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 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.

Proud to be...?

Whose flag? 

For a great many years now we have heard the tired old mantra from Unionists, “Proud to be Scottish, proud to be British”.  Yet when push comes to shove, this slogan seems to nothing but a soundbite and empty rhetoric, with little or no substance to back it up.

One of the most common instances of the empty rhetoric of such Unionists is their attitude towards the national flag of Scotland, the Saltire.  Some Unionists claim that the independence movement, and specifically the Scottish National Party (SNP), have hijacked the Saltire, while others outright claim that it is a Scottish nationalist symbol.  As far back as 2008, then Labour MP Jim Murphy was boasting that he would “reclaim the Saltire” from the independence movement, and he repeated that claim for years afterwards, right up to 2014 when he was campaigning for a No vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum.  Ten days before that referendum, then Labour leader Ed Miliband tried a “Reclaim the Saltire” PR stunt, in calling for Saltires to be flown on public buildings and other places right across the UK.  The call backed up by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, the Saltire even flew for a short while outside 10 Downing Street on that day – not helped by the flag slipping from it’s moorings at the first attempt to raise it.  Otherwise, this call fell upon mostly deaf ears, with only a few places flying the Saltire.

Even after the referendum Jamie Greene, in 2015 Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Ayrshire launched a Change petition “Reclaim the Saltire” under the banner of “I am Scottish Too”, which grew into a campaign.  Greene claims on his website “Are you afraid to fly your national flag for fear of it being interested as a pro-separatist symbol?”  That is not a simple question.  By the very wording of it, it is a loaded one.  Notice the use of the term “pro-separatist” (as for “interested”, I think he means “interpreted”.

More disturbingly still has been the sheer antipathy towards the Saltire, which has people and organisations ordered to take Saltire flags down on the flimsiest of reasoning.  One man in Kirkcaldy flying the Saltire was ordered by the Labour-controlled Fife Council to take his flagpole down because it apparently contravened health & safety guidelines, despite it being up for several years previously, with no complaint.  Also stating health & safety rules the SNP group Renfrewshire Council were ordered to remove their Saltire flag from their office windows by Council leader David Martin.  That was in December 2013, when the windows of many offices in the building were festooned with Christmas decorations, yet the order from the Labour Party leader made absolutely no mention of them.  

Earlier in 2013, the Labour-Tory coalition on Stirling Council passed a motion to remove the Saltire flag from their headquarters and replace it with a Union flag.  In an obviously biased joint statement, Tory councillor Callum Campbell and Labour councillor Danny Gibson wrote;

“Council notes the tone of some of the debate, especially with regards to symbols have fought and died under for 300 years, Council deplores this debasing of our symbols.

"Council resolves to stand for the symbols of  our country by flying the Union Flag from the main pole above the council building and the council flag from the freestanding flagpost in the ground of Old Viewforth."

The more bizarre part of the Stirling story is that the Saltire which flew from Stirling Municipal Building was not even a national Saltire; it was as stylised one with a lion rampant at it’s centre, to reflect and commemorate the city’s connection with the Battle of Bannockburn, 1314.  Something Stirling has every right to be proud of.

"Salty" in happier times

Sometimes this hatred of the Saltire goes way too far.  In 2006 Edinburgh was host to a Cow Parade event, in which 96 brightly painted fibreglass cows were placed around the city (and one in Prestonpans, East Lothian), which were later auctioned to raise money for cancer and animal charities.  It was an amazing event, which really captured the public imagination and brought many visitors to the city.  The Scottish Parliament sponsored one of the cows, Salty, which was located outside the Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood, and was painted with, you guessed it, a Saltire.  A few cows were vandalised, but none more than Salty, who was smashed to bits, and her head stolen.  Whoever did this – they were never caught – I do hope they are proud.  For apart from degrading their own national flag, Salty was the award-winning design from a little boy who entered a competition in the Edinburgh Evening News.  So if the perpetrators are reading this, hang your heads in shame.

Meanwhile the flag ban on public buildings continues, most recently in North Ayrshire.  Cunninghame House in Irvine, headquarters of North Ayrshire Council, for a long time had a Saltire flying outside it.  At a council meeting on 28 June 2017, Conservative councillor for Irvine West, Scott Gallagher, put forward a motion requesting that the Union Flag be flown alongside the Saltire, claiming he had received emails asking why it was not flown.  “We have had numerous emails asking why the flag is not always flying outside this building,” said Councillor Gallagher, “I’m not trying to have the Union Flag replace the Saltire outside this building.  I’m making an attempt to have both flags flying together.”  SNP Councillor for Irvine East, Marie Burns, made an amendment rejecting the motion and asking that the council retain the status quo, while at the same time lambasting the Tories on the council for making a flag their first priority in the face of swinging Tory austerity cuts.  “This council has struggled to protect the people of North Ayrshire against the impact of Tory austerity,” said Councillor Burns, “a policy that has wreaked havoc on many of our most vulnerable residents, and what do their newly-elected Tory Councillors have to say? 'At least you can see the Union Flag from Cunninghame house.”

In stepped Robert Foster, Labour Councillor for Irvine South, who echoed Councillor Burns about discussing a flag in the face of austerity.  However, rather than move on, Councillor Foster put forward his own motion, that no flag be flown, except on special occasions, when both the Saltire and the Union Flag be flown side-by-side.   The vote between the motions of Councillor Gallagher and Councillor Burns was split 10/10, which meant it went to a draw of cards.  Councillor Gallagher drew the Five of Clubs, while Councillor Burns drew the Three of Diamonds, which should have been the end of the matter; the Tory councillor had effectively won the vote.  However, members then had to vote on the Labour amendment, and with the SNP councillors refusing to take part in the vote (churlish, guys – no-one likes a bad loser), the motion was carried by 11 Labour votes to 10 Tory and Independent votes.  So it is that no Saltire – and no Union Flag – now flies outside of Cunninghame House.  Just how bloody childish can you get?

But amidst all these accusations of the Saltire being ‘hijacked’ by the independence movement as a ‘nationalist symbol’, the most bizarre thing is there is not one iota of truth about that.  To the best of my knowledge nobody in the independence movement has ever tried to suggest that we have some sort of monopoly over the Saltire, nor has anyone ever tried to hold it up as a symbol of Scottish nationalism

SNP "thistle" symbol

Do the SNP hold the Saltire as their emblem?  No, they have their own symbol, which comprises of a circle, which is crossed at the top.  This symbol does indeed incorporate a Saltire, but is also meant to represent a thistle.  And note that the SNP symbol is black on yellow, and not the silver-white on blue Saltire – “A Saltire argent, a field azure” – which makes up our national flag.  Have Yes Scotland ever tried to claim the Saltire as their own or an independence symbol?  No, they simply had the word “Yes”, in a particular style, usually but not always white on blue, or blue on white.

And if anyone is going to claim that using the colours of light blue and white is enough to make the Saltire a nationalist symbol, then I suggest they consider the railway stations of Scotland in the 1950s and 1960s,

when they were painted white with blue woodwork, and station signs were white lettering on a blue background.  Are the Unionists then going to try to claim that British Rail (Scottish Region) were diehard Scots Nats due to this regional colour scheme?  You know, they may well.  I once read an attempted smear story in the Daily Telegraph claiming that Nicola Sturgeon was trying to send a political message by having the Saltire emblazoned on Scottish trains.  Actually, it was Abellio, the company who took over the Scotrail franchise, who decided to paint their trains blue, interspaced with stylised silver Saltires.

A nationalist symbol?

Likewise, I have a Scottish Rugby Union cap which has a little Saltire tag on the back of it.  Would the Unionists then try to claim that the SRU are Scots Nats?  And if they do, are they aware just how many rugby fans vote Tory?  Try well over 50% of them, and even of those who are not Tories, the vast majority are indeed Unionists.

Do we who campaign for Scottish independence wave, carry and even wear Saltires? Yes, we do – because it is our flag, we are proud of it, and we are not afraid to display it.  Do we give little Saltire hand flags out, including to children? Yes, we do.  People often ask for them, particularly people who are so skint due to Westminster austerity that they cannot afford to buy anything from a stall or make a donation.  And yes, that includes parents who particularly ask for flags for their kids.  But here’s also a thing; I don’t like to include children in politics, but I have on occasion from a Yes stall given little Saltire flags to the kids, not as a political gesture, but purely because every bairn loves a flag, no matter what that flag is.  But think on, Unionists, when you shove little Union Flags into the hands on every kid on occasions such as royal visits, just exactly what are you doing?

The Lord Lyon, King of Arms, is the authority on all heraldic matters in Scotland.  This is what the Court of the Lord Lyon has to say on the matter of the Saltire flag;

“The flag of St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland. Blue with a white or silver diagonal cross reaching to its edges, this is the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality.

Its proportions are not fixed, but 5:4 is suitable.

It is correct both to fly it with or instead of the Union flag. If both are flown they must be on separate poles, the Union flag being on the most important pole.”

If anyone reading the above still thinks that the Saltire is a symbol for Scottish Independence, then that is tantamount to suggesting that the Lord Lyon himself is a diehard Scots Nat, which I am sure would raise at least one eyebrow of the Right Honourable Joseph Morrow, the current Lord Lyon, King of Arms. Whatever Lord Morrow’s political affiliations may be, it is worth noting that as the Lord Lyon speaks for the monarch in Scotland, like the Queen, he has to remain officially neutral on political and constitutional matters.

I may not like the fact that when the Union Flag is flown with the Saltire, the Union Flag has to be flown on the most important pole.  But hey, we’re still in the Union, and as long as we are, even I have to abide by the Lord Lyon’s rulings - only independence can change that.  In fact, it angers me that the Scottish Records Office in Edinburgh, which has nothing to do with the Union (and right next door to the Court of the Lord Lyon) has a huge Union Flag flow atop it.  However, amusingly enough, the staff don’t like it either and commonly fly the Union Flag upside-down, which is a sign of distress.  One of the staff has actually said when it has been noted upon “It’s nothing to the distress we feel working in here.”

But by equal measure, as much as I intensely dislike Tory policies, I actually liked the proposals of Councillor Scott Gallagher in North Ayrshire; he wanted the two flags side-by-side, and in all fairness, as he stated, he did not want to remove the Saltire.  True, the council should have been getting on with more important things, but it was a magnanimous gesture, which actually would have broken the ruling of the Lord Lyon, but which would have placated both Unionists and Scots Nats.

Where Stirling Council went wrong was replacing the Stirling Saltire with the Union Flag.  You will notice that the ruling by the Lord Lyon says it is right to fly the Saltire instead of the Union Flag, but says nothing about flying the Union Flag instead of the Saltire.  But then, the Unionists on Stirling Council did refer to the entire UK as “our nation”, thereby ignoring the nationhood status of not just Scotland but also England.

It is interesting to note actually that if there is one thing disturbing about the entire flag debate, it is actually the Tories who are more likely to embrace the Saltire than Labour, who are the ones who all too often want it taken down.  Indeed, the current Scottish Conservatives logo is a stylised Saltire, while the Scottish Labour Party symbol is the same as that of their London-based parent party – a red Rose, which many would argue is actually a symbol of England (or are they Lancastrians and do Labour fare poorly in Yorkshire marginals as a result?).  Now, that is fine for England; honestly, I have no problem with that.  I believe that the Labour Party claim it is a symbol of socialism, and may be linked to the song by James Oppenheim "Bread and Roses" ("Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses.").  Well, I very much identify as a socialist, but when I see the Labour Party symbol, I don't think 'socialism', I think 'England'.  And it is not being in any way anti-English to say that is wholly inappropriate for Scotland (or Wales, or Cornwall).  If anyone wants to argue with me or that, would you stand in an English constituency with a thistle as your emblem?

It is also interesting to note that plenty of Labour supporters will more than happily fly the Irish Tricolour, for the Palestinian Flag.  So to some Labour supporters if you seek the six counties which make up Northern Ireland being reunited with the Republic, or freedom for Palestine, you are a champion of freedom, but if you seek Scottish independence, then suddenly you are right-wing, anti-English “separatist”.  That’s the sort of perverse logic we are dealing with here.  Just a note to anyone who thinks like that;  most Scots Nats, myself included, do also support a united Ireland, a free Palestine, freedom for Tibet, for Catalunya, for Quebec, for Wales, for Cornwall (whose nation status we recognise, which is more than Labour, Tories or the Lib-Dems do), and anyone else who wants it.  You cannot support self-determination for one people and not others; to do so is nothing short of hypocrisy.

I can already hear the cries of “closet Tory” from some Labour supporters and members reading this.  Not at all.  I despise the Tories with a vengeance and actually know people in Labour for Independence and other Labour members and supporters.  I am merely making observations and it is not my fault if your party is less likely to embrace Scotland’s national flag – your flag for Scots Labourites – than the Tories are.  You may wish to reflect upon that.  Oh, and for the record, I'm not a member of the SNP either; I am not a member of any political party.

If you are a Unionist and really do think that the independence movement has somehow hijacked the Saltire as a Scots Nat symbol, then there is an easy answer to that; embrace it yourself.  If you are the one claiming that the Satire is your flag, then by all means, take it back – not that it was ever taken from you in the first place. 

The words of the Lord Lyon, King of Arms, are plain enough; “this is the correct flag for all Scots or Scottish corporate bodies to fly to demonstrate their loyalty and their Scottish nationality.”   There is the official line.  The Saltire is your flag, and nobody can ever take that away from you.  The only people stopping Unionists from displaying the Saltire are themselves, or other Unionists who have an antipathy towards the flag and seek to take it away from all as a result.

So, here is my challenge, Unionists.  You claim that you are “proud to be Scottish, proud to be British”, put your money where your mouth is and prove it.  If you want to fly the Saltire, by all means, please do.  In fact, this Scots Nat would be the first to champion your right to do so, and could not be happier or prouder to see you take pride in your country’s culture and nationhood.

If you do not, then we can all draw our own conclusions as to your true intentions, and where your allegiance truly lies.

Sorry Brian - You ARE a Unionist

Brian Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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