximately 2:40pm the same day, the driver of a car in London deliberately mounted the pavement on Westminster Bridge, mowing down pedestrians, before crashing through railings guarding the Houses of Parliament.  He then jumped out of the car, stabbed an unarmed police officer, and ran towards a Parliament cafe before being shot by undercover armed police officers.

Two pedestrians and the police officer, Police Constable Keith Palmer, died of their injuries.  The attacker later died of gunshot wounds.  40 others were injured.

As news of the attack reached Edinburgh, the decision was taken to suspend business in the Scottish Parliament for the day.  It had been decided earlier that the debate would continue, however Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh took the decision to suspend the sitting, stating "The fact that our sister parliament has had a serious incident is affecting this particular debate."

SNP Brexit Minister Mike Russell MSP stated "Any attacks on a parliament are an attack on all democracies.  It looks very serious indeed, so it's the right thing to do and I think people would have expected it to happen."

Whilst this was the prevailing view in Holyrood, there were a few MSPs thought that the debate should have continued and that suspending parliament was giving in to terrorism.  There have also been some individuals saying as much on social media, and even some callously suggesting that what happens in Westminster was of no consequence.

Mike Russell hit the nail on the head; it was the right thing to do.

Whilst we Scots Nats wish to sever our ties with Westminster, no-one can deny that it is a democratic parliament.  As such any attack upon Westminster is an attack upon democracy and an attack upon decent-minded people across the UK, and around the world.

Okay, I don't see Westminster as the mother of parliaments - and if it is, it's just a bloody shame they never found out who the father was.  But it is a semblance of democracy, and in a world where the vast majority of countries do not have democracy, that makes it all the more important.  Let us also not forget that when we talk of Westminster, we talk of those who serve there.  That includes 59 Scottish constituency MPs, 56 of whom represent the SNP - Alex Salmond was the first MP to speak to LBC Radio about the attack shortly after it happened.  There are also MPs of Scottish birth or background who represent English constituencies, Scots lords, Scots civil servants and other workers in the Palace of Westminster, Scots police officers who have taken up careers in the Metropolitan Police, and of course the enormous number of Scots who live in London.

Even the most ardent Scots Nat who wanted business to continue in Holyrood cannot deny that what happens in Westminster, London, or England as a whole, affects us all.  Many of us have friends in England, many indeed have family.

Not that the fact that there were Scots caught up in the attack should be the only driving factor.  There were many nationalities and ethnicities caught up in the attack.  A group of French schoolchildren were on Westminster Bridge, three of whom were injured.  Of the two dead pedestrians, one was a Spanish school teacher and mother of two, Aysha Frade.  The other was 53-year-old American Kurt Cochran, in London to celebrate his 25th wedding anniversary.  His wife is in hospital in a critical condition.  London truly is a metropolitan city where many cultures meet, visit, and live, and that is why an attack upon London is indeed an attack upon the world.

Putting it all together then, it was only fitting that the Scottish Parliament should be suspended.  It was indeed "the right thing to do", to show solidarity with and respect to the peoples of London and of the world caught up in this atrocious act.

The First Minister later stated "My thoughts, as I'm sure the thoughts of everybody in Scotland tonight, are with people caught up in this dreadful event.  My condolences in particular go to those who've lost loved ones.  My thoughts are with those who've sustained injuries and we all feel a sense of solidarity with the people of London tonight."

As ever, Nicola Sturgeon speaks with the values which so many of us in Scotland, and across the world, share.

But doing the right thing goes further than showing respect and compassion for victims of terror attacks.  It is about respecting others.  Even as the story was breaking, social media was ablaze with accusations of Islamist attacks, fingers being pointed at the Islamic faith, and even some seeing it as an opportunity to blame immigration and refugees.  Notice there how it very quickly went from blaming one particular interpretation of a religion, to blaming that religion, to blaming individuals.  I saw one comment on Facebook stating "This will soon come to every street in Europe."  Yeah.  I'm really scared that a Muslim is going to crash a car through my garden fence and try to stab me.

Yes, we now know was Muslim who had previously been investigated by MI5, but was currently not under investigation.  We also know that eight people have been arrested.  It is also now reported that Islamic State are claiming responsibility for the attack.  And of course, the bigots are jumping on this immediately.  Only  a few points here; we also know that the assailant was British-born, arrest does not equal complicity in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, and IS now have their backs so firmly against the wall, and are on the brink of being wiped out, that they are obviously going to claim responsibility for any and all attacks.

If we take every news report of IS claiming responsibility for every 'terror' attack, then we play right into the hands of the terrorists.  But exactly the same happens when we pay any attention to the extreme right screaming about Muslim "immigrants" and "refugees" (even if they happen to be British-born - the bigots never make any distinction between the three).  They too are trying to stir up fear and hatred of Muslims, and when they do so, they are the very ones who are abetting terrorism.  Are they not attempting to strike terror into people and is that not the very definition of terrorism?  Saying things like it will be on every street in Europe merely abets the terrorists.  Refusing to be bullied by extremists, whether they be Islamists, the far-right, or of any stripe is the right thing to do.

The moment we fear and hate Muslims, or any other group within society, the terrorists have won.  Certainly, we can question and criticise Islam.  It is worthy of criticism - are as all religious faiths and cultures.  But when we listen to the hyperbole of hateful minds, then we do both the extreme right and the terrorists a favour.  I happen to extremely dislike a young man who works in his parent's shop near me.  I don't dislike him because he is a Muslim, but rather because he's a cheeky, arrogant git who needs a bloody good slap.  His mum and dad by comparison are lovely people whom I have tons of respect for.  I often wonder how their son turned out to be such a prick.  Probably because he's so westernised.

It is a symbol of any civilised society that we respect all races, cultures, ethnicities, and faiths - even if we disagree strongly with them.  And trust me, as an atheist, I have severe reservations about Islam, just as I have of all faiths.  Tolerance and respect are what make us decent human beings.  When the paramedics arrived on the scene at Westminster, one crew tried to save the life of PC Palmer ~ and the other crew tried to revive the attacker.  Why?  Because they are civilised; because it is the right thing to do.

As I write this, just over 24 hours after the attack, there are also some people trying to make political capital out of this attack, and some frankly disgusting internet trolls making sick comments about the attack, about Muslims, and even some wishing it had been an attack upon Nicola Sturgeon.  Rise above it.  This is not a time for anyone to play politics, nor is it a joke, nor a time to react to brain-dead knuckledraggers.  Let the Daily Express try to claim on SNP MSP groaned when parliament was suspended. Let the trolls make their sick comments. Leave the loopy conspiracists to claim it was a "False Flag" attack. But if we react to any of that, then we are giving them exactly what they want.

Walk away from it, in the knowledge that you are better than that, and you will not sully your respect for those maimed and killed in an atrocious act by rising to their bait.

But most of all walk away from it ~ because it is the right thing to do.

Sorry Brian - You ARE a Unionist

Brian Wilson

Celtic Football Club director, and a former Labour MP and minister in Tony Blair's government Brian Wilson has claimed that Scots nationalists are attempting to "sectarianise" the independence debate in Scottish politics.

Recorded at a fringe event at the 2017 Scottish Labour Party conference, Mr Wilson said the following;

"By putting that tag on, and in the full knowledge of that connotation in an Irish context, they know exactly what they’re doing. It’s a very dangerous road they’re going down.”

“obviously mirror images Ireland, where the political divide is also about the constitution”.

“The word Unionist in Scottish politics is not a Scottish word. It is not Scottish Unionism.

“When Tory candidates stood [in the past] as Conservative and Unionist candidates in Scotland they were not talking about Scotland, they were talking about Ireland, and they were playing for the Orange vote in Scottish politics.

“That is the Unionist, that is Unionism, in Scottish politics.

“So when the Nationalists, when the whole thrust is to lump us together as Unionists... by putting that tag on, and in the full knowledge of that connotation in an Irish context, they know exactly what they are doing. And it’s a very dangerous road they’re going down.

“It’s a difficult thing to analyse, a difficult thing perhaps to see it happening. But it’s been happening over a long period and I think it’s really sinister.”

Brian Wilson denied that the term "nationalist" was the different side of the same coin. But of course you did, Brian.

By harking back to history of over 50 years ago, Brian Wilson is attempting a deliberate smear tactic upon the independence movement.  He is quite correct that the unionists of the past sought to woo the 'orange vote'. Where he is incorrect in that is that it was not the Conservative and Unionist Party who did that, but rather the Unionist Party of Scotland, who did not merge with the Conservative Party until 1965.

But if he knew his political history a little better, Brian Wilson would know that the driving force of the Unionist Party of Scotland, which grew out of Scottish liberalism, not conservatism, came not from opposition to Irish autonomy, but rather from the fear that it could have a domino effect leading to the break up of the British Empire.  Scottish unionists of that time had no problem with countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Newfoundland gaining independence, but retaining Dominion status within the Commonwealth.  Because of this, some members of the Unionist Party of Scotland actually supported Scottish independence.  Author of The 39 Steps and Greenmantle, John Buchan, himself a Scottish Unionist MP, once said "I believe every Scotsman should be a Scottish nationalist."

Mr Wilson should also be aware that the Unionist Party of Scotland enjoyed mass support because they had a Scottish identity, and the Scots electorate distrusted the centralist approach of the British Labour Party.

The Unionist Party of Scotland did eventually swing more to the right-wing and become more sectarian, but that in itself saw non-sectarian members leave, some of whom joined the National Party of Scotland, which in 1934 merged with the Scottish Party to form the Scottish National Party.

So, Brian Wilson is partially correct from a historical perspective, but if he is attempting some sectarian interpretation of the term "unionist" in modern Scottish politics, it is entirely of his own making.

Let us see what Chambers Dictionary has to say about the word "unionist";

unionist noun 1 an advocate or supporter of unionism, especially as a system of social or political organization... ...3 (sometimes Unionist) a before 1920: a supporter of the Union of all Ireland and Great Britain; b since 1920: a supporter of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 4 a supporter of the continued political union between Scotland, England and Wales.

There it is; "an advocate or supporter of unionism, especially as a system of social or political organization... ...a supporter of the continued political union between Scotland, England and Wales."  Dictionary definition, undeniable and undebatable.  Whether Brian Wilson likes it or not, he is himself by definition a unionist.  As all opponents of Scottish nationalism are.

Brian Wilson's comments do not even make sense from a political perspective.  If we Scots nats were to even attempt to inject the sectarian element into the independence debate, just how well would that serve us?  Although the 2015 Scottish Social Attitudes survey showed that 52% of Scots now count themselves as "not religious", Scotland remains a majority Protestant country, with most people being brought up in a culturally Protestant background.  And do not forget two factors here; a) Scotland's brand of Protestant Christianity is the strictest form of such in the world, and b) it is culture which drives sectarianism, not faith.  Roman Catholics by comparison remain very much a minority in Scotland, with the same report recording those describing themselves as practising Catholics at 15%, unchanged since the study started in 1999.

So, to imagine that Scots Nats were to ever play the sectarian card, pigeonholing all opponents as being 'orange' or even just Protestant could only ever be to the detriment of the independence movement.  Such a move would have the potential to see supporters turn away in droves, potentially straight into the arms of the unionist camp.

Brian Wilson never mentioned the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, or the SNP as a whole, but obviously they cannot be ignored in this odious accusation.  If Mr Wilson would care to do his homework, he would know that while the First Minister keeps her faith a closely-guarded matter, she does in fact come from a culturally Protestant background.  Likewise, there are few SNP MSPs and MPs who are Roman Catholic.  Some are in fact openly members of the Church of Scotland, and there are even some members of the Free Church of Scotland (the "Wee Frees" of "Free Kirk") among SNP ranks.  Indeed, as a diehard secularist I have often voiced my concern about the number of "Holy Wullies" among SNP ministers.

Has Brian Wilson actually had a look at the views of some more conservative Roman Catholics towards Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP?  He will soon find they are deeply opposed to them.  Many Roman Catholic journals and organisations have lambasted the SNP administration in the Scottish Government for introducing same-sex marriage and the Named Person's Scheme.  A comment in Catholic Truth Blog describes Nicola Sturgeon as "A Protestant First Minister in a Protestant Scotland".  A farcical statement if ever there were one.  I don't know if Nicola Sturgeon is a practising Christian, atheist, agnostic, or whatever - nobody does.  But even the most objective observer would agree that if there is one thing the First Minister does not do it is let her personal religious beliefs cloud or affect her political judgement.  Oh but if only more politicians exercised that degree of secularism - Theresa May (and Tony Blair) take note.

The independence movement as a whole has also come under attack from the same opposition.  There have been many accusations that under independence there would be an end to state-owned Roman Catholic schooling, and that child benefit would be limited to two children.  But who has been mostly responsible for spreading such utter drivel?  Agents of the Labour Party, that's who.  But then, these were the same people who on the other hand at one time were putting fears into Protestants by telling them "home rule means Rome rule".

We in the independence movement, whether they be members of the SNP or not (I'm not), have not nor would we ever court sectarianism in any way, shape, or form.  Not only would it not be in our interests to do so, it is an odious evil we wish no part of.  If we were, the facts certainly do not bear that out.  In the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, 57% of Roman Catholics made up the highest proportion of religious Yes voters. Equally, both the General Election of 2015 and the Scottish Parliamentary Election of 2016 saw the Labour bloc vote, once the strongest in the whole of the UK, utterly collapse, and Roman Catholics turning from Labour to SNP was a large contributory factor to that.

Meanwhile, in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, the largest pro-No vote event was organised by the Orange Order (which could not entice even half of similar pro-Yes events).

These things were not done by design of the independence movement, or the SNP, or by Yes Scotland.  Those who voted Yes and voted SNP did so completely of their own choice, without being swayed by any sectarian arguments.  Indeed, I doubt it would ever happen, but if any members of the Orange Order or other hardline Protestants (some of whom must have voted Yes in 2014 when you think about it) chose to join the independence movement, then I for one would welcome them.  All I would ask is that they leave their religious bigotry at the door; it's neither wanted nor welcome.  Our movement is a non-sectarian one, and that's the way we all like it.  And should Brian Wilson or anyone else doubt that, then I suggest they go talk to those active in the wholly ecumenical Christians for Independence.  I'm pretty sure their convenor, Dennis Canavan MP, would not take kindly to it being implied that he is sectarian.

But is there anything in the independence movement we need to be aware of careful about?  Well, there's always room for caution.  I saw a meme on Facebook of a spoof referendum ballot paper, with the question "Do you believe Scotland should be an independent country?" and two boxes, marked "Yes", and "Rangers".  Now, I saw the joke of that and found it funny.  My late Dad was a diehard bluenose - and a staunch Scots Nat, and he would have seen through it and had a laugh.  Most pro-Yes Rangers fans would see the joke, and even most anti-Independence Rangers fans would laugh it off and disregard it.  It is dangerous nonetheless; because there are indeed a few special snowflakes among Rangers fans who will take umbrage at it, and of course, there are always be people like Brian Wilson all too ready to jump on that, and blow it up completely out of proportion.  Tread carefully, fellow Nats.  Before you post anything, think on whether it may give the unionists any ammunition against us.

It seems to me therefore that with his spurious interpretation of Scottish political history, and his own personal understanding of the word "unionist", if anyone is attempting to inject sectarianism into the independence debate, it is none other than Brian Wilson, who is a unionist, and who I will continue to call a unionist; with absolutely no connotations to Irish history or politics, but purely due to his support for the continuation of the Union of Scotland with England.

But if he does not like the term "unionist", perhaps he would prefer "BritNat"?

Finally, in case anyone is wondering, and before I get the true sectarians calling me "Papist", "taig", "left-footer", etc, let me be so kind as to inform you all that I actually come from a Protestant background, and was actually at one time a Baptist (you don't get much more Protestant than that).  I am now however a diehard atheist and strong secularist, and with regards to Scottish sectarianism, I consider it a poison upon my country, and if anyone supports bigotry on either side, I say a pox on BOTH your houses.