Glasgow Border Force Raid Was London Show of Force

The abortive detention of two undocumented Indian men in Glasgow on 13 May has got me thinking. I am not by any means by a conspiracist but there are certain aspects of the attempted raid from which one can only draw disturbing conclusions.

The timing of the Home Office raid, supported by police Scotland, alone is questionable. Usually such raids are carried out early in the morning, when few people are about, and to catch the suspects by surprise. The Glasgow raid took place late morning, with plenty of people about, which is precisely why the people of Pollokshields were able to respond so quickly and so effectively.

Kenmure Street, Pollokshields, falls in the political ward of Glasgow Southside, which just happens to be the constituency of the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP. It also took place while Members of the Scottish Parliament were being sworn in to form the new session of the parliament, just days after the SNP gained the highest number of votes ever cast in a Scottish Parliamentary Election.

Then there is the absolute crassness of attempting to detain two Muslim men on the day chosen, 13 May 2021. The end of the Muslim festival of Ramadan, and the day of Eid Al-Fitr; the holiest day in the Muslim calendar. Detaining the two men in a police van prevented them from joining in prayer on Eid Al-Fitr, which effectively contravened their human rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

All in all, this appears to have been a deliberately-contrived show of force by the UK government agency Border Contol, to prove to those "troublesome Jocks" who is in charge, to humiliate the First Minister, and one which was potentially racist and anti-Islamic.

And it was one which backfired spectacularly, but should not have deserved to do so, for the simple fact it should never have been attempted in that way, on that day of all days. I am an atheist, but I am an atheist who has an enormous respect for the right to freedom of religion for others. And I realise that if I want freedom from religion, then I must equally stand up for freedom of religion. This was one of such instances where I have no choice but to take a stand for the rights of Muslims.

I am not for one moment suggesting that Priti Patel, the UK Home Secretary, and a woman of Hindu Indian-Ugandan immigrant background, deliberately chose the day of Eid Al-Fitr to carry out this raid, but I would say that if she knew it was going to happen on that day, then she should have known better, and should have advised the Border Force officers not to act on that day. If she did not know it was going to take place on Eid Al-Fitr, then that equally calls her competence to hold the post she does into question. At the least, Border Force should have been a great deal more sensitive to the significance or the day, and that they were not does indeed suggest some degree of prejudice.

I do not blame the people of Glasgow for being outraged. They should be, just as all living in Scotland should be. In fact, as a Scot I could not be more proud of the way they rallied around their neighbours, just as Glasgow has always done. It won't, but this was an incident which should go down in the history books of Glasgow as a city, and Scotland as a whole. In it's own way it was every bit as big as the Red Clyde incidents of the early 20th century, and the way a proud city stood up to the brute force of a bullying London government to protect and support their own.

I have nothing but praise for Police Scotland, who were used as a tool by a government which Scotland never voted for, and ordered, possibly against their wishes, to go into Kenmure Street in force. But that the officer in charge ordered the men released and the police to stand down in the interests of public safety was the sensible thing to do. And I have absolutely no doubt that did not go down well with the Border Force agents, or their Westminster bosses.

But most of all the events of Thursday, 13 May 2021, was a supreme example of the power of nonviolent mass protest. By just sitting in the street, and getting under the van holding the two men, the people of Glasgow took a stance against force which required no violence, and which gave the authorities no choice but to buckle.

If Westminster thought that this would bolster unionist feeling in Scotland, they were absolutely mistaken. Their bully-boy tactics had exactly the opposite effect, and openly displayed to Scotland, the UK, Europe, and the world, just how far a London government is willing to go, how Scotland will not put up with it, and underlined just one more reason why Scotland needs to be independent.

There have been a few people commenting about "illegal immigrants" and accusing the Scottish Government of wanting to throw the doors open. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Firstly, the term "illegal immigrant" is a complete misnomer. It is not an offence to enter the UK undocumented, and if it were, then those detained would be treated as criminals. They would be arrested, charged, and tried by a jury of their peers. That simply does not happen. Instead, undocumented people in the UK are detained, processed and assessed by Border Force, and unless they can provide proof of refugee status, they are deported. At no point do charges or trials come into it. It is only where a deportee re-enters the UK undocumented that it becomes an offence. The important point here as many have stated, including the Scottish Justice Secretary Humza Yusaf, "no person is illegal".

Secondly, the position of the Scottish Government in condemning the raid does not say that they want to "throw the doors open". Rather, it is that immigration into Scotland should be a matter for the Scottish Government. Not least because Scotland has a separate law system, and separate police, to England. No-one is saying for one moment that we cannot discuss immigration, nor prevent entry of those who may be undesirable. Rather that Scotland should be solely responsible for who comes into the country, and the only way to possibly achieve that is for Scotland to become fully independent.

No People are Beneath Dignity - Except the Scots

I'll make a confession here.  I like LBC host, and founder of the Quilliam Foundation, Maajid Nawaz. On many subjects he is one of the clearest commentators and best minds I have ever encountered.  I like his tenet, "No idea is beneath scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity."

But when it comes to Scotland and Scottish politics?  Dear, oh dear.  Maajid does not know the first thing he is talking about, and often falls into the trap of accepting everything he reads about the Scottish independence movement at face value, while not scrutinising the facts, and adding his own sensationalist and inaccurate claims to stoke the fire.

So it was when he published an article on Unherd, he fell into exactly the same trap as other London-based commentators who understand neither Scotland nor the Scots, and demand a right to reply.

"the coronavirus is putting strain on the UK, as it is on other federations like the United States and Belgium"

Watch that word, "federation".  It will become important later.

"Yet it cannot be right that the Scottish National Party should subject the good people of these Isles to yet another nationalist, divisive, separatist “little Scotlander” referendum"

The view of most supporters of independence has never been a divisive one, but rather one which seeks to live side by side with England, with neither country interfering in the affairs of the other.  The word "separatist" is a deliberate smear, and one which Maajid should realise was first used by the Tories against the SNP.  As to "little Scotlander", nothing could be further from the truth.  There is an English Scots for Independence group, a great many English living in Scotland support and even campaign for English independence, and a great many people in England actually support an independent Scotland.  Are all these English people then "little Scotlanders"?

"kicking off a new round of an entirely unsolvable political bun-fight that will tear our country apart even further."

Firstly, it is not unsolvable; independence is the key.  And it will not tear "our country" apart, because the United Kingdom is not a country, but rather a collection of countries.  It is in fact a political federation.

"We’ve had the “once in a generation” referendum and the nationalists lost."

The "once in a generation" comments from Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were their own personal opinions, nothing more.  There is nothing in legislation to set a time limit on any future referenda.  Besides which, the situation changed in 2016, when England voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, and Scotland voted almost completely as one voice to stay in the EU, but is now being dragged out of the EU against our will.  Perhaps Maajid would like to explain how, when we won that particular referendum, it is in any way democratic that we are being pulled out.

"Should the SNP succeed next May, Westminster — Parliament for all the United Kingdom — should simply refuse to authorise it."

And I say if Westminster does that, you will never see a faster road to independence.  If there is one thing that Scots cannot abide, it's being pushed around and told what to do.  Besides, while the Westminster parliament is indeed the UK parliament, Maajid is patently unaware that in Scotland sovereignty rests solely with the people.  Therefore, if the SNP are successful next May, that would be the sovereign voice of the people of Scotland, and any attempt to ignore that voice would indeed be an imperialist move.

"Despite being a Remain-voting liberal, my views on a second referendum have attracted the sort of racism — from Scottish nationalists — that you would usually expect to receive from the far-right. In many exchanges with SNP supporters, I have learned that that Left-wing racism against people of colour is apparently acceptable, if we veer off an approved script."

Maajid supplies links to comments on Twitter, many of which are racist, which he claims to have come from SNP and independence supporters.  Some are indeed racist, and some are not.  And not all of them come from the Indy camp.  In fact, a search of those making the comments did show some were Scots.  And some were in fact English.  And some of them showed no evidence of being independence supporters.  See for yourselves:

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1183798073300008962

I'll be the first to admit that some of the statements were indeed odious, and indeed racist, such as "trading on his religion and colour of his skin", "two bob arab" and "Uncle Tom" - and these rightly deserve to be condemned.  However, one person commented "go back to your cave", which Maajid is painting as a racist slur towards him.  In fact, the person who made that comment was replying to another Twitter user who calls themselves CaptCaveManPete.  References to Maajid being a terrorist, while inaccurate, are not racist, but rather are comments upon his own past, which he freely admits, when he was an Islamist extremist.  One person complaining that Maajid "slanders Corbyn" is hardly likely to be an independence supporter, as Labour were a unionist party under Jeremy Corbyn, and remain unionist to this day.  And references to imperialism are not racist either; by asserting that Westminster should refuse Scotland another referendum, I would suggest that Maajid Nawaz has indeed shown himself to be an imperialist.

"But, then, as surprising as English liberals may find it, Scotland is not the progressive paradise they like to believe — and  my anecdotal experience is borne out by wider concerns. Last year more than 80 public and professional figures signed an open letter warning that the struggle against racism in Scotland is “rolling backwards”, creating a climate of “resentment towards frank discussion of race and racism” that is threatening to undo progress on race equality.

It is significant that the signatories also highlighted a trend to “silence the voices of people in Scotland who face colour-based racism”. This letter came less than two months after Scotland’s national poet laureate Jackie Kay warned openly  that Scotland had to “grow up” as it was “decades behind” in its treatment of black and ethnic minority people."

There are actually few thinking people in Scotland deny we have a racism problem.  In fact, many of us in Scotland, both within and outwith the independence movemnt, have warned that the claim that Scotland "isn't a racist country" is dangerous.  And it is important to state this exists outwith the independence movement as well.  Maajid Nawaz tries to paint this as an SNP / Independence problem, when nothing could be further from the truth.  We in the Indy movement are ever cautious about bigotry, be it racism, anti-English bigotry, sectarianism, homophobia, transphobia, or whatever it may be, and contrary to what Maajid Nawaz claims, we act upon it quickly.

Take the example during the 2014 referendum campaign, when openly-gay Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson came under attack from an anonymous Twitter user with a tirade of homophobic abuse.  Despite the fact that many of us in the Indy movement disliked the politics of Ruth Davidson, we identified that individual within 24 hours, had him thrown out of both Yes Scotland and the SNP, and shamed him into phoning Ruth to apologise.  The message then was clear; we in the Indy movement do not approve of playing the man, not the ball, and we will act quickly to shame and distance ourselves from anyone who displays bigotry.

"Too often, when minority voices such as mine — children of the colonies, born in Britain — oppose the break-up of what we now consider our country, Scottish nationalists too readily seek to silence our voices by accusing us, instead, of being English “colonists”."

But as I have illustrated above, very few actually do so, and there is no proof that all of those making those accusations are SNP / Indy supporters.  For Maajid to generalise the entire Indy movement by a tiny minority is sensationalism worthy only of gutter press red top newspapers.

"Such rhetoric is not only overly antagonistic, it also displays a fundamental ignorance about why most ethnic minorities in Britain have expressed a preference for calling ourselves British over English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish."

And that is Maajid's choice.  Just as it is the choice of any ethnic minority person.  But there are equally a number of BAME people in Scotland who will call themselves Scots first.  And interestingly enough, Jackie Kay, whom Maajid mentions above, is one of those.  But another important point here is that even if Scotland were independent, he could still call himself "British", for in the broadest of terms, we are all "British", just as we are all "European".  Herein lies another important point; despite the 2016 EU referendum, despite Brexit being triggered, I still call myself a European, I always shall do, and I am proud to be such.  No referendum shall ever strip me of my right to call myself such.

"And while I embrace being both a non-Anglo-Saxon Englishman and a Brit, it is not easy for many of us to forget the nationalist-inspired violent racism levied against us growing up, and still present today."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries to equate the passive, nonviolent movement for civic nationalism to the aggressive, often violent nationalism of the political extreme right.  Trying to paint any such parallels is an absurdity.  If Maajid were to do his homework, he would actually find that those on the racist, nationalist extreme right are actually unionists, deeply opposed to Scottish independence, and have in fact at times used violence against peaceful Indy supporters.  Ask the 80 year old man who was pushed to the ground while campaigning for Yes, breaking his arm.  Ask the Bikers for Yes, who had tin tacks thrown across their route.  Ask the homeless woman in Glasgow who was kicked in the stomach by a Better Together speaker, who had ties to the BNP - while she was pregnant.  Ask the elderly man in a Yes cafe near to my home who had a bottle thrown at his head.  There are many, many more such stories of violence from the unionist far-right, which make ignorant comments on social media from a minority of Indy supporters pale into insignificance.

"For ‘progressive’ Scottish Nationalists to draw an equivalence between ethnic minorities who oppose their separatism and British colonialism, smacks of the very colonial privilege they seek to denounce."

Well, for a start the important phrase Maajid Nawaz uses here is "British colonialism", for Scotland is not a colony of England, and never was.  Scotland and England entered into an all-encompassing union of two nations in 1707, which was supposed to be a union of equals.  However, when one nation is much larger than the other, that was never going to be equal.  And for Maajid to use that phrase highlights his own ignorance of history and the constitutional position of Scotland within the union.  But then, so does his assertion that Westminster should refuse the sovereign voice of the Scottish people.  Whether he likes it or not, Maajid Nawaz has indeed condemned himself as a UK establishment imperialist.

"The fact of the matter is that Scottish colonists profited greatly from the creation of the British Empire. Scotland’s debt to Empire is her dirty little secret, seldom acknowledged but ever-present. The “tobacco lords” of Glasgow were enriched by slavery in the Americas and Africa, while a quick visit to the former North British Rubber Company in Edinburgh serves to disabuse most naysayers suffering under such a false sense of righteousness."

Actually, those of us within (and outwith) the independence movement in Scotland are painfully aware of the part that Scots played in the building of the British Empire.  But note here that the history mentioned by Maajid has absolutely nothing to do with the call for independence, and never did.  When Glasgow was the shipbuilding centre of the world, it was known as "The second city of the Empire" (after London).  I sincerely doubt that the rich and the gentry who ran those businesses would have ever wanted an independent Scotland, as it would have meant their gravy train hitting the buffers.  So for Maajid to labour this history is absolutely pointless.

Plus, let's add where the Scots suffered under the British Empire.  Before the Battle of Quebec in 1759, General Wolfe rode up to the only Scots regiment there, and stated, "We'll send you in first.  If you fall, it's no great loss."  There are many would argue that in most cases of conflict, Whitehall ever since has adopted a "General Wolfe mentality"; sending the Scots into battle situations first.  This is why you find evidence of Scots regiments all around the former British Empire.

"The pernicious narrative peddled by Scottish nationalists that England colonised Scotland, and then the rest of the world — and so England must even now be resisted in Scotland — sounds suspiciously like an act of whitewashing Scottish culpability, at least to the ears of this descendant of a former colony."

Except that nobody in the independence movement has ever said such, and if they have, I invite Maajid Nawaz to supply the evidence for such.

"This is not something SNP supporters like to hear, but SNP supporters have gained a reputation for intimidating critics."

A reputation which has been overplayed by the London-based media, which has generalised us all on the actions of a tiny minority.

"Recently, BBC News Scotland Editor Sarah Smith learned the hard way why Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has earned the nickname “Nippie Sweetie” for adopting the  “aggressive and adversarial approach of male politicians” early on in her career."

Maajid Nawaz supplies a link to a column in The Scotsman here, and had he chosen to read it, he would have found Nicola Sturgeon explaining why she adopts such an attitude; it is because she is a woman in politics, and as such has had to adopt a strong line to make herself heard.  Is Maajid perchance suggesting that Nicola Sturgeon, as a woman, should be subdued and passive?  Sexist much?  Maajid?

"Ms Smith had made the admitted error of accidentally describing Sturgeon as  “enjoying the opportunity” to shine during lockdown, instead of saying that she was “embracing” the challenge. Ms Sturgeon’s supporters were not happy to say the least, and an online pile-on inevitably ensued. Ms Smith, though, was quick to push into reverse gear, her resultant climbdown being perhaps the swiftest and most complete of any journalist in recent years, to my mind. Scotland’s BBC chief was so remorseful, in fact, that she felt the need to issue no fewer than four swift back-to-back apologies online to Ms Sturgeon, with one of them remaining pinned to her profile page for days. Ms Sturgeon regally confirmed that she accepted her apology."

Actually, what we objected to was yet another BBC reporter using biased, innacurate language, when the BBC is supposed to be unbiased.  It was not at all helped by Sarah Smith changing her wording from "enjoying" to "embracing", as that was no apology at all.  Nicola Sturgeon herself said she neither "enjoyed" nor "embraced" reporting the deaths of people on a daily basis.  And contrary to what Maajid Nawaz is suggesting here, when Sarah Smith did apologise properly, it was then, the same day, that Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that she accepted the apology, and for her the matter was closed.  After that it was only a tiny number of hotheads who tried to keep it going, but it fizzled out within days.

"So wouldn’t it be lovely if Nicola Sturgeon also apologised for, and investigated, the racism present among all too many of her online supporting trolls?"

Actually, the SNP and the wider Indy movement do in fact often expose bigots, and Nicola Sturgeon and others in the SNP have stated, many times, that there is no room for it.  It is the London-based media, including Maajid Nawaz and LBC, who fail to highlight or publish that fact.

"While it is true that Ms Sturgeon is not personally responsible for the behaviour of her supporters, such racism appears not to be a mere bug for the SNP, but may well be a feature. Indeed, just because a nationalist party identifies as being on the Left, it does not mean that an undercurrent of racism cannot be found beneath all the cuddly talk."

Indeed.  And were it actually a serious undercurrent, which drove the movement, then I would be first to condemn it, and would even stand against it.  But this is not the case.

"Historically, many nationalist parties and nationalists have started on the Left, from the French Revolution onwards; indeed one of the most famous of 20th century nationalists, Benito Mussolini, was on the National Directorate for the Italian Socialist Party, before he turned rightward to fan the flames of nationalism."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries the old trick of trying to equate the political left with the far right, and you'll notice he again tries to condemn nationalism, and thereby equate civic nationalism with racist nationalism.  I have heard him do the same on LBC, pointing out that the Nazis were "National Socialist", and that Oswald Moseley left the Labour Party to form the British Union of Fascists.  It is a disingenious distinction, worthy only of those with a childish grasp of political theory, which is completely unworthy of comment.

"Violent hostility to outsiders and critics is in the DNA of nationalists, whether on the Left and Right, as anyone who has debated with SNP can testify to. When that outsider has different colour skin the rage seems to be heighted."

But that is not the case in civic nationalism, and to try to equate us with the very people who are violently opposed to us, extreme right nationalists, simply does not hold up to one moment's scrutiny.  It is a derisory attempt to smear us along with the far right as "all nationalists are the same".  Would Maajid not agree that one of the biggest causes of bigotry is making sweeping generalisations - as Maajid has just done here?

"As party leader, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s duty — not mine — to make minorities feel safe from the racism of too many of her supporters. And until she can do so, do not be fooled by the progressive overtures of this SNP. For too long commentators of all persuasions have harboured a policy and ethical blindspot for Scotland’s nationalists, viewing them as polar opposites to English nationalists, rather than their counterparts."

There is a dictum which I embrace in my life, and that is that the burden of proof lies upon the claimant.  Maajid Nawaz has made claims here that minorities are not safe in the SNP, or by extension Scotland, and that we in the Indy movement are no different from extreme-right English nationalists.  Yet he offers absolutely not one shred of evidence to back up those claims.  And no, I don't mean a few hand-picked Tweets, not all of which came from Scots Nats, not all of which were racist, and not all of which in fact came from Scots.

"We should beware the kid gloves with which metropolitan opinion formers treat the SNP. Their party machine is curiously similar to Momentum, and much of what we would never tolerate from Corbyn now rules in Edinburgh. As such, they are riddled with all the trappings of power, while harbouring a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak."

I live in Edinburgh.  Essex boy Maajid Nawaz does not. The SNP are nothing like Momentum, and they are neither illiberal nor authoritarian.  The fact is the only reason that the SNP have been in power in the Scottish Parliament since 2007 is because the people of Scotland have voted consistently for them.  Just as out of the 59 MPs Scotland sends to Westminster, 47 of them are SNP, and of the six Scottish MEPs, 3 of them are SNP - because the Scottish people voted for them, which is their sovereign right to do so.  It's not Nicola Sturgeon's fault, not mine, and not through "a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak" that Maajid's party, the Lib-Dems, was beaten into fifth place, behind the Scottish Greens, at the last Scottish Parliamentary election.

"Alarm bells should be ringing now, lest after lockdown we enter blindly into yet another experience like the three years before the virus struck.

And if you thought Brexit Britain got bad, just wait until Scexit."

Except that Brexit was deliberately planned to create discord between people by Brexit supporters, and did indeed create a lot of ill feeling - even among families.  The 2014 independence referendum did not create the same sort of division, no matter what the London media would have you believe.  I have friends and even family members who are unionists, and the fact that we have differing political viewpionts does not stop me loving them any less.  In fact, if anything there is a much greater acceptance and tolerance of differing viewpoints here in Scotland.

And if Maajid Nawaz lived in Scotland, rather than bumping his gums from his home in London, he would know that, and a great deal more about things he patently had no idea of which he is talking about.

No people are beneath dignity, Maajid - including the people of Scotland.

Link to Maajid's article below:

https://unherd.com/2020/05/the-racism-lurking-behind-scottish-nationalism/

When Will Unionists Take Ownership of Their Behaviour?

Unionist snatching flags

Does someone have to die before anyone takes notice?

An All Under One Banner (AUOB) march for Scottish Independence took place in the Borders town of Galashiels on Saturday, 1 June 2019.  Sadly, I could not be there, but the marchers were blessed with a sunny day, and there was apparent good cheer as approximately 5000 people took part.

But the day was almost seriously marred by the actions of a few unionists, including one incident that could very easily have ended in a serious, possibly even fatal accident.

As the Yes Bikers, a motorcycle group of independence supporters, approached Galashiels, they encountered a line of screws deliberately laid out across the road, on the A68 near Earlston.  Some of the bikes suffered punctures, but the bikers, some of whom were carrying children, managed to get through.  Only one bike was stopped.

This follows on from incidents in at the Glasgow AUOB March in Glasgow in May, where Yes Bikers had traffic cones and other objects thrown at them, and one person standing in the middle of the road was trying to snatch flags from the backs of bikes, which could have resulted in bikes being toppled, or the man responsible being injured in a collision.  Another unionist stood in traffic, removed his trousers and underpants, and slapped his buttocks towards the bikers.  Thankfully, both these individuals were arrested.

While the mainstream media is quick to jump on and sensationalise minor wrongdoings by a tiny minority within the Independence movement, such as alleged abusive comments on social media by “cybernats” (many of which are not actually abusive), there is a violent element within the unionist camp which is rarely reported, if it does warrants a small column inside a newspaper and has never been front page news, and which the unionist camp never seem to condemn nor take ownership for.

Incidents by unionists since 2014 have included;

• An 80-year-old Yes supporter knocked to the ground, breaking his arm, by a woman who was a member of both the Labour Party and Better Together.
• A 5-year-old boy narrowly missed when a unionist pushed a chair out of an upper storey window, aiming to hit a Yes stall, and former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars.
• A pregnant homeless woman kicked in the stomach by a Better Together speaker, who had links to the extreme-right British National Party.
• A Yes stallholder headbutted by one man, while two other men overturned his stall.
• Yes/SNP campaigners being verbally abused, threatened, and even spat upon – myself included – in public.
• Several Yes cafes and hubs being vandalised, some with their stock destroyed.
• Excrement smeared on the door handles of Penicuik Yes Café.
• Peaceful independence supporters, despite being defeated in the 2014 referendum, being beaten up by gangs of unionist thugs in Glasgow’s George Square.
• Cars with Yes / SNP stickers being keyed, and / or their windows smashed.
• Houses displaying Yes / SNP stickers or logos, or flying the Saltire, having them vandalised, and in some cases their windows broken.
• An elderly man in Edinburgh South Yes Hub recently having a bottle of water thrown at him; not over him, the actual plastic bottle was deliberately aimed at his head.

 In every single one of these incidents, nobody from any of the unionist organisations, and no high-profile individuals within the unionist movement have spoken out to condemn them.  Quite the opposite, whenever they have happened there have been unionists congratulating the perpetrators, and some saying they wish it had been worse.

I am not saying for one moment that everybody in the independence movement is an angel.  Far from it, every political movement has its hotheads and dangerous elements.  The big difference is that whenever anyone in the independence movement has done something really wrong, the vast majority of us have condemned their actions, and they very quickly find themselves ostracised by most within the movement.  This is precisely what happened when Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson was subjected to a tirade of homophobic abuse by one individual using a false name on Twitter.  Within 24 hours the said individual had his identity made public, was suspended from Yes Scotland and the SNP, and was shamed into phoning Ruth Davidson to apologise.  Ruth later Tweeted “I feel I have been treated with chivalry.”  She is welcome.  No one in this movement believes in playing the man and no’ the ball.

But there are unionists who persist in abusive and increasingly violent actions, and nothing is said or done about that.

I am not for one moment castigating all unionists as violent and abusive.  I happen to know for a fact that the vast majority are not, but most are capable of reasoned debate, or who at the least will walk away from the argument.  But at the same time, the unionist movement are not taking ownership of those within their movement who are now presenting a danger to life and limb.

And notice my language here; “taking ownership”.  For make no mistake about it, unionists, you own these actions, and by ignoring them, or claiming it’s nothing to do with you, you merely bring dishonour to your own movement.  At the worst, you are risking a serious incident where someone could be seriously hurt, or even killed.

What will it take for you to take responsibility, unionists?  A death?

In the spirit of democratic and reasoned political debate, I sincerely hope not.

Our Need for the Serpent's Cunning

A mild example from a well-known Indy blogger

No room for online abuse which only harms the independence movement.

Senior figures within the Scottish National Party (SNP) have called for a crackdown on online abuse, and for independence supporters to call out and distance themselves from those who engage in such behaviour.  Alyn Smith MEP, Stewart McDonald MP, and Angus Robertson, former SNP Depute Leader have called out online abuse that may harm the independence campaign.

In an interview, Alyn Smith told the Herald on Sunday (5 May 2019), “in the same way the Tartan Army had to clean up its act in the 1980s and then became a massive ambassadorial source for Scotland… …We all need to step up. This is allowing us to be portrayed in a certain way that's damaging… …call them out and send them to Coventry. Make them persona non grata forever - off you pop, you aren't one of us if that's how you behave”.

Angus Robertson stated, "I'm expressly underlining the fact that this is an issue for both sides of the constitutional argument in Scotland, and more generally internationally where on social media, often because of anonymity, some people think that they can insult, attack and offend with impunity… …I think these people are cowards and wouldn't be prepared to continue posting in the same way if they were identifiable, quite often because what they're saying and doing would be considered illegal. We need a cultural change… …There's been reticence by senior Yes supporters to call out abuse for fear of undermining the more general debate about Scotland's constitutional future, and rather than highlight the levels of abuse they received by unionist trolls to let it slide, or to avoid criticism because one is wanting to protect the reputation of public discourse more generally.  This can't go on. People can't go on thinking they can sit in front of their keyboards and do nothing but send abuse to people they don't agree with. You wouldn't do it in public, you'd be thrown out of a pub for doing it, you'd never do it at a family event, why on earth would you do it online?"

I have seen angry responses from some in the Indy camp, who somehow feel betrayed by these comments, but the fact is that the SNP trio are absolutely correct, and I applaud all three for calling out those who are potentially damaging the independence cause.  And those angered may have missed the point that the three actually called out those on the unionist side who partake in the same behaviour.

What does Internet abuse achieve?  Does it change the hearts and minds of the people who are being attacked?  Does it make salient political points that the opponents are likely to take on board and consider carefully?  Or is it just an excuse for at the least a slanging match, or to rant at someone, which may make the person doing so feel good at the time, but which ultimately reflects upon all of us in the independence movement, and has the potential to damage our campaign.

I saw one typical example on Facebook just today.  A friend posted screenprints from a private messaging conversation with a unionist woman, who was not abusive, but really was just mistaken in many of her comments.  There were comments below this of people saying they were going to go to her Facebook timeline to “put her in her place”, “give her a piece of my mind”, etc.  One person who had previously been blocked by the said woman stated that they intended to set up a fake Facebook profile to troll her.  Why?  The woman in question is a diehard unionist who will listen to no reason.  What does attacking her achieve?  What would it help?  Just how does it further the cause of independence to hurl abuse at someone who is so stuck in their views that you will never change their mind?  It does not. And it was not lost on me that some of the comments called her “cow”, “old bag”, and various other sexist and ageist insults.  Well done, guys.  Is there any other way you’d like to damage the Indy movement?

Cyber abuse cannot be ignored.  It takes many forms and it can be extremely damaging, and potentially dangerous.  SNP MP Joanna Cherry recently had call to have police protection at her weekly surgery, due to what was seen as a threatening message posted on her Twitter account.  This comprised of a meme of a masked figure with a gun, and the words “Just do it”, alongside details of Ms Cherry’s surgery.  This came in the wake of Ms Cherry campaigning against the SNP administration’s adoption of gender self-ID for transgender and non-binary people.  As a firm trans ally, I find Joanna Cherry’s stance on transgender people to be deeply offensive, and I feel she has hardly covered herself in glory.  But all that apart, while Ms Cherry’s stance may be offensive to some, it does not warrant any response may incite violence and threatens her or anyone else’s well-being.  If I can strongly disagree with Joanna Cherry without resorting to abuse or threats, so can anyone.  Let us not forget that it is less then 3 years since Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by someone who often tweeted hate messages, and inciting anyone to similar actions, over any issue, is simply deplorable.

And Joanna Cherry is not alone in this.  Nicola Sturgeon, Mhairi Black, and other women SNP politicians have reported having sexist and threatening comments and messages online.  But it is not reserved to the SNP.  Openly lesbian leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, has often come in for homophobic, sexist, and threatening messages online, and on one infamous occasion in the wake of the 2014 independence referendum, one such perpetrator subjected her to a tirade of online abuse of a homophobic nature.  The comments quite rightly disgusted many of us, his true identity were made public, and both the SNP and Yes Scotland were quick to dismiss him, and shamed him into phoning Ruth to apologise.  Ruth Davidson later tweeted that she felt she had been treated by “gallantry” by the independence movement.  And for that, she is welcome.  As much as I dislike Ruth Davidson’s politics, and I probably wouldn’t get along with her on a personal level, to attack anyone for their sexuality is about as low as it gets, and I was never prouder of the Indy movement for acting so quickly in condemning the homophobe responsible.  On that occasion, we got it exactly right.

I can almost hear some reading this shouting “What about the abuse from unionists?”  Yes, they the unionists do indeed involve themselves in cyber abuse of Scots Nats, and sometimes much worse.  I could recount a number of incidences of actual violence carried out by unionists in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, and even one in which an elderly man in a Yes hub not far from my home was attacked just recently.  I have personally been threatened and even spat upon by unionists.  I keep my Facebook account set to “Friends” for many reasons, one of which being that I think out my arguments and check my facts very carefully before posting anything.  I am not about to leave that open to some knuckledragger who has taken a nanosecond to come up with their unintelligent response.

It is no use playing “whataboutery”.  We know what the unionists are capable of and that they often go off in tirades of online abuse towards Scots Nats, and indeed, others.  I have personally read and heard unionists come out with racist, xenophobic, sexist, sectarian, and religious abuse.  I am not for one moment saying that all unionists are bigots, I know for a fact they are not.  But I would say they have more than their fair share of such.  That such do indeed make abusive and threatening comments is absolutely no excuse to sink to their level.

We would do well to remember that not all unionists are abusive or bigoted, and I once saw a comment that made me want to cry.  On a friend’s timeline, someone commented that she had voted No in 2014, now realised her mistake, and stated that she would vote Yes in any future independence referendum.  This was immediately followed by a comment from a supposed independence supporter (actually someone I unfriended quite a while) in which he lambasted the woman for “subjecting Scotland to four years of Tory rule”.  Oh, well done.  That’s really going to win hearts and minds, isn’t it?  There are many who voted No in 2014, for many reasons, and it is precisely those people we need to engage if we are ever going to gain a free Scotland.  Abusing them is never going to convince them to vote Yes in the future, it is far more likely to cause them to scurry back to the No camp, and to remain firmly there.

It is also worth mentioning that the above abuser often comes out with openly anti-English statements, which was the very reason why I unfriended him.  While anti-English sentiments are not so prevalent in the Indy movement as they once were, they are still there nonetheless, they need to stop, and those who resort to such need to be called out and ostracised by the movement.  We can make comments about London rule and Westminster all we want.  We can make the point that all the unionist opposition parties are London-based.  But the moment that we blame the ordinary people of England for our woes, we are on a hiding to nothing, and worse still, it abuses many of those who may actually be on our side.  I have a few English friends living in Scotland, and all but one of them is pro-Independence.  One woman in particular campaigns long and hard for independence, which being disabled, is not easy for her.  She certainly does a lot more than the trolls who set out to abuse unionists, and throw in anti-English sentiments to boot.  Likewise, of my online English friends south of the border, most of them support an independent Scotland.  Go look through Nicola Sturgeon’s Twitter feed any day, and you will find English people asking for the SNP to field candidates in England, and how much they wish they had a leader like her in Westminster.  I will never tire of saying this; we in the Indy camp have much more in common with the working class of England than we shall ever have with our own Scottish landed gentry.

These things are indeed important because of the opponent we face.  We are taking on the British establishment, a particularly powerful animal, and it is they who have the media at their back.  We all know that the moment any person purporting to support independence puts a foot wrong, it will be jumped upon by the media, in an attempt to lambast us all, even if we do not agree with the person in question.  The attack on the elderly gentleman I mentioned earlier got about two column inches inside a newspaper.  Compare that to the front-page headline stories and the centre spreads that newspapers have given to a few abusive comments by what is in reality a small minority of people.  Look at the many times that the main TV broadcasters have misreported a story about the Indy camp, or deliberately misrepresented us.   Look indeed at how the media hijacked the term “cybernat”, to claim it represents all independence supporters who use the internet to abuse others.  In fact, if you stand for independence and your main medium for making the arguments for such is online, then you are, like me, a cybernat.  And if people have the time and resources to abuse people on line, then they have the time and resources to put forward positive arguments for independence to those who may be wavering, which is where their energies would and should be better spent.

”We need the cunning of the serpent to deal with money and power.” wrote the socialist Scots poet Naomi Mitchison in her 13-part pro-independence anthology, The Cleansing of the Knife.  And what Mitchison penned in 1941 was never more relevant in the internet age of the 21^st century.  We not only must be squeaky clean, we must be seen to be squeaky clean, especially in the face of the money and power which the unionists have at their resource.

I fully realise that online abuse in the Indy movement is but one symptom of a wider disease.  Politics are becoming increasingly polarised, and there appears to be a belief nowadays that throwing insults and even threats about is somehow valid.  This is not however the case, and if you believe at all in reasoned and democratic debate, then you will have no part in such.  Your right to freedom of speech does not extend to abusing and threatening your opponent.  It never did, it never shall, and neither should it be so.  Therefore, we should call out online abuse because it is the right thing to do.  Whenever and wherever we encounter personal attacks upon and threats or incitement to violence towards those who oppose independence, it needs to be nipped in the bud, and the perpetrators named, shamed, and made pariahs within the independence movement.  Particularly if the abuse is based upon sexuality, gender, ethnicity, race, age, religion – or lack thereof, or any other personal attribute.  Where any online messages contain threats, or incitement to violence, not only do we need to distance ourselves from such, they should be reported to the police as soon as possible.

In the final instance, whenever someone purporting to be pro-independence makes comments online which abuse, threaten, or incite violence, then that can only be harmful to our cause.  If anyone is going to play the man and not the ball, then they do not speak for me, they do not speak for Scotland, they do not speak for the independence movement, and that needs to be made very plain, in loud and clear language.

Our Scotland, and the vision we share for her future, is far too important to allow anyone or anything which harms that to continue.

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.

The only person Ross Greer needs to remove from the Scottish Independence campaign is himself

Green MSP Ross Greer

On 6 August 2017, The Herald (or The Herod, as I like to call it) ran an article by Ross Greer titled "Time to show the door to the lunatic fringe killing the independence movement with its bile".  In this article Greer, a Scottish Green Party MSP who was also Communities Co-ordinator of Yes Scotland, claimed that there is a fringe movement within the independence movement that is likely to drive people away.

Greer started his article by rounding on those who engaged in vitriolic attacks on prominent Scots trade unionist and founder of Radical Independence, Cat Boyd, for admitting that she voted Labour in the June 2017 General Election.  Point taken.  The hate that Cat Boyd was subjected to really was not on, and those responsible really should be ashamed of themselves.  It's called democracy, guys.  But in all fairness, while I like what Cat Boyd has to say considering independence, there are times she really does not do herself any favours.  I am not for one moment defending those who castigated her, but when a prominent person within the independence movement admits that she voted for a unionist party and abstained in the EU Referendum, then one really has to ask exactly where her interests lie.

My main point of contention with Ross Greer's article however are over unsubstantiated claims he made about some within the independence movement being bigoted, without offering a shred of evidence to back that up.  "The attacks on Cat Boyd," claims Greer, "have sat alongside full-blown denunciations of ‘feminists,’ the ‘LGBT movement’ and ‘social justice warriors’ and calls for ‘their’ exclusion from the movement."

If there are "full-blown denunciations of feminists" within the independence movement, I for one would like to see exactly where Greer is seeing that.  Indeed, I don't know if it has escaped Ross Greer but women have always been very prominent within the independence movement, if not right at the forefront of it.  This has been true ever since Winnie Ewing - "Madame Ecosse" as she became known in the EU - won the Hamilton by-election in 1967, and Margo MacDonald followed that up by taking the Govan by-election in 1973 (could you imagine any man attempting sexism towards Margo?  They wouldn't dare).  But as well as these great ladies the SNP - and the wider independence movement - has had very strong voices in the shape of Wendy Wood, Naomi Mitchison, Margaret Ewing, Rosie Cunningham, Annabelle Ewing, Liz Lochhead, and many, many more too numerous to mention, while in Mhairi Black we have the next up-and-coming stalwart voice of women in independence.

