The Independence Movement's Most Dangerous Enemy

The Scottish independence movement has many enemies. These range from unionist politicians, through a deeply biased media, right up to and including far-right, jingoistic, empire loyalists.  Many hold their own particular dangers to our movement which we ignore to our own detriment, but there is one which stands out above all others as the greatest danger of them all.

Ourselves.

I have been watching the behaviour of some Scots Nats both online and off, and there are many I see who are not only doing the Indy movement no favours, but for all they may be well-intentioned, are actually doing a great deal of harm.

Some of the responses I have seen to genuine concerns about independence have been utterly appalling.  These range from abuse and profanities, ad hominem attacks, attempts to smear the person's character, and even thinly-veiled threats of violence.

One case in point; in a Facebook group I belong to, one person unsure about independence within the EU stated "Only if they promised not to go back into the EU."  A Scots Nat answered "I bet he calls himself a supporter of Scottish independence.  But it's no more a priority to him than Jacob Rees Mogg."  The person who made that snide, childish comment - and I do hope they are reading this - appears to have forgotten the old truism about making assumptions.  Never assume; because when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.

But not content with that, the selfsame person instead of addressing the concerns of another doubter, attempted to smear his character.  The doubter happens to be an atheist and was posting in a secularist group, and the tack the Scots Nat took was to point out that one of the Facebook groups the doubter liked happened to be a Christian creationist one.

Both the above cases have one thing in common; they are an irrelevance to the broad church of the independence movement.  It matters not if someone is pro or anti EU, or indeed what faith or none any Scots Nat may be, or indeed if they accept evolutionary biology or believe in the Biblical creation (and here's news for that person, I'm an atheist myself and have liked some creationist groups, purely to refute what those in them have say).  What this person, purporting to be a Scots Nat did, was deplorable.  He openly accused one person doubtful about independence of being a Tory, and then he attempted to smear the character of another doubter, and he did both in a public forum.  I could actually go on about other insults and false accusations the same person posted, but needless to say, I found his behaviour shameful, to the point that if he ever sends me a Facebook friend request, I shall waste no time marking it as spam.  I wish to have nothing to do with anyone who resorts to dirty pool.

But I see this all too often in online behaviour, and it has got to stop.  Answering people who may doubt the independence argument with insults and abusive behaviour can only ever harm us.  Just who do you think you are helping every time you call another Scot a "Quisling", "Uncle Tam", "Fifth Columnist", etc?  Do you really think those and other insults are going to change their minds?  Do you think that sort of behaviour is going to win others over to independence?  I would suggest that it is more likely to do the exact opposite.  Where someone is already a unionist, all you are going to achieve is causing them to dig their heels in even further.  If they are a waverer, you risk driving them away from independence, and firmly into the unionist camp.  If they are a unionist, name-calling is hardly going to change their minds.

I shall cite an example of what happened in reverse in 2014.  In the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, I went to a unionist Facebook group page, and there I found questions from an Irishman resident in Scotland, who said he was unsure which way to vote, and genuinely wanted to hear the unionist argument (he had likewise posted similar questions in a Yes group).  Instead of receiving those answers, he was subjected to a disgusting tirade of abuse, which included being told "Fuck off back to your own country.", called "Paddy", "bog-trotter", "tattie-muncher", "thicko", "Fenian bastard" (with no proof that he was a Roman Catholic), accused of being an "IRA fellow-traveller" and a "terrorist", and several other smears.  His reaction was predictable.  He replied "Well thank you very much for making my mind up.  If it's the opposite of people like you, I shall be proudly voting Yes."

Now, many of us can have a good laugh at the way the unionists shot themselves in the foot, or at the least feel the Irishman was justified.  But consider that his questions were not answered.  The unionists had merely assumed that their arguments were self-evident and decided instead of answering him to embark on a tirade of anti-Irish abuse.  Many may say "Well, that's the unionists for you.", pointing to the fact that the unionist camp does attract far-right elements, but as long as we have people embarking in similar abuse of people asking genuine questions, you have to ask if we are all that different?

Indeed, when I put a post up about the behaviour of some Scots Nats, one friend, previously known to be a strong campaigner for independence, commented that it was stopping some from campaigning.  It just so happens the lady in question is English.  No matter how matter we like to deny it, there are still some anti-English elements within the independence movement, and that has definitely got to stop, and needs to be called out wherever any of us encounter it.  I have seen anti-English comments from supposed Scots Nats who are keyboard warriors and some of whom have never gone on a march, done any canvassing, or stood on a stall.  Compare that to my dear friend, who hails from Essex (you don't get much more English than that), and who has campaigned harder for independence than most of us, myself included.  And let's up the ante, the woman concerned is disabled, relies on crutches to walk, but has never let that stop her.  She puts many native-born Scots to shame, and those who voice anti-English comments are not fit to kiss her shoes.

Do not think either that our behaviour is not noticed nor played upon by the unionists and their establishment mouthpieces.  Like many Scots Nats, I do believe the BBC are biased against the SNP and the wider independence movement in general, and I have noticed some very cynical behaviour on their part.  On the BBC News website, whenever there is a positive story about Scotland, they will bury that story deep, and not open it up to Have Your Say, the website's comments section.  But the moment there is a negative story about Scotland and / or the SNP / Indy movement, it immediately is made top story, and it is opened up for debate.  This results in a number of arch-unionists making vitriolic posts about the SNP, the Indy movement, and even about Scotland in general.  But worse than that, this provokes reactions from Scots Nats, answering the unionists in equally vitriolic fashion.

Do you see what is happening here?  Since 2014, the UK media has tirelessly ran smear stories about the nasty "cybernats", while largely ignoring similar behaviour - and worse - from some unionists (I could actually relate incidents of actual violence from unionists - including some officially attached to Better Together - but two wrongs never make a right).  Those who go to the BBC News website and become involved in this mud-slinging are merely giving the media more ammunition against us, and that can only further hurt us as a movement.  You can be sure the BBC and other media outlets will rarely, if ever, report online abuse from unionists, but will be only too quick to do so from Scots Nats.

But it is not only online we need to watch behaviour from some elements within the movement.  Out on marches, we often encounter unionists counter-protesting, as is their right to do so.  I have heard and seen people deriding them publicly, shouting abuse at them - including profanities - and in some cases, getting right into their faces.  Who do you reckon is going to come out worse in the media in any of those exchanges?  I'll give you a clue; it will be no-one carrying a Union Flag.  Okay, the incident in Dundee where one Scots Nat presented leader of A Force for Good, Archie McConnachie, with a packet of Daz washing powder for his filthy Union Flag jacket was hilarious, but it is rarely we see good-humoured reactions like that.

There is much I could say about the furore over Siol nan Gaidheal and their "Tory Scum Out" banner, but I think it is enough to say that All Under One Banner insisting that they do not carry it on marches I believe was the right move.  Strange as it may seem, there are actually some Conservative supporters who are sold on the idea of independence, and in carrying that banner, Siol were actually acting against the spirit of "All" Under One Banner.  It is worth noting however that some of those who were previously bleating about that banner are now moaning about Siol even taking part in AUOB marches now.  And here's the thing, some of them may have a point.  For all their fine words, and having members who share the views of civic nationalism most of us hold, there are parts of the Siol website which still hold very disturbing wording about English people who have come to live in Scotland, including calling them "White Settlers", and claiming that they could skew any vote towards independence.  Indeed they do, Siol - most of the English people I know who live here vote either SNP or Green, and are stalwart supporters of an independent Scotland.  I frankly think we have much more to worry about from unionist Scots than pro-Indy English.  It's time to lose all that anti-English rhetoric, guys.

I am far from perfect myself, and have been known to go off on one at unionists who there's no hope for at times.  But even when I do, it is usually in places that can only be seen by friends and not by the general public, and that's where we need to make a distinction.

Imagine if there was to be a Scottish Independence Referendum soon, and you were an undecided voter.  If you went online and saw all the vitriolic and childish comments from some Scots Nats, or heard them reacting angrily to  ask yourself what you would think of them.  Would you then vote Yes, if you thought this was the future of Scotland?  If you thought those people spoke for the Yes campaign?  I think it's far more likely you would be all the more likely to vote No.

Robert Burns once wrote, "Oh, wad some pow'r, the giftie gie us, tae see oorseels as ithers see us."  Today we have that power, and every word and gesture we make can be whisked around the world in seconds.  Make no mistake that every word we say, every action we take is observed by others, seen by the media, and reported upon.  So, think on, every time you make a comment, online or off, towards a waverer, or indeed a unionist, on how others are going to see that.and just how that is going to reflect on the independence movement as a whole.

And it is no use dismissing actions which put us in a bad light as the acts of agents provocateur.  Sure, they exist, I have seen them, as a former peace march steward I am pretty good at sniffing such out.  But by equal measure, I have also seen people whom I know to be long-term Scots Nat activists come out with comments which put the movement in a poor light.  Therefore, to bury our heads in the sand and claim it is all down to unionists infiltrating the movement can only be detrimental to our cause.

There's no easy answer, but here is what I suggest;

Be patient and courteous at all times.  When someone asks you a question about independence, answer it politely, calmly, and honestly.

Always listen carefully to what doubters say.  Some people have genuine concerns about independence, and we can only answer them if we listen to them, and know exactly what they are asking.  Never assume to know what they are saying and / or try to jump in with an answer before they are finished.  Just so happens you may well get it wrong, and offend the other party in doing so.

Try not to get into heated arguments.  In most arguments with diehard unionists, you will find yourself going round in circles.  Just say, "Well I don't agree with you, and I'm sorry you feel like that.", or similar, then walk away.  With those who are determinedly against independence, continuing to argue with them is pointless.

Likewise, when others get heated, again, walk away.  Don't get angry and go off on one at them.  Let them get angry and go off on one at you.  It will only put them in a bad light.

When you encounter counter-protesters on marches, either ignore them, or better still, smile at them, wave to them and wish them a "Good day".  Again, this will get their backs up and cause them to lose the place.  And who knows?  You may actually convince some of them to think "Hey, these Nats aren't so bad after all."

In her epic poem, The Cleansing of the Knife, Naomi Mitchison wrote "We need the serpent's cunning to deal with London."  Mitchison wrote that in 1947, and it is all the more true today.  As a movement we are far from perfect, and neither should we ever claim to be so.  But we must at least appear to be squeaky clean, to give the unionists, their media mouthpieces, and the London establishment as little ammunition against us as possible.

To do any otherwise is doing the unionists job for them.

Women are NEVER to Blame for Sexual Assault

Notice the length of that dress

It is not the first time I have written a post like this, but due to recent events in the Westminster Parliament, and the reactions of some men, I believe this needs emphasising.

On Friday, 15 June 2018, the UK government attempted to introduce a Bill to make "upskirting" illegal in England and Wales.  This odious practise is using a phone camera to photograph or film up women's skirts.  Many women have been victims of this, including celebrity figures who have been photographed / filmed getting in and out of cars, and those pictures then plastered all over the media.  LBC Radio host Beverley Turner told of exactly that happening to her.  It is also done however by men to ordinary women, either for their own sexual gratification, or the pics / videos then posted on social media.  Upskirting was made illegal by the devolved Scottish Parliament in 2010, and is now considered "Sexual Harm" in Scots Law.

So, 8 years late, you may think that the Conservative Party UK Government should be congratulated for trying to extend this to England and Wales.  And so they would have been, had one of their own backbenchers, Sir Christopher Chope MP, not blocked the Bill from proceeding, he claims due to Bills not being discussed properly in parliament.  Prime Minister Theresa May, a woman (I think), said she was "disappointed" at his actions.  Disappointed that perverts and sleazy paparazzi 'journalists' (I use the word lightly) are not stopped from their disgusting behaviour?  Really, Theresa?  As a woman you are "disappointed"?  That's got to be the most bizarre use of that word since Edward Teller, father of the H-Bomb, was "disappointed" to learn he couldn't produce a 'doomsday' bomb whose chain reaction would not stop.

Of course, it had to happen that some men would try "blame the victim" on this story, trying to claim that women would not get upskirted if they wore more conservative dress.  Not least among them was Nick Freeman, a lawyer known as "Mister Loophole", due to the number of obviously guilty clients he has helped walk free from courtrooms through legal loopholes; something he is so proud of doing that he actually uses i as his Twitter name.  Okay, by doing things like that, we can already see that Nick Freeman is a contemptible poor excuse for a human being.  However, in responding to Chris Chope's intervention, he really sank to the bottom of the polluted pool he inhabits.  He Tweeted "Whilst this is totally unacceptable conduct, if women assumed some responsibility for their attire, they would not be in jeopardy."

That's right, folks, Nick Freeman totally blamed women for upskirting.

Freeman's odious Tweet drew a lot of flak from people, not least from one young woman who put him firmly in his place.  She replied "what an ignorant and thoughtless comment. Upskirting can quite easily happen even when women dress conservatively... but the responsibility still lies with the woman? This is for sure one of the top 3 stupidest comments you’ve ever made."

Well said that woman for making such a valid and important comment.  And it was all the more important because it actually started "Get real dad," and was posted by none other than Sophie Freeman ~ Nick Freeman's own daughter.

So was Nick Freeman at all moved or contrite for his comments having been called out by his daughter?  Not one bit of it.  In fact he replied "Sophie, firstly it's most stupid and not stupidest. Secondly, please read the articles in the Press which amplify my views."  That's right folks.  Far from apologising and standing by his own flesh and blood, Nick Freeman instead chose to arrogantly deride her command of English on a public forum (in which he is actually incorrect), and tried to defend himself by referring her to press articles.  Like the media in the UK have ever been a bastion of women's rights.

I'm not a parent myself, but it seems to me that when any daddy seeks to deride his own little girl in public, he has not only completely failed as a father, but ultimately as a human being.  Shame on you, Mr Freeman.

I bring in the Twitter spat between Nick and Sophie Freeman as it underlines the entire patriarchal attitude to sexual assault upon women; that they were somehow "asking for it", and will willingly shout down and mock anyone who disagrees with their ignorant views.  And their views are ignorant.  The age old mantra of women would not be assaulted if they did not wear provocative clothing / dressed more conservatively, simply does not hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

First you have to ask what constitutes "provocative" clothing.  If a woman is dressed up to the point that she looks "sexy", if that 'provokes' some men, guess what?  That's not the woman's fault or doing.  For all anyone knows she may have dressed like that for her boyfriend or husband.  Indeed, who is to say she has not a lesbian who has dressed alluringly for her girlfriend / wife?  Or here's a bizarre idea, she may have merely dressed like that for her own self-esteem; to make herself look good and feel good as a result.  Regardless of gender, we all do that.  Go on, admit it.  If you are going out, the chances are you will put on nice clothes which make you look good, and that makes you feel good as a result.  And that is important, as it boosts your confidence.

And even if a woman is dressed up and "on the pull", that does not mean she is about to jump into bed with just any man, and it is not a green light for any man to sexually assault her - no matter what Jordan Peterson and the incels would have you believe.  Some things are just off limits, and that includes up any woman's skirt or dress.

Then the reverse of the above is what does society deem as "conservative" dress?  The strict, "Tweedy" look?  Or women in no-nonsense A-line skirts, white blouses, and "death before dishonour" granny pants?  Sorry (not sorry) to burst your bubbles, but there are actually guys who get off on that, and imagine being dominated by a strict woman in such attire, while other men see such women as a "challenge".  How about uniforms?  Could there be anything more 'conservative'?  A quick look through the Ann Summers website will reveal all sorts of uniforms being sold for sexual roleplay.  Or when it comes to younger girls, what of 'conservative' school uniforms?  Except that ever since cartoonist Gerald Scarfe produced his first St Trinian's cartoons in the 1950s, and the movies which subsequently followed based upon them, school uniforms have been seen as "sexy".  The Britney Spears song "Hit Me Baby, One More Time" even had a video based on that very premise, and again, "sexy" school uniforms are sold for sexual roleplay.  Due to the popularity of such, one will even easily find porn based around girls dressed in school uniforms.  Even nuns are not immune from this, and there has for decades been an entire section of the porn industry devoted to women dressed in nun's habits - as well as such being sold for roleplay.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that there is nowadays even a section of the porn industry devoted to women in Islamic dress, such as hajibs, niqabs, and even burqas.

