No, You DON'T Get to Punch a Nazi First

Or anyone else for that matter.

On 20 January 2017, near to where Donald Trump was being inaugurated as 45^th president of the United States of America, Richard Spencer was being interviewed by an Australian television channel, when he was punched by an unknown assailant. Spencer was denying to the interviewer that he was a neo-Nazi, when members of the public asked him to explain his pin badge of 'Pepe the Frog' – a symbol often used by racists and antisemites – when a masked and hooded man ran up, punched Spencer, then ran off again.

Richard Spencer is the founder of the Alternative Right movement, often abbreviated to 'Alt-Right'. He has often espoused white supremacist, antisemetic, and homophobic views. According to the Southern Poverty Law Centre, Spencer advocates a homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and call for "peaceful ethnic cleansing". The Anti-Defamation League have quoted Spencer as rejecting conservatism because its adherents "can't or won't represent explicitly white interests." Although he purports to be an atheist, he rejects same-sex marriage, which he has described as "unnatural", stating "very few gay men will find the idea of monogamy to their liking" Spencer openly supported Trump for president and at the end of a speech after the Republican victory, Spencer shouted "Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!", which was met by a large proportion of the audience giving Nazi-style salutes in return.

Richard Spencer is certainly therefore an odious individual, with extreme right wing, and yes, neo-Nazi views; he has repeatedly failed to condemn Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Since the punching incident, not only have there been hard left apologists applauding and attempting to justify the assault, there is now a whole “Punch a Nazi” movement which is claiming that it is perfectly justified to use violence first against the extreme right, to silence them, and shut them down. I would argue that it is never right to be the first to use violence, no matter the provocation, and those who do have already lost the argument. I would also state that many of those who are shouting loudest about punching 'Nazis' are guilty of the deepest hypocrisy and double standards.

First of all we have to identify just who these 'Nazis' are. Are they people holding views which can be construed to be not dissimilar to those of Hitler and the actual Nazis, or neo-Fascist ideas?

There are some on the hard left who maintain that all movements for national identity are by their very nature extreme right wing and racist. I seek an independent Scotland, because I firmly believe that self-determination (a right recognised by the United Nations) is the only way Scotland can ever progress. Despite the fact that many of we Scots Nats, including the Scottish National Party (SNP), have continually made the distinction of outward-looking “civic nationalism”, we have continually been lambasted as 'separatists', 'anti-English racists' and even portrayed as 'Nazis', by some on the left, up to and including some Labour Party members. Opponents openly refer to the SNP as the “Scottish Nazi Party” and I recently saw a Tweet from a member of the hard left stating “Forget this civic nationalism rubbish; nationalism is nationalism.”

So, should I and other Scots Nats, who embrace all, be attacked with violence, despite never using or supporting violence ourselves? Some would definitely think so. In the run-up to the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, there were many shops and cafés ran by the official Yes campaign were often daubed with swastikas and “Nazis”. As well as being subjected to a great deal of verbal abuse, Yes campaigners, myself included, were often spat upon by members of the hard left. At the more extreme end, a 5-year-old little boy was narrowly missed by a chair pushed out of a window, aimed at former SNP leader Jim Sillars by a left wing opponent, and an 80-year-old man campaigning for Yes, suffered a broken arm after being pushed to the ground by a woman who was a member of both the official Better Together campaign and the Labour Party.

And of course, one of the greatest hypocrisies is that many of those who decry and use violence against Scots Nats, quite happily support self-determination for the Palestine, and a united Ireland, but will tell you “It's not the same thing.” Yes, it seriously is.

I happen to take a centrist ground on immigration and refugees; I neither believe in pulling up the drawbridge, nor throwing open the doors to anyone. I do think that there are dangers of Islamist terrorists infiltrating immigrants and refugees, and every western country needs to be aware and cautious of that; as much as they should be more aware of the dangers of people-trafficking, which only harms those they claim to be helping. For being so cautious, as I honestly believe any sane, well-informed, politically-aware person should be, guess what I get called for that? A Nazi, that's what (while the right call me a bleeding heart – I can't win).

Where does it stop? Examine your own political views and then have a look at those espoused by the Nazi regime, or even Nazis of today – or things the hard left define as “Nazi - and you may very well find things similar to your own views. Should you then be punched?

I have had it suggested to me that the use of violence and shutting down should only be used on those who openly promote violence against minorities, or those who openly promote genocide. Oh really? Well, that is very interesting. I have in the past been on Irish Republican rallies in which I have heard sectarian Roman Catholics espousing hatred towards Protestants, even calling for the death of all of them. I even recently saw a post on Facebook saying “Scotland was Catholic – and will be once again”. Are those coming out with such comments not “Nazis”? Don't they deserve to be punched as such? Oh no, wait, they can't be; because obviously Irish (and Scottish) Roman Catholicism is a 'socialist' cause. Aye! Right! If anyone believes that, go have a look at just how very right wing a great degree of the Roman Catholic church is. Indeed, I invite any who think such to educate themselves upon the very close links the Vatican and Pope Pius XII had with the real Nazis.

Let us move on to the matter of Palestine, and those on the hard-left who show a strong support for an independent Palestinian state. Without a doubt, the behaviour of the state of Israel and their treatment of the Palestinian people has for much of their short history been utterly shameful. But there are too many who think this is all one way and that the Palestinians and many who support them, and lead them, in the Middle-East are somehow innocent little souls. HA! Palestinians are currently led by the Hamas and the Hamas Covenant completely refuses to recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist. While they have agreed to a two-state solution, based on 1967 ceasefire agreements, several Hamas leaders have stated that this can only be an interim measure, that all the land belongs to them as “Muslim land” - “from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean”. (Hamas leader Khaled Meshall). More disturbingly, the Hamas Covenant not only calls for the eradication of Israel, but for the killing of each and every Jew on the face of the planet. Quoting the prophet Muhammed, the Covenant states; “The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Hark tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”

So, there is the call for genocide of the Jews, and do we see the 'Punch a Nazi' brigade calling for violence to be used on pro-Palestinians, to silence them and shut them down? Not a bit of it. Quite the opposite in fact. In my experience there are those on the hard left who are all too ready to become apologists for Islamist violence against Jews. But then, there are many on the hard left who are very quick to bandy about the term “Nazi”, but who are themselves in fact deeply antisemitic. I have seen and heard it myself; people who call themselves 'socialists' and yet appear totally incapable of differentiating between Israeli and Jews, and who attack all Jews as a result. One need only look to the shameful levels of antisemitism in the Labour Party to see the truth of that one. And strangely enough, I don't see anyone in Labour, least of all Jeremy Corbyn, punching out any antisemites within the party.

There has actually been a disturbing increase in antisemitic attacks including acts of violence against synagogues and individual Jews in the UK in recent years, and some is coming from the left, who hold all Jews responsible for atrocities carried out by the state of Israel. Does this surprise me? Not in the least. I once put a meme up on Facebook commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day, with the words “Never Again”, and the first comment on it was “It is happening again – in Gaza”. But then, when I put a meme up for Holocaust Memorial Day 2017, I asked others on Facebook to share it. Not one person did. Interesting then that Trump's inauguration fell on the same day (a coincidence I'm sure, but one which showed utterly crass judgement), and that of course was the very same day that Richard Spencer was punched, and the “Punch a Nazi” posts started appearing - from people who would not recognise Holocaust Memorial Day. Hang your heads in shame, you utter hypocrites.

It is equally true of the Hamas Covenant that it makes mention of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which it claims to be factual. The “Protocols” was in fact a fabricated Russian document, first published in 1901, which outlaid a secret Jewish plan for world domination by means of subverting morals, controlling the media, and taking over the economies of the world. It was responsible for much of the antisemitism which swept across the world in the early 20^th century, and was taught in German schools as factual after the Nazis came to power in 1933. One would have thought that the Protocols would have disappeared after 1945, but not a bit of it. It is very much available to this day, and this is never more true than in Islamic countries, where it is made available and distributed in Arabic, and taught as factual. Hamas claim on one hand to have moved away from their Covenant, but on the other hand say it cannot be changed “for historical reasons”. Given their insistence that a two-nation state can only ever be temporary solution, and the continued distribution of the Protocols, please do excuse my cynicism, but I do not and will not believe them for one moment.

Should the latter part of the above claims of the Protocols sound familiar, those of Jews subverting and controlling the media and economies, then it should do. Because the document is also available online and has been purported as genuine by some in the west, and this has filtered down to mainstream belief, where we now have people quite commonly bandying about ignorant views of the press and world economies being run by Jews; and the left have swallowed this bait hook, line and sinker. But they even go further and claim that Israel, and by expansion, Jews, are available for all the world's ills. Doubt that? How many times have you read or heard that Jewish workers were pulled from the World Trade Center before the attacks of 9/11, or indeed the bizarre claims that Islamist terrorist organisations, including Al Qedea and Islamic State were set up by or are even fronts for the Israeli secret service, Mossad? And again, all Jews get the blame for that. Yet if there is one group in society which is not calling for a campaign of violence against neo-Nazis, and never has done, it is Jewish communities. Seems to me that some on the hard left could learn quite a lot from them.

So where are the voices calling for Palestinians and other Muslims who believe the Protocols to be true, or their western supporters and apologists, to be punched? Where are those denying them a platform? Where are those shutting them down? Suddenly it has all gone silent.

But let me go back for a moment to this claim that it is only those who call for the genocide of others. Well, the major religions of the world – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – all contain commandments in them to kill non-believers, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, and many, many others; such was much of the basis of the real Nazis, just as it remains the basis of Islamist and fundamentalist Christians, and indeed some orthodox Jews, to this day. Whither then the calls to violence against Muslims? Who's forcibly silencing Baptists? Should we be punching Jews? WOAH! Did you see where that just went?

In discussing this with others there have been those who have stated that when faced with a bunch of neo-Nazis, they have the right to fight. I agree. I have never, not for one moment, ever said that no-one should not defend themselves. Indeed, I shall go even further.

It may come as no surprise to many reading this to learn I am a pacifist. I have read widely on many pacifist authors, not the least of which is Mohandas Gandhi. Now, Gandhi can be criticised on some things he wrote, and I personally think that he was naive at times, but in fairness he was a product of his time and culture. His faults however do not for one moment negate some of the extremely wise things he came out with. Gandhi believed that honour was more important than life itself, a view I happen to agree with, because a dishonourable life is a life not worth living. Under Gandhi's philosophy defending yourself by violent means is not only valid, it is necessary. “Nonviolence is superior to violence, but violence is superior to cowardice.” Gandhi stated, explaining that when one is left with only the choice of using violence in defence or cowardice, then violence is the only honourable stance that you can take, even if that means your death, but at least you will go down fighting, thereby retaining your honour.

So it is that when faced with violence, any one of us not only has the right to defend ourselves it is the only reasonable – and honourable – stance we can take. But note that this is in the face of violence. It does not for one moment give anyone the right to throw the first punch, no matter the provocation. Contrary to what many would have you believe today, words are not violence, and do not give you the right to be the first to use violence. For goodness sake, were I to punch everyone who offended me with their words, no matter how vile, I would have never been done fighting all my adult life.

And if you do use violence first, what will it achieve? Will it change your opponent's mind? Will it silence them? Will it stop others holding similar views and following them? Not for one moment. All it will do is make a martyr of them, put yourself in a poor light, and have the finger of condemnation pointed at you, while making the 'Nazis' appear squeaky clean. Sure, you can attempt to silence your opponent by the use or threat of violence. But if you do so, if you seek to use violence to frighten people into silence to achieve your own political ends, by do you know what that makes you, by definition? A terrorist, that's what.

Even should you manage in shutting certain people down or refuse them a platform because they hold odious views – or merely views you happen to disagree with (as Unionists v Scots Nats for example) - do you think that will silence them? Do you honestly believe that in the internet age they will not find a way of getting their message across or finding an audience? Of course they shall, even if they have to go underground to gain it. And in doing so, they will be able to spread their bile unchallenged to impressionable audiences, out of the public eye, instead of being where we all can keep an eye on them, and where their views can be challenged and showed up to be facile. I well recall the neo-Nazi British National Party (BNP) once fielded a candidate in a local election here in Edinburgh, and other candidates said they would not share a platform with him at hustings meetings. What did that achieve? It handed that candidate his very own 'Nuremberg Rally' on a plate where he was allowed to spread his venom without any counter-argument being put forward. And while he did not win the seat, it pushed his vote up considerably. Attempts to shut down and silence neo-Nazis can therefore be counter-productive.

Speaking on LBC Radio on 11 February 2017, Maajid Nawaz said “If freedom of speech is to mean anything, then it is the rights of others to say things you do not want to hear. If you only allow those you agree with to speak, that is not freedom of speech, it is mere sycophancy.” I can already hear people saying “Huh! Maajid Nawaz, a radio host, who is he?” Well, let me educate you in just who he is. Maajid Nawaz is a British-born Muslim who was once a member of the Sunni Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks a global Islamic caliphate. For membership of this group he was jailed in Egypt in 2001, and spent the next five years in prison, during which he read widely on human rights, and was released with the help of Amnesty International. After release, he left Hizb ut-Tahrir and founded the Quillam Foundation, to help combat young people from becoming radicalised by Islamic extremists. So, there is a man who once took what could be described as a “Nazi” view, who has turned his life around. He has seen what silencing people leads to first hand, and that is why he takes a strong stance against it. If you think you are wiser than Maajid Nawaz, I strongly suggest you rethink your attitude.

Trust me, I am no different from any other human being. When I hear or read people coming out with bigoted bullshit, my first reaction is indeed to bitchslap the stupid out of them. But if we seek to truly silence those on the extreme right, then that can only ever be done through education, and the most important part of that is showing up their own ideas for just how very dangerous, and very facile, they are. Using their own words against them is the most effective, most powerful tool which we have. Turning to violence only makes it look like we do not have a counter-argument, and actually gives neo-Nazis a victory. Extreme right views are largely ill thought out appeals to peoples fears and imagined grievances. By using well-informed, educated counter-arguments, we can not only show up neo-Nazi and other right-wing rhetoric to be baseless, but also clearly show those espousing such views to be as foolish and as dangerous as they truly are. This is one battle where the pen truly is mightier than the sword.

But if we embark on a campaign of violence, then we merely hand the extreme right a victory on a plate. They will be first to exploit it, to claim they are 'persecuted' (some fundamentalist Christians already play this game), and make themselves out to martyrs. Using such tactics are also unhealthy for democracy, for as I have already said, just who is a 'Nazi' is very much open to interpretation, and one has to ask, just where does that stop? Violence will only lead to counter-violence, which will exacerbate into more violence, and before you know where you are, we will all be silenced. To paraphrase Gandhi, an eye for an eye does indeed leave the world blind.

And really, just what was Richard Spencer punched for? For wearing a Pepe Frog lapel pin? A character which started life as an internet meme? Is that what it comes down to? Punching people for wearing a fucking badge based on a meme? Really? Do please grow the fuck up. Or even if it was for his words, well if there are those who seek to silence and deny a platform to those whose words they disagree with through the threat of or the actual use of violence, just which regime does that sound like? Ermm, the Nazis, that's whom.

Using violence against the extreme right is merely playing their game and sinking to their level. And those who call for violence but who are nowhere to be seen when the fighting starts are the worst kind of coward.

Do not fall for either; you are better than that ~ and if you only look for it, you have infinitely more honour in you than both put together.

Ban the Bum

Land of the. . . ???

Trumpeters answers questioned.

On Friday, 27 January 2017, US President (I baulk to call him that) Donald Trump signed an Executive Order banning travel visas from seven mostly-Islamic countries, which came into effect at 4:42pm Eastern Time the same day. I am sure it was purely coincidental but in a supreme irony 27 January was also Holocaust Memorial Day.

The Executive Order indefinitely bans Syrian refugees from the USA, suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days, and blocks entry for 90 days to travellers from the seven named countries.

The seven affected countries are;

Iran

Iraq

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

Yemen

The immediate effect of the ban caused chaos with flights and arrivals at airports in the USA. There were reports of hundreds of travellers arriving in the USA being detained in airports, while many about to travel to the USA from abroad were refused to fly, or even taken off planes before take-off. To add to the confusion, this included students, visitors and green-card-holding legal permanent United States residents from the seven countries. Some who had entered the USA were indeed refused entry and sent back to where they came from. Two Iraqis who had worked as interpreters for the US military were held in JFK airport, and as they were not legally on US soil, were refused access to legal representation.

On Saturday a Federal Judge in Brooklyn blocked part of the order, ruling that refugees and others being held at airports across the United States should not be sent back to their home countries. Three other Federal Judges in Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington soon followed suit, and the Massachusetts judge ruled that authorities could not detain travellers. The Department of Homeland Security agreed to comply with these rulings. On Sunday Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said that Green Card holders would not be prevented from returning to the USA “going forward”, but also added that border agents had “discretionary authority” to stop and detain any travellers – including US citizens - to additional questioning and scrutiny, should they have been to any of the seven countries mentioned in the executive order.

The ban led to huge protests in the USA and around the world. Here in the UK a petition to cancel the announced state visit of Donald Trump attracted in excess of 1 million signatures. Largely seen as an anti-Islamic move, the Trump administration has claimed it is not. It is not, but more of that later.

So, what is the rationale behind the ban, and just why has Trump implemented it?

The ban is to prevent international terrorism and keep US citizens safe.

The logic from this is that the countries affected present a terrorist threat to the USA. In fact, there has never been one terrorist attack in the USA from any citizen of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen.

Compare this to the nineteen Al Qaeda terrorists who perpetuated the worst terrorist attack in history on 9 September 2001, in the USA, with the immediate loss of 2996 lives, and the subsequent deaths of over 1000 due to effects from the attacks. Of the nineteen attackers, 15 came from Saudi Arabia, two from United Arab Emirates, one from Lebanon, and one from Egypt. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt are not at all affected by the ban and anyone on passports from these countries may travel freely to – and even claim asylum in – the USA.

Likewise nobody would deny that the greatest terrorist threat today comes from the brutal Islamic State (IS) group. The current hotbed of IS recruitment is Tunisia, which likewise is excluded from the executive order. As are other countries which recruit Islamist terrorism, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, and Algeria.

But intelligence and experience show these countries are most likely to produce terrorists.

And where else have there been terrorist attacks in recent years? Ooh, let's try the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Turkey, and almost a daily occurrence in Israel. In the majority of cases, the terrorist attacks have come not from immigrants or asylum seekers, but rather from nationals of those countries. So based on that argument, all these countries should be included as a danger to US security – including Blighty.

Ah, but those attackers were the children of immigrants or asylum seekers.

In some cases they were, in some they were registered citizens of the countries they attacked. And indeed, with regard to the USA, there is one particular case which defeats this argument. Richard Reid, aka the Shoe Bomber, is a white, culturally Christian, English man, who converted to Islam, became radicalised, and attempted to ignite explosives packed into his shoes on a flight to Paris to Miami. Yet I still don't see either the UK – or France – on that list.

Omar Mateen was a home-grown US Islamist terrorist who shot dead 49 people in the Pulse nightclub in Florida, before being shot dead. His parents emigrated from Afghanistan, which is not on the list. It is also worth pointing out that Omar Mateen was a very disturbed young man, who was a regular customer of the Pulse nightclub, and his killing of 49 mostly Latinx people had much more to do with his own deeply closeted homosexuality than any religious convictions.

Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Centre in San Bernardino, California, on 2 December 2015, killing 22 and injuring 14. They fled in an SUV and were later both shot dead in a police shootout. Farook was a Chicago-born US citizen and the son of immigrants from Pakistan. Malik was born near Islamabad, Pakistan, had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia, but was a lawful permanent resident of the USA. Neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia are among the banned countries.

Brothers Tamer and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombings, killing three and injuring 16 others, were naturalised US citizens, born in the Kalmyk Republic (part of the Russian Federation) and Kyrgyzstan respectively, both are half-Chechen but identify as Chechen. Kyrgyzstan is not on the list of banned countries - and neither is Russia, for reasons best known to Donald Trump.

The Executive Order was instituted on powers already there, instituted when President Obama banned Iraqis from entering the USA in 2011.

Except that President Barack Obama never instituted any such ban against entire nationalities in 2011. In fact, there never was any outright ban – merely a bureaucratic mess.

Here is exactly what happened. Two Iraqi refugees in the Bowling Green, Kentucky were arrested in May 2011 on charges of Federal Terrorism charges. Informants had told the FBI that one of the men, Waad Ramadan Alwan, had previous to fleeing to the USA, constructed improvised roadside bombs in Iraq. Alwan was fingerprinted, and his prints matched those on part of a cellphone which had been used to detonate one such bomb in 2005. The other refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, was convicted of providing material to Al Qaeda, possession and export of Stinger missiles, and making a false statement on an asylum application.

The arrests led to demands in Congress to re-examine the records of Iraqis settled in the USA, and the Obama administration pledged to do so. This entailed going through the records of some 58,000 Iraqis already settled in the USA, while more stringent background checks were imposed on new applicants. The USA was still involved in the Iraq War at the time, and with them looking to pull out at the earliest opportunity, there was a rush of such applications from a great number of Iraqis.

The result of re-examining visa applications, some Iraqis already settled having to re-apply, some still in Iraq having to re-apply, while all the time new applications were pouring in - under new, more thorough rules - led to a logjam which the State Department's National Visa Center struggled to cope with. In September 2011, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano if a hold had been placed on Iraqi visa applications. Napolitano replied;

"with respect to the 56, 57,000 who were resettled pursuant to the original resettlement program, they have all been revetted against all of the DHS databases, all of the NCTC (National Counter Terrorism Center) databases and the Department of Defense’s biometric databases and so that work has now been done and focused... ...Now I don’t know if that equates to a hold, as you say, but I can say that having done the already resettled population moving forward, they will all be reviewed against those kinds of databases.”

So, there never was a hold on visa applications for six months, only a bureaucratic jam caused by exceptional circumstances. And it was one Republican senator who asked if there was a hold, but the reply given was ambiguous, and does not confirm a hold.

Former Obama administration official Jon Finer stated in Foreign Policy;

“While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.”

Eric P Scwartz, who was Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration in 2011, told the Washington Post;

“President Obama never imposed a six-month ban on Iraqi processing. For several months in 2011, there was a lower level of Iraqi resettlement, as the government implemented certain security enhancements. Indeed, as we identified new and valuable opportunities to enhance screening, we did so. Nobody should object to a continual effort to identify legitimate enhancements, but it is disreputable to use that as a pretext to effectively shut down a program that is overwhelmingly safe and has enabled the United States to exercise world leadership. In any event, there was never a point during that period in which Iraqi resettlement was stopped, or banned.”

Notice that both men, in separate journals, have stated the resettlement of Iraqis did indeed continue during the six month delay in processing visas. Now, either both of them are lying – or Trump's administration are lying. I know which I am going with.

But even had there been a ban, notice that the Obama administration targeted individual visa applicants. They never, not for one moment, ever placed entire nationalities, or all citizens of chosen countries, regardless of background, under suspicion of terrorism.

And even had there been call to do so, it would be because the USA was still involved in war in Iraq, which would indeed be grounds to trigger a suspension of travel into the USA from hostile countries. The USA is not at war with any of the countries on the list, and the Trump administration therefore has no legitimate nor justifiable trigger.

The ban is temporary – only for 90 days.

Try reading the Executive Order. Syrian refugees have been banned indefinitely, that ban being lifted is cognisant on the President himself. The US refugee program in it's entirety – not just among the targeted countries but affecting anyone from all around the world – has been suspended for 120 days. The 90 days applies only to the seven named countries.

There is no guarantee however that the 90 day limit may not be extended, or the 120 day ban on all entries, or that more countries may not be included in the ban.

Trump has also reduced the number of refugees to be allowed into the USA in 2017 by more than half; down from 110,000 to 50,000.

This is not a Muslim ban.

Screenprint from Trump's campaign website

No, it's not, I agree. It does not ban all Muslim-majority countries, and there are some Islamic countries which Donald Trump actually has business dealings with. Not least of which is Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists came from, and where there are 'charities' within the Wahhabi Muslim sect, which are nothing more than fronts for funding Islamic State terrorism.

So, does this mean that The Donald is this kind wee soul, with no religious prejudices, who embraces peoples of all the world's religions? Hmm. Let's see what he actually said in his presidential campaign.

This is a statement taken from Trump's presidential campaign website, donaldjtrump.com, which is actually titled “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration”:

“(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

On exactly the same page, Trump himself is quoted as saying;

“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Notice he even said “Without looking at the various polling data” - so he was willing to actually ignore the facts. Well nothing new there. But there we see that Trump's own website specifically called for a “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”.

That specifically targeted an entire religion. Therefore, while the ban is not a Muslim ban per se, it was and remains based upon and deeply-steeped in the populist anti-Islamic rhetoric which US citizens have been fed by right-wing politicians and their media mouthpieces ever since 9/11.

So did he have a change of heart and open his arms to Muslims? Nope, Trump simply could not have issued an Executive Order to ban all Muslims from entering the USA, because to do so would have contravened the First Amendment of the US Constitution;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Had Trump instituted his Executive Order banning travel visas based solely on the Muslim religion, he would have effectively have established a law prohibiting the right of Muslim refugees to enter and to continue to follow their faith. To do so would have been unconstitutional, and he would have been out of the White House so fast that his feet wouldn't have touched the ground.

So instead he went for countries with Muslim-majority populations, and this has created it's own problems. Due to the ban, Christians seeking asylum from the named countries have been refused entry to the USA, in some cases sent back to their country of origin, or stopped from getting on flights in the first place.

The persecution of Christians in Islamic countries is an all too often ignored 'hidden' shame in many Islamic countries, where they are subjected to many atrocities, including being lashed, having limbs cut off, eyes gouged out, beheaded, hanged, or burnt alive. Among some of the worst countries guilty of carrying out atrocities against Christians include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – the seven countries upon which Trump has placed a blanket ban on entry on all citizens. Oh, the irony that many 'good Christians' voted Trump in, and he has now just condemned many Middle-Eastern Christians to the tender mercies of the fundamentalist Islamist authorities in their countries of origin.

And of course, it is not just Christians this affects. Followers of other faiths are equally persecuted in these countries, as are atheists, and even those Muslims brave enough to speak out or write about the wrongs those in charge are doing in the name of Islam. By issuing a blanket ban on visas, Trump has condemned them all, and now that some may have tried to leave, the authorities in their home countries will know just who they are, and the outlook for all these 'dissenters' and 'infidels' looks very bleak indeed.

Nor will this ban stop anything to stop Islamist terrorism. We have seen in living memory just how much ill-treatment by the west has actually driven terrorism in the Middle-East, which has spread to Muslims in the west. By instituting a ban, Donald Trump, far from defeating IS, has just handed them one of the best recruiting tools they could ever have wished for. It will not be lost on those who indoctrinate young minds with fear and hatred of the west, particularly the USA – the 'Great Satan' as the Islamists call it – just how it has 'shunned' the Muslim people, and by extension, has insulted the Islamic faith and it's prophet. And once those minds are groomed and indoctrinated, there sadly can only be one inevitable outcome of that; more Islamist terrorist attacks, not less.

And as we have seen from Orlando, Boston, and San Bernardino, that need not come from outwith the USA, certainly not from the banned countries, but in the case of Saudi Arabia, is much more likely from a country which is a close US ally, and one which Donald Trump happens to have a lot of business dealings with.

Neither does this ban do anything to stop the incidents of domestic terrorism which take place within the USA, often carried out far-right extremists who profess to be Christian. Trump's election victory saw a sudden surge in racist and religiously-bigoted hate crimes. The FBI reported that in 2015 hate crimes against Muslims surged to 67% - the highest since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Jews remained the highest proportion for hate crimes at 53%, and there were 1,053 hate crimes regarding sexual orientation, 19 percent of which were committed against gay men. Where hate crime attacks result in fatalities, they are rarely reported as terrorism in the USA, but generally referred to as “lone wolf” attacks carried out by some sad loner – only when the “lone wolf” nutter happens to be Muslim does it suddenly become a 'terrorist attack'. Meanwhile, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations continue to exist, enjoying the liberty the USA affords them, as “Christian” organisations.

Whenever a move against any racial religious group occurs, it can reverberate outwith the country it comes from. The Sunday after the Executive Order was instituted, a gunman open fired during evening prayers at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre, just across the border in Quebec City, Canada. The shooting suspect, now in custody, is 27-year-old Alexandre Bissonnette, a white French Canadian, whom it appears holds extreme-right, pro-Christian, anti-Islamic views, and who admires Donald Trump and French National Front leader, Marine LePen. Bissonnette was identified by the leader of a local immigration rights groups, François Deschamps, as a far-right internet troll, known to make anti-immigrant and hostile comments on the group's online page.

Pants - on - FIRE!

With absolutely no proof, the media immediately tried to make out it was an Islamist attack, Fox News - darling press outlet of the darling American right - claimed that witnesses had heard the gunman shout "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), and without a shred of evidence, went on to claim in a Tweet that the shooter was of Moroccan origin. As I write this, that Tweet has not yet been taken down.  And of course, while it was thought the attack was of Muslim origin, it was called a terrorist attack. Now the suspect has been identified as a "Christian", anti-Islamic, white supremacist, the media are portraying him as a "lone wolf" and sad nutter. Kudos therefore to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who told it like it is; "We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge."

While the media was busy pouring out their anti-Islamic bile, the Trump administration was very quick to attempt to make political capital out of the atrocity. Without being cognisant of the full facts, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said of the Quebec attack;

"It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security,"

What? Mr Spicer - and Mr Trump? Will you now impose a ban on extreme-right Christians crossing the border from Canada into the USA?

Or will you just continue to deliberately target Muslims? To abandon Muslims and others to the very regimes you claim to be against? To continue to give Islamic State a propaganda tool for further radicalisation? And to continue to stir up hatred against all Muslims, the vast majority of whom are in fact far more likely to be the victims of intolerance and violence, rather than the perpetrators of it?  

Will you in fact continue to openly flout international human rights legislation, as well as common decency?

You already have blood on your hands, Mister Trump, and your shameful actions shall cause much more to be shed.  The only person who needs to be banned is you.

Who's Gonna Build Your Wall, Donald?

But as I travel through this big ol' world,

there's one thing I really fear;

that's a white man in a golf shirt,

with a cellphone in his ear.

Who's gonna build your wall, boy?

Who's gonna mow your lawn?
Who's gonna cook your Mexican food,

when your Mexican maid has gone?

Who's gonna wax the floor tonight,

down at the local mall?

Who's gonna wash your baby's face?
Who's gonna build your wall?

(Tom Russell: “Who's Gonna Build Your Wall?”)

Throughout his campaigning for the presidency of the United States of America, Donald Trump promised that he would build a wall along the US/Mexico border to keep illegal immigrants out. It was a popular policy, despite the fact that polls show that the majority of Americans don't want it, and many people did not think he was being serious. However, on 25 January 2017, Trump signed an Executive Order calling for just such a wall to be built.

Already the sheer economics of such a massive building project are being called into question. Donald Trump envisaged a 1000 mile, 40 foot high wall, which he first estimated would cost $8 billion, for what he then saw as a wall/fence combination, then which jumped to $10 billion, then $12 billion. However, one estimate from the investment company Bernstein has put the projected cost at anything from $14 billion to $25 billion, whilst MIT have estimated it from $27 billion to a staggering $40 billion.

There are some countries with a smaller GDP than that.

When financial experts in these matters speak, Mr Trump would do very well to listen. Right here in Edinburgh, Scotland, we have the lovely (open to interpretation) Scottish Parliament Building at Holyrood, at the foot of the city's Royal Mile. When the then Secretary or State for Scotland, the late Donald Dewar ordered the building, he said it would cost £40 million (US $50.5 million) and be completed by 2000. It was finally opened in 2004, at a cost of £414 million ($523 million) – over ten times the original estimate.

Oh, but don't worry about cost, Trump says he's going to make Mexico pay for the wall. Yeah, that seems very likely, doesn't it? If you had an antisocial neighbour who built a wall along the edge of your garden, then sent you the bill for it, just how would you react? So it is no surprise that Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, has clearly stated that Mexico will pay a big fat NADA for any such wall;

"It is evident that we have differences with the new United States government on some issues, such as a wall that Mexico absolutely will not pay for," Peña Nieto told The Guardian. "At no time will we accept anything that goes against our dignity as a country and our dignity as Mexicans."

American's, did you really expect any other reaction from President Peña Nieto?  As Americans tend to be very protective of their property, consider this; imagine you had a belligerant and anti-social neighbour moved next door to you, built a wall along the edge of your garden, and then sent you the bill for it?  Just how would you react?  Now you know how Senor Peña Nieto feels.

Just how could the USA make Mexico pay for the wall? By using their military firepower in a show of strength to threaten Mexico into paying? Because I sure as hell can't see any other way. There is a term for those who threaten or use violence against a country to achieve political ends; it is called international terrorism.

Building such a wall is only part of the story. It would also need maintaining, and of course, extra border patrol officers. Trump has already stated that he would recruit an additional 15,000 such officers to patrol the border. Perhaps supporters of the wall think that Mexico is going to pay for them too? Dream on – the salaries of each and every one of them would be going on your taxes.

Then of course there are the sheer logistics of building such a wall. First there is the physical geography in some places to consider, which may actually increase the cost even further. But there also exists a legal barrier, in the form of a 47 year old US/Mexico treaty to protect water rights, which could stop the entire project in it's tracks before it even gets started. As AP reported;

“The Trump administration also must adhere to a decades-old border treaty with Mexico that limits where and how structures can be built along the border. The 1970 treaty requires that structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers, which define the U.S.-Mexico border along Texas and 24 miles in Arizona, according to The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint U.S.-Mexican agency that administers the treaty.”

Of course, Trump could just flaunt this law – as well as common decency, and go ahead with his wall, cutting off water. Indeed, Trump already has past form for this. When Donald Trump was building his Menie Golf Course in Scotland (because Scotland really needs another golf course, right?) in the early noughties, he tried to force local villagers out of their homes at nearby Balmedie, so he could pull their cottages down, which he considered an eyesore. Among other tactics he tried, he discovered that the water supply for the cottages crossed his land, and cut it off. This included the home of an elderly woman, whom now 92, still collects water daily from a nearby river.

So, yes, Trump could do that to an entire country. But Americans would be well-advised to ask just how that would make their entire country look on the world stage, if they cut water off to a country with a great many very poor people? And by the way, interfering with cross-border water supplies happens to be illegal under international law. Are you now going to flout the United Nations as well? Just how isolationist does the USA want to be? To the point they are treated as even more of a pariah on the world stage than they already are?

Besides which, rivers do not just flow from the USA into Mexico, but also in the other direction, and rivers coming into the US from Mexico enter into some of the most arid semi-desert regions in the American continent. So it could really be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Of course, there is the argument that rivers could be piped under the wall. This is true, they could indeed – and that would push the price up even higher. Added to which, in the case of some rivers, where water can go, human beings could possibly fit through as well, thereby making the wall ineffective in stopping at least some illegal immigrants. In a nightmare scenario, there could be some Mexicans would try to crawl through the tunnels, get stuck and drown or suffocate. And if some heartless Trump supporters are thinking “Good job too.”, consider that may actually be water flowing into the USA for drinking or the irrigation of crops, which would then be contaminated.

Would a wall even be effective? One of the biggest problems facing the USA is drug-trafficking across the border from Mexico. A wall, no matter how high, is not going to stop that. Many years ago the paranormal magazine Fortean Times ran a story of an increasing number of UFO sightings in New Mexico, which turned out to be drug gangs in Mexico ingeniously firing home-made rockets across the border, with the nose-cones packed with drugs. Since then, the Mexican drug barons have turned to using RPGs, bazookas, high-powered rifles, air cannon, and more recently drones to deliver their shipments across the border. How does now stop that? Even more border patrol officers, at an ever-increasing hike to the US taxpayer?

Some may say that the wall will stop illegal immigrants from crossing on foot or by road vehicle. It may well do. But then, approximately 40% of undocumented immigrants into the USA arrive by air, and overstay business or tourist visas. It does not take a genius to work out that if you block one approach, then obviously the number entering by air and overstaying their welcome is going to increase dramatically. And for those who cannot afford visas, the Gulf of Mexico lies to the east of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean lies to the west, both offering the ever-tempting means of entering by water. How does one stop that? Even more border patrol officers going on the public payroll? Just where does this stop? And apart from rising costs, with some of the poorest Mexicans trying to get into the USA by water, that could lead to both an increase in people-trafficking, and people drowning as they try to cross into the USA on poorly-constructed vessels. Does the USA really want to see a humanitarian crisis in the Gulf of Mexico similar to that currently happening in the Mediterranean? I certainly know my many American friends would never want to see that happen.

So if a 1000 mile long, 40 foot high, multi-billion dollar wall is going to be impractical, in financial, legal, physical, and logistical terms, which could ultimately cost many human lives, and could see the USA ostracised by the international community, just why is Donald Trump so very intent on building it? I think you only need to look at his own words to find the answer to that, and sorry America, but you've been duped.

Donald Trump has said that “it's going to be a fantastic wall”, and also that “one day it's going to be named after me”. There's your answer. Trump does not want this wall to keep out illegal immigrants, nor to stop drug-trafficking, because it can do neither. Instead it is an expensive vanity project from his already outrageous ego; he wants to build something akin to the Great Wall of China, which will called The Trump Wall for generations to come, long after he is dead and gone (which may be a while yet – only the good die young), and US voters have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.

In the UK in the 19^th century, there was a fashion for the rich to build outlandish, expensive, and often useless structures – they were known as follies. “Trump Folly” may be a much better name for his ridiculous wall.

It is far from funny however, as it may very well yet escalate beyond $100 billion, and it may still be under construction long after the end of Donald Trump's presidency, even in the extremely unlikely event of him gaining a second term.

Wherever walls have been built as boundaries – Berlin, Belfast 'Peace' Walls, Israel/Palestine – they have come in for international criticism, and quite rightly so. In building this wall Donald Trump will bring shame upon the USA, and I for one am angry about that. As I have many good American friends, I know that most Americans are good, kind, caring people, who most certainly do not deserve the condemnation which their country already sees worldwide, nor to have that exacerbated just because a narcissistic, spoiled, petulant child in the Oval Office feels he needs his ego massaged.

And no, America, Mexico will not be paying to build it, and certainly not to maintain and patrol it. Despite all of Trump's promises to cut taxes, each and every US taxpayer will be paying for the building, maintenance, and patrolling of Donald Trump's monument to his own ego for many decades to come.

Have a nice day!

Your Horoscope Says You're a Gullible Idiot

WAY too many shrooms!

“Today's Birthday: Loved ones will be grateful if you don't spit while blowing out the candles on your cake."

(Al Jaffee, MAD Guide to Horoscopes)

Sitting on a bus, somewhat bored one evening, I picked up a copy of that doyen of free right-wing gutter rags, the Metro. Having got through the shit 'reporting', the compulsory “SNP BAD!” story of what everyone else knew - “Nicola rules out indyref2 for this year” - the bad science scaremongering - “Visitor warning after virus breaks out at cancer centre” / “Asthma link to mums who took drugs for heartburn” - the gossip pages which I never read, the deeply unfunny 'comedians', and the vertigo-inducing letters of their knuckledragger readership, my eyes lighted on the horoscopes.

Now I don't normally look at these things, but decided that evening to do so, just for a larf to see what bullshit had been written for my birthsign, Leo (Jul 24 – Aug 23). This is what I found;

The cosmic backdrop suggests a number of opportunities can emerge which might all have some appeal. Therefore, if the way ahead regarding one of them appears temporarily blocked, you may have more luck with the others.

“What the F?” I thought, “That could apply to ANYBODY, at many given times in their life.” And of course, we all, frequently come up against obstacles, and go for the alternatives to them, all the time. Talk about general? What makes that so special for Leos?

So, having had a laugh at that, with their astrologer being so general, I decided to see what they had for the rest. Please note this is copied verbatim, and I take absolutely no responsibility for the bad grammar throughout.

Virgo (Aug 24 – Sep 23):

Though you might be keen to explore various opportunities, it may be better to see how things pan out. You could be drawn into a project that speaks to you on a passionate level and that can be very good for you.

“Errmmm,” thought I, “did I not just read exactly the same for Leo, only worded somewhat differently?” Oh, this was too good a laugh. I decided to go right through the Zodiac.

Libra (Sep 24 – Oct 23)

Jupiter's ties encourage you to move in different circles. You may find mingling with those from other backgrounds and ideas and opinions that differ from your own quite liberating.

Scorpio (Oct 24 – Nov 22)

If something you want to buy isn't available right now, it might not be such a bad thing. If you snap up an item on impulse, it may be just as well to keep any receipts to hand, as you could find it may not be quite what you thought.

Sagittarius (Nov 23 – Dec 21)

If you've managed to stick with your routine, you're doing well. It may be tempting to linger with friends to delay getting down to key activities. Another tie associated with a home situation suggests a discussion might be required.

Capricorn (Dec 22 – Jan 20)

It can seem that you're being encouraged to move in a certain direction. You may feel reluctant to do so, even though you think it may be good for you. Why? Well, the stars prompt you to move out of your comfort zone but you may not feel ready yet.

Aquarius (Jan 21 – Feb 19)

There may be lots of reasons why your attention is drawn in different directions, but today you might find this rewarding. Holding different tasks and liaising with various people can see you making new connections.

Pisces (Feb 20 – Mar 20)

The coming days can see you looking more closely at your goals and thinking about which of them inspires you. You might find one of them calls out to you so much you could see it as a big part of the picture in future.

Aries (Mar 21 – Apr 20)

You may feel inclined to explore exciting ideas rather than focus on tasks which can seem bland in comparison. And with the Moon in Gemini, the chance to multitask might help the hours speed by.

Taurus (Apr 21 – May 21)

The temptation to dismiss an idea that might appear too conservative may be easily done, especially if other more lively options seem to hold promise. However, the further you look into it the more it might appeal. Don't rush into it, though.

Gemini (May 22 – Jun 21)

Your instincts may play a part in a key decision and you could feel compelled to follow a path that might set you apart from friends or certain others. If you do go ahead, it may be as well to persevere, as doing so could work to your benefit.

Cancer (Jun 22 – Jul 23)

Fresh possibilities might see you keen to jump on one idea, perhaps without thinking it through and this may be something to be aware of. A chat with someone close could gift you with a deeper understanding of what really entails.

I'm pretty sure that most of you reading this have noticed exactly what I noticed about all these 'predicitions'; THEY'RE ALL THE BLOODY SAME HOROSCOPE, WORDED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY EACH TIME.

Be it in work, at home, life choices, whateva, each and every one speaks of making choices with regard to directions in life. And really, for all the 'cosmic' mumbo jumbo, in many cases the 'psychic' advises, many times, to talk over or weigh up options. What? Surely if “it's all written in the stars”, then it's already been decided and predestined, and there's not a bloody thing anyone can do to change that?

This is what I intensely dislike about horoscopes; nothing controls your life or your 'fate', if you insist on calling that. I don't believe in fate, except in certain cases...

Admiral Lord Nelson; “Kismet, Hardy, Kismet.”
Sailor No.1; “I always knew his lordship was that way inclined.”

Sailor No.2; “No. 'Kismet', it means fate.”

Sailor No.1; “Well shore, if 'is fate are botehering him, I'll take his boots off.”

From moment to moment there are an infinite number of possible futures each and every one of us can go into. For instance, you could be in bed right now instead of sitting here thinking “What the hell is Les moaning about now?” In the next few moments you could go make a cup of tea, scratch your arse (How did I know you were going to do that? Cos I'm psychic.) or be jumped by your partner for sex (you jammy bastard!), or the ceiling could cave in, or whateva. There is NO set future, NO fate, NO destiny, and NOTHING written in the stars. The Law of Causality completely rules it out.

And what's more, you – dear reader – would not want to have fate, destiny, a predestined set future. For if you did then you would not be in control of your life. You would not be able to make decisions re your future, or if you did, then that would already have been decided.

And this is where the Metro horoscopes completely fall down; for each and every one of them speaks of seeking advice, or hedging your bets (but then they would – all being the same horoscope), but of course, if the stars and planets really had an affect on your life, then it's already been predestined, and there's not a bloody thing you can do about that. And the irony of that of course is that there's absolutely no point in reading your sodding horoscope.

But of course, I am being glib. Many astrologers will point out that newspaper/magazine horoscopes are all hogwash anyway, as you can't generalise about an entire group of people and say that life is going to take them in certain directions. They would argue that everyone has to have their own personal horoscope read. But of course they do, while clearing their throat, and pointing to their advert for personal horoscope forecasts. And do you have any idea what it costs to have a personal horoscope done?

So, do I think there's anything in it at all? Well, our planet is bombarded with cosmic rays all the time, and the pull of gravity from the Moon does have certain affects upon the planet. I would argue that it is perfectly possible that these things can have an affect upon living creatures, including mankind. Scientific studies have claimed that the cycles of the Moon have no affect upon human behaviour. I stick two fingers up to the scientific studies and ask them to go ask any police officer, nurses and doctors in Accident & Emergency, pub bouncers / door staff, or bar staff what happens when a full moon falls over a weekend. I have even known a serving police officer who got swap shifts wherever possible to avoid such periods.

So yes, I do believe that some minor changes to behaviour can temporarily be caused by effects upon the planet. But if anyone is going to tell me that our lives are governed by distant planets in the Solar System, and stars thousands of light years away, then I'm afraid that your head is in conjunction with Uranus.

Wad Ye Really Deny Scots Bairns a Guid Stert - as Weel as Their Birthricht?

The SNP Scottish Government's baby box scheme began yestreen, whaurby aye bairnie born in Scotland wull get a wee box o' useful items tae gie them a guid stert in life.  The baby box stertit in Finland in the 1940s, it hus been adoptit by mony ither countries and it is proven tae cut infant mortality.

Approximately ilka box contains 80 items, amang mony ither things:

a play mat
a changing mat
a digital thermometer
a fleece jacket
several babygrows
a hooded bath towel
a reusable nappy and liners
a baby book
an organic sponge
cot sheets
a mattress
a blanket

Mony agin the SNP government hae condemened the baby box, wi' maist greeting that it's a waste o' taxpayers money, wi' some complaining they ne'er got a box when their bairns were born.  Labour (North British Branch) are complaining there's naething tae support breist feeding.  In fact, the SNP hae an excellent record oan promoting breist feeding, and ane which excels onything Labour did when in power.  Some are alsae saying that the box wull indeed include breist feeding pads.

Some say they dinnae need the box.  Maybe they dinnae, but mony wull, and wi' the huge cost o' sterting a bairn oot, I'm sure maist parents appreciate withe'er help they kin get.  Ane loon snided that the SNP wull 'steal' ony idea as a "vote winner", then claim it wis their ain idea.  Neither First Minister Nicola Sturgeon nor ony SNP MSP hus tried tae claim it wis an SNP idea, but full acknowledge and applaud the Finnish model.  As for winning votes, weel, wi'oot the baby box, the SNP hae a'ready shown how mony votes they kin get in 2015, when they sent 56 oot o' 59 MPs tae Westminster, in 2016, when Scotland returnit an SNP administration tae Holyrood - wi' the highest proportion o' the vote o' a' parties, and the wee snide wull learn how mony votes the SNP kin gain in 2017, when they sweep the board in local authority elections.  Ane daft wummin claimit that the money sud instead hae been used fur gaein parents baby massage classes.

Ony yin reading this, if ye're a unionist, and ye begrude ilka bairn a wee boxfu' o' stuff tae stert them oot, then ye sud think black burnin' shame o' yerseels.

But amang a' the complaints hae been the ane that as ilka box contains a wee poem in the Scots leid, it maun be 'unionist propaganda'.

Thon tells ye a' ye need tae ken aboot maist unionists.  They may claim tae be "Proud to be Scottish, proud to be British", but the fact remains that mony dinnae and wullnae recognise their ain culture.  They dinna recognise Scots as a language.  They wullnae e'en ca' it a dialect o' Inglis, but they claim it is jist 'slang'.

Jist for the information o' the ignoramuses, Scots, like Inglis, owes it's origins tae Anglo-Saxon, and tae a great degree, tae the Norman king, William the Conqueror.

History lesson here.  When Macbeth and killed Duncan I at the Battle o' Lumphanan in 1034, Duncan's sons fled the land for their ain safety; Donald Ban tae Ireland, and Malcolm Ceann Mor ('Big Head') tae England.  In 1057-1058, Malcolm regainit the Scots throne wi' the help of the Sassenachs ('Sassain' is in fact the Gael for 'Saxon'), chief amang them being Earl Siward o' Northumbria.  Sae it wis when the Normans invadit England, and supplanted Sassenach lairds wi' their ain, and seized land, whaur cud the Sasssenachs flee tae whaur they wud be safe?  Why, richt across the border intae Alba, whaur they wad enjoy the protection o' King Malcolm.  As thae Angles spread frae Lothian tae a' corners o' Alba, thae brocht their tongue wi' them, whit assimilated wi' the Briton, Pictish, Norse, and Scots tongues a'ready in use in the land.  It wis aroond a hunnert years later that the Bishop o' Dunkeld bemoanit in a letter (noo preservit in the British Museum) "The kingdome of Alba is becoming known as Scot-lande" (it'll ne'er catch oan).

Sae we see, that Scots didnae grow oot o' the Inglis tongue, but evolvit wi' it's ain influences.  Frae the Norman invasion, Inglis wis influenced wi' Norman French.  It wisnae until the Treaty o' Paris o' 1295, that Scots began tae hae Middle French influences, as weel as the ithers mentioned abune whit hud nae influence at a' oan the Inglis leid.

The Scots leid is a language in it's ain richt.  And jist as oor flag, the Saltire, belangs tae ilka Scot, sae does oor ain tongue, be they nationalist, unionist, or indifferent tae hale matter.  If ye claim tae be a proud Scot but alsae proud tae be British, then pit yir money whaur yir mooth is, and support yir ain culture, instead o' talkin' a wheen o' blethers aboot propaganda, and Scots being "slang".

And maist o' a', the Scots leid belangs tae ilka bairn, and the generations o' them yet tae come.  Sae unionists, if ye claim tae be Scots as weel as British, wad ye really want tae see oor ain tongue eventually die oot, through bairns being denied their birthricht, as weel as a wee box o' things tae halp?  And a' because YE dinnae agree wi' Scots independence and wull resort tae ONY tactic tae attack Scots Nats?

If sae, daur ye still hae the affront tae ca' yerseel a proud Scot?