Equally I don't know if Ross has noticed that it was the SNP who have given Scotland her first woman First Minister in the guise of Nicola Sturgeon; a woman so popular that not only are there voters in England saying they wish they could vote for her, but I have online friends in the USA saying they wish they had someone like her in American politics.  I recall listening to Nicola at a Bannockburn Rally in 2006, and I knew one day she would be First Minister - and the best we ever had.  I am more than pleased to say, with the raft of policies that Nicola Sturgeon has introduced and is continuing to introduce, I have been proven correct. And do no forget that Nicola, having taken over the reins from Alex Salmond, stood for re-election in 2016, and was swept back into Holyrood.

So I invite Ross Greer to show me exactly where all this supposed misogyny is coming from, particularly when not only was Nicola re-elected in 2016, but while the SNP vote was substantially down at the recent General Election, their vote and seats gained in Scotland still outnumbered all the unionist parties put together.

Likewise I have not seen homophobia, transphobia, or any other bigotry towards those within the LGBT community to any great extent within the independence movement.  I can only imagine therefore that Ross Greer is attempting to take a sideswipe at Rev Stuart Campbell of Wings Over Scotland fame, concerning his Tweet aimed at Scottish Conservative MP, Oliver Mundell, after his father, Tory MP David "Fluffy" Mundell, came out as gay.

For those who have been living under a rock, Stu posted a Tweet. stating "Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner." Whether that was homophobic or not is hotly debated.  Some of my LGBT friends say yes, others say no.  It was however ill judged, as the unionists were very quick to jump upon it, to accuse Stuart Campbell of homophobia, and thereby attempt to smear the entire independence movement as being the same.  Not least of these of has been Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale, who has been so vociferous about this Tweet and other things Stu has said, that he is taking out a defamation lawsuit against her.

I personally do not think Stuart Campbell should take out this lawsuit, and I think if he loses it, that could be hugely damaging towards the independence movement.  However, if Ross Greer chooses to side with the unionists over the alleged homophobia matter, then I invite him to tell me just how much he has done for independence compared to Stu?  The production of The Wee Blue Book by 'Wings' was an invaluable resource during the 2014 referendum campaign, just as The Wee Black Book, listing all the claims of the unionists, and how all the promises they made in 2014 have been subsequently broken, is an equally invaluable resource today.  And besides those, Stu has been working tirelessly before and after 2014 to highlight and expose unionist chicanery and false claims.  Stu is a stalwart of independence, and a true patriot.

When the SNP administration in the Scottish Parliament first mooted making same-sex marriage legal, there were few against it.  Indeed, the most prominent person was Stagecoach bus owner Brian Souter, who bankrolled the odious "Keep the Clause" campaign to retain the homophobic 'Clause 28', and who was an SNP donor but withdrew that funding when Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister.  When the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act went to public consultation, 76% of the public, most of whom were SNP voters, agreed with it, thereby giving green light to same-sex marriage in Scotland.  And while Westminster may have been Holyrood to the winning post over same-sex marriage, the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Act is actually far more comprehensive and inclusive than England's Same Sex Marriage Act.

Likewise the Scottish Parliament is now working on legislation that will enable transgender and non-binary Scots to self-diagnose their own gender, and streamline the system for changing their birth certificates and other official documentation.  Listen to all that opposition to this from the Indy camp; absolute silence.  Scotland is leading the field in LGBT rights, and the vast majority of the Independence campaign are cock-a-hoop about that.

I would also ask Ross Greer to consider what happened when openly lesbian Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson was subjected to a barrage of homophobic Tweets from one knuckle-dragger in 2014.  It was the independence camp who immediately turned on the said individual, condemned his words, named and shamed him, and led him to apologise to the Tory leader.  Ruth Davidson herself later Tweeted that she felt she had been treated with gallantry.

Also in 2014 I recall Better Together putting up a pro-LGBT banner on their Facebook page.  They had to take it down less than 24 hours later, because of vile homophobic comments, not from Scots Nats, but rather from within their own ranks.  Nothing similar happened with the LGBT movement within Yes.

Even when it was recently revealed that Kezia Dugdale was in a relationship with Jenny Gilruth, SNP MSP for Mid Fife and Glenrothes, there was certainly raised voices and concerns over their relationship from within the Indy movement over information being compromised, but nothing that could be construed as homophobic.  I have no doubt that had Kezia been straight and taken up with an SNP man, the same concerns would have been raised.  The only homophobia I saw came not from the Indy camp, but rather some sleazy comments in the media reports, as well as some unsavoury homophobic comments below these reports, from Labour supporters.

I am not saying that bigotry towards women and LGBT people does not exist within the independence movement, all too sadly, it is everywhere and does need to be strongly put down wheresoever it is encountered.  But by trying to make out it is a huge problem, Ross Greer is over-egging the pudding here.  Particularly when, again, he offers absolutely no evidence or examples to back up his claims.  I however could point him to many LGBT people, the vast majority of whom are pro-independence.

I now move on to Ross Greer's claims that there is prejudice within the Indy movement towards "social justice warriors", hereafter referred to in this article as SJWs.

There are many have accused me of being an SJW, because I do indeed stand for social justice for all.  I recognise that some enjoy privilege others do not, which means that they do not always see prejudice and injustice towards others where and when it does happen.  I count myself as a feminist, anti-racist, anti-sectarian, an internationalist, and a staunch supporter of human rights for all.  I am an atheist and a secularist, who nonetheless recognises the right of freedom of thought, religion and conscience of all. I am well-educated in matters of sexuality and gender, and am of the school of thought that we are all born with both already decided, and far from being fixed, all humanity is on sexual spectrum, and a gender one.

So let me tell you what I think of SJWs - they are a pain in the bum who often do more to infringe human rights than they do to champion them.  Many SJWs get so much of a bee in their bonnets about 'inclusion' to the point that they actually trample on the rights of others. They are also the people most likely to attempt to shout down or otherwise attempt to silence others, and/or to attempt to shut down debate by embarking on ad hominem insults and smears against their opponent.  Keep that in mind, because it becomes important later in this article.

It was SJWs responsible for Richard Dawkins recently being ‘disinvited’ from speaking at Berkeley University, California, for once saying (quite correctly in my opinion) that Islam is one of the biggest threats facing mankind today.  It is the SJWs of the Southern Poverty Law Center who placed Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist extremist who now campaigns against Islamist indoctrination but who is still a practising Muslim, on their list of anti-Islamic extremists.  It was an SJW diversity officer at Goldings University event who in 2015 banned white people and heterosexual, cisgender men from a ‘diversity’ event, and followed that up with calling all white people “white trash” and posting the hashtag #killallwhitemen.  It was SJWs last year of the University and College Union who stated that an 'equality' conference would only be open to members who identified as gay, disabled, female, or of an ethnic minority.

These stories are but the tip of the iceberg.  Is it any wonder then that those of us on the left, and I strongly count myself in that bracket, at the least see SJWs as a bad joke and an embarrassment, and at the worst a dangerous hindrance to the furtherance of democracy, human rights, and the radical agenda?  If anyone doubts that, go and have a look at some of the videos put up by atheists on You Tube, many of whom are on the left or at least 'liberal', and see what they have to say about SJWs.

And going back to LGBT rights, Ross Greer would be well to take note that there is an increasing number of SJWs who are siding with Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists - TERFs - who deny the very existence of transgender women, maintaining that they are only men seeking to attack women in public toilets and changing rooms.

But again, Ross Greer makes this claim, and again offers not one shred of evidence to back up his assertion. And this one is actually highly amusing, as if there is one thing we know about Scottish politics, it is that it tends to be far further to the left than the rest of the UK.  Scots have always pretty much believed in fair play, playing the ba' and no' the man, and largely accepting of others. Social justice has always been to the forefront of Scottish politics, and if Ross Greer is tying to pretend it is any different, that is not just disingenuous, it is a lie.

So, whom does Ross Greer blame for all this? Well, this was the point where reading his article, I spluttered over a mouthful of tea and had to read it again to make sure I had read it right.  "I’m sure," Greer states, "these comments come overwhelmingly from older white men."

Do you see what Ross Greer did there?   He just made a sweeping generalisation about one section of Scots society, again without providing one shred of evidence to support his assertion; not one iota of proof to back up his claim.  Instead, Greer is "sure" this is the case, and so we have to take him at his word on that, and based upon that, ban these people from the independence movement.

As an atheist I am often confronted by people who claim that their god exists and they have a personal relationship with him / her / they / it.  That does not convince me and neither should it convince anyone else.  I mention it here, because likewise if Ross Greer is going to make such an assertion, he needs to supply evidence to back up his claims.  Just like theist making their claims carries the burden of proof, likewise does Ross Greer about bigotry towards feminists, the LGBT community, and SJWs coming from "older white males".

And what is more, in making such a sweeping generalisation and castigating an entire section of people within the independence movement, Ross Greer has contradicted his own article.  He has shown his own prejudice, based on absolutely no evidence, towards pro-Indy older white men.  But he is "sure", so we just have to take his word for that. Not only does that make his entire article self-contradictory, it makes Ross Greer an outright and utter hypocrite.

What is more, his assertion does not even hold up to scrutiny.  If there is one thing that the independence referendum, and the 2017 General Election have taught us, it is that older white males are not voting for independence.  In the referendum, the higher the age bracket, the more people voted No. Exactly the same happened in the recent General Election, where it was those more advancing in years who voted Tory (turkeys voting for Christmas) or other unionist parties.

As I write this on the brink of my 54th birthday, I take umbrage at Ross Greer's words, very much so.  And I am sure that there are a number of my "older white male" friends in the Indy movement who feel likewise. And just for the record, neither I nor any one of these friends has ever attacked anyone for being a feminist, LGBT, of a campaigner for social justice for that matter.  If Ross Greer fails to understand where I am coming from on that, I will remind him that all too soon he too will be an older white male.

In his article, Greer wants to remove those he imagines are damaging the independence movement from it. This is exactly the bullying attitude of the social justice warrior; this binary thinking, "If you're not with us, you must be against us" mentality, where they will seek to silence you if you say or write (or even think) the least little thing against their agenda.

I would not only like to see Ross Greer attempt to kick me and other "older white males" out of the independence movement, I'd like him to explain just how he intends to do that.  Certainly, the SNP and Yes could kick them out (look out, there goes Alex Salmond and George Kerevan - older white males), but is he then going to have his "Greer SJW Police" stop people at every meeting, every rally, every march?  Are they going to stand outside polling stations and tell those they are opposed to "You'd better not vote SNP."?

Banning people from the independence movement is impossibility; it simply cannot be done, because it belongs to ALL of us - older white males included.  You can maybe silence voices, at a stretch you could maybe stop them writing - but you would have your work cut out, but you cannot stop people THINKING independence, and VOTING independence.

Neither Ross Greer nor anyone else can 'ban' others from being part of the independence movement, simply because it does not belong solely to them and they do not have the authority to do so; the aim of an independent Scotland belongs to ALL who believe in it.

The only person who can remove someone from the independence movement is the individual himself or herself.  And Ross Greer may want to think long and hard on that, if he truly believes his words in the Herald article, compared to some other things he has recently said.

"it’s time to show the door" stated Greer in the Herald "to those who think misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and vicious attacks are a price worth paying if they come from ‘one of ours’"

Compare that to two Tweets Greer posted the following day, directed at a pro-independence Scottish blogger, who happens to be based in Dublin.  The first said "Check out Michael Collins with a keyboard." and this was followed up by a comment, which said, "The struggle is real and you're no Butterfly unless you join a flying column".

These Tweets were in response the blogger, Jason Michael, had posted in Butterfly Rebellion, which had been derided by Daily Record writer James McEnaney.  The references to Michael Collins and flying columns refer to IRA commander General Michael Collins, who commanded "flying columns" of guerrilla fighters to attack British soldiers.

Jason Michael has called these Tweets from Greer "anti-Irish racism".  This is debatable as Irish is an ethnicity, not a race.  They are however an ad hominem slur - remember what I said about SJWs? - upon a peace-loving pro-Indy writer and they are certainly anti-Irish.  What is worse, given that Scotland is a land where the ugly spectre of sectarianism is sadly still the scourge and shame of our country, Greer's Tweets are deeply sectarian.  Is it not enough that we already have some sectarian unionists claiming that the Indy movement is infested and ran by pro-IRA Irish Roman Catholics, without Ross Greer apparently backing them up?  And if it is coming from "one of ours", should we put up with it?

Going back to his Herald article, Ross Greer made reference to "obnoxious keyboard warriors", and in light of his farcical article, followed by two disgusting, anti-Irish and sectarian Tweets against a peace-loving man, I would like him to tell me just exactly what that makes him?

But then, Greer also said in the Herald "Bigots and bullies aren’t my people and they shouldn’t be yours if you believe in a better Scotland."

I couldn't agree more, Ross. And in light of your comments and Tweets, perhaps you should rethink if the Scottish independence campaign is really the place for you.