In the 1970s and 1980s, some feminists sought to cover up their bodies by wearing the most unshapely and 'unattractive' clothing possible.  This included the habit of women wearing denim or serge workers overalls.  Did that stop men from wolf whistling and shouting lewd comments to them?  Not a bit of it.  They really shouldn't have bothered, should not have had to bother, and in fact, by dressing like that, those women were playing right into the "dress conservatively" rhetoric.  And what happened then?  The fashion houses sat up and took notice, and started producing figure-hugging "overalls", to make them more "sexy", and this in turn led to that abject horror of 1980s women's fashion, the jumpsuit.  But even those did not stop women attracting the unwanted attention of sleazy men.

Here are the facts; girls and women are sexually assaulted and raped from tiny babies to the very elderly, and all ages in-between, wearing all sorts of clothing.  What then is provoking men?  Damn those sexy pull-ups and, and those erotic surgical stockings!  Even Christian nuns and Muslim women in full burqa are sexually assaulted and raped.  The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that attire is not and never was a factor in sexual assault.

Should anyone still disagree with any or all of the above, then ask yourself this; what are men wearing that is so very alluring, so sexy, so provocative, when they are the victims of male rape?  Are those men somehow asking for it?  Are they just 'sluts' who will sleep with any man, and as such the actions of the rapist are somehow justified?

Sexual assault and rape are not down to attire; they are down to toxic masculinity.  While many will think of the sexual aspects of women being approached, wolf-whistled, have lewd comments shouted at her in public, being upskirted, sexually assaulted, and / or raped, they ignore the more important motives behind all of these; dominance and control.  Any abuse - be it verbal, psychological, physical, or sexual - has one thing in common; the abuser is seeking power over someone less able to defend themselves, to humiliate them, and thereby to control them.  The abuser is at heart a bully, and in the nature of every bully, a coward.  Some men abuse women not only because they cannot control their hormones, but also because they fear their masculinity being brought into question.  The men on the building site will all join in shouting lewd comments at women, because if one does not, then he is immediately not one of the blokes.  That is the thin end of the wedge, and it grows from there to men thinking they can treat women - any woman - any way they want, and often do so to "prove" themselves as men.

And you guys can deny this all you want, but the very reason I write this, is because as a man I have seen and heard it for myself, many times.  Even when some men are rebuffed, or think women are unavailable to them, they will condemn them as "frumps", "frigid", or even lesbians - which of course brings in the whole homophobia aspect of toxic masculinity.  I well recall that there used to be a TV advert for a chocolate bar on TV, which showed two women jogging.  It came on a TV in a pub once, and a bloke sitting next to me immediately exclaimed "Lesbians!"  There you have it; women cannot even go for a bloody jog together, but if a man is not there, they are immediately "Lesbians!" - I kid you not.  But of course, were it two - or more - men together, that would never be "Gay", would it?  Heaven forfend!  Just some of the fellas being real men and enjoying blokish camaraderie.

But if any guys still wish to deny this, let us assume it was any woman you are close to who was treated by other men as objects.  If it were your wife or girlfriend, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece, or a female friend who was upskirted, and had the photos plastered all over the internet, who would you blame?  The woman, or the sickening pervert who did it?

As a Scot, when I posted articles about upskirting on Facebook, I had friends ask me "What about upkilting?"  Well, my reply to that was that while it would still be an offence to do that, if it were a woman doing it, no doubt the man would laugh it off, but then it is not men who have to be constantly aware of what they are wearing, where they go, at what times, and what may happen to them.  It is only women who need worry about that, and that is down not to them, but to toxic masculinity which creates that situation.

I certainly do hope that the UK government get upskirting banned in England and Wales.  For as we have already agreed in Scotland, it does constitute sexual harm, and the posting of photos and videos online merely serves to underline the control aspect allied to it.

The simple fact is that every woman and girl should be able to go where she wants, when she wants, wearing whatever she wants, without the unwanted attention of testosterone-filled idiots with fragile egos, who see women not as people, but objects for them to do with as they like.  There's a long way to go, but Scotland has already taken a huge step towards making the streets safer for women.  I sincerely hope it spreads to the rest of the UK.

If There are No Collectives, Jordan, What Are the Churches?

Jordan Peterson

Sunday mornings on BBC Radio Scotland is usually an unbearable Godfest, but when they interview right-wing religious lifestyle guru Jordan Peterson, enough is enough. I know this scumbag has a cult following nowadays but he's not very bright. Peterson suggested that there's no such thing as collectives; that everybody within a movement was working for self-interest. In this he includes the civil rights movement and the suffragettes. He then went on to say that the entire basis of western civilisation is based on a Biblical moral code. Leaving aside the fact that morality is subjective, if there is no collectivism, only individuals, then how could they possibly have a shared moral code? That's clearly baloney. Morality changes between cultures and with time. As to there only being individuals, this is the crap that Thatcher once came out with; "There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals." It could be argued that collectives are made up on individuals who all seek the same goal for their own personal gain. But is this always the case? I support and campaign for an independent Scotland. As a single male in his 50s, what would I gain from independence? Very little to nothing in fact. I do it because I want others more vulnerable than I to have a better Scotland. Particularly I do it for today's children and young people, and the generations of Scots yet to come. Likewise the suffragettes fought not only for votes for themselves, but for the generations of women who would follow. And the civil rights movement swelled so that African Americans of the future would have a better future than they did. Even taken to it's extension of what makes society, Peterson's ideas fall down. For if there were no collectives, only self-seeking individuals, then who would join the armed forces? Who would join the emergency services? Who would be willing to put their lives in danger and even lay down their lives for their country and / or society? No-one. When someone loves someone else, but the other person wants to be free, would they let them go because they only seek their happiness? Where is the personal gain in that? For a man who professes to be a Christian, Jordan Peterson grossly underestimates the selflessness that human beings often display. I'd also like to know where in his Bible it teaches "Me first, second, and last." That doesn't sound very moral to me. Peterson also stated that western Judeo/Christian society has done more to enhance the freedom of the individual than any other portion of the planet, and that those freedoms were based on common law. Well, right away he again contradicts his claims about there being no collectives, as if that were the case, then it would take a society with shared ideals to uphold those freedoms. He also makes the mistake of thinking that common law - he says "British common law" when there's never been any such thing; Scotland and England have always had separate law systems - is based upon Biblical laws. They are not; for the most part they are secular and based upon Roman Law. But even then, the freedoms we enjoy were bought dearly by those who fought for them - often at a terrible price - and Judeo / Christian ideals not only rarely came into them, but it was people who claimed to be Christians who often very strongly opposed them, based upon Biblical teachings. Where was the church support for the suffragettes? There was none. If anything it was the churches who were telling women that their husbands ruled over them. Sure, Martin Luther King's faith played a big part in his struggle, but at the same time he and the civil rights movement were coming up against people - and laws - which opposed them based on what they claimed were Biblical teachings. It's like the Christians who try to boast they ended slavery. And so they should have - given that it was Christians who introduced slavery to the west in the first place, and used the Bible to back up their case for doing so. And most slave owners honestly believed they were doing right by their slaves; that in giving them a roof over their heads, work to do, and food to eat, they were doing the "Christian" thing. Feminism, which Peterson is opposed to, only became a movement because women fought and fight for the rights of women and girls, and the churches remain largely opposed to it. And don't even suggest for a moment that Judeo/Christian 'moral' ideals have ever been behind the struggle for LGBT rights. Even in his own narrative and at the basest level Peterson contradicted himself. While claiming that western society spread freedom of the individual, he correctly stated that in 1901 most people lived on around a dollar a day, which put them way below the poverty threshhold. It wasn't the churches who changed that Rather it was people - in collectives - fighting for workers rights and for benefits. Quite the opposite, the establishments in many western countries, fully backed up by the churches, did their utmost to oppose and even to physically crush these movements. After all, those who fought for those rights were for the most part socialists, who opposed both the establishment and the churches. Peterson claims that one of his You Tube videos has had 10 million views. That's more than probably an exaggeration, but even if he has had a lot of views on You Tube, then I'm sure it's for all the wrong reasons.