OUR Lives - OUR Deaths

Alf Thomson, 20 August 1926 ~ 28 March 2009

We are not the property of church or state.

I am writing this on 28 March 2019, the 10^th anniversary of my father’s death.  An experience which had a profound effect upon me and which is burned into my memory for the rest of my life.

My dad had both cancer of the bladder and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.  The steady deteriation in his health over six years, and his death were anything but dignified, and whilst he never said that he wanted to end it all, he had previously in his life said he would never want to linger, and had he known what lay ahead, I am certain it is not a death he would ever have wanted to face.  Dad was never a very athletic man in his later years, but he was blessed with a hugely inventive intelligence.  To this day I am finding things he built, which show a marked genius and which few, myself included, would ever have thought of.  At the end, he was less helpless than a newborn baby.

My sister and I were called to get to the hospital as quickly as possible on 28 March 2009, as our father was sinking, and was not expected to see the day out.  When I arrived, my sister was already there.  Dad was apparently unconscious, his breathing laboured, as the fluid from his own lungs was slowly drowning him.  I took his hand, and although we were told he didn’t know we were there, his fingers feebly tried to tighten on my hand.  For what seemed like an age, we stood by his bedside.  I shall never get the sound out of my head for long as I live.  A gurgling, bubbling sound, for all the world like a child blowing into a bowl of soapy bubbles.  There was a pained look on his face, and he was obviously struggling for breath.  He was given an injection to ease his breathing, which made things a little easier for him.  His breathing shallowed, and his death rattle was more like a sigh.  He was gone.

Amidst my grief, the overwhelming emotion that filled me was relief.  It was over, and nothing and nobody could ever hurt my dad again.  One of the first things I said to my sister was “Whatever happens to me, I will never die like that.”  To this day I stand by those words.  If I am ever in a situation where there is no hope, and things will only get worse, I shall take matters into my own hands before I lose my dignity and independence, even if I have to do it myself.

What does the law say when it says that we cannot choose to end our lives if we feel that it is the only option?  It is effectively saying that our lives are not our own.  That somehow our bodies, our minds, our very existence – our souls if you choose – are not ours; they are the property of the state.  The state is telling us that they own us, and they are doing based on archaic ideas and laws, many of which are religious-based, which have no relevance in an increasingly secular state, where most count themselves as “not religious” at the least, which do not reflect modern medical science, and which are unfit for purpose in the 21^st century.

UK laws surrounding killing are solidly based in Biblical theology, and the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” in particular.  But what does the Sixth Commandment say?  It is effectively saying “You will not commit murder.” or literally translated, “You shall not kill unlawfully.”  That’s fair enough, but where does the distinction between ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ killing fall?  For the record, as a pacifist, I make no such distinction between murder and war.  As far as I am concerned war, whilst sometimes unavoidable, is never just and is merely murder on a mass scale, which society paints as heroic to justify it.   And contrary to what many think, suicide by one’s own hands is no longer an offence in the UK.  It has not been illegal in England and Wales since 3 August 1961, when the Suicide Act 1961 ruled “The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated.”  And in Scotland?  Well, actually in Scots Law it has never been an offence to commit suicide.

There may be some who will quote the Hippocratic Oath, stating “First do no harm.”  Well, bad news for them.  “First do no harm.” does not appear in the Hippocratic Oath, but rather comes from another work by Hippocrates, Of the Epidemics.  Certainly, the Hippocratic Oath does state “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”  This is the key paragraph that is the oath equivalent of “First do no harm.” and would seem to rule out any support for assisted dying (AD).  However, one has to consider what is and is not “deleterious” and what is indeed “for the benefit” of patients.  Besides all which, the Hippocratic Oath in its purest form is an anachronism that is simply unworkable in modern medicine.  One line states, “Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”.  Well, there goes most drugs out of the window immediately.  The Oath forbids abortion, yet it is practiced.  And another clincher is the line “I will not use the knife”, which if the Oath were treated as sacrosanct as some claim it is, there would be no surgeons, and not one operation would ever be carried out.  Indeed, if the Hippocratic Oath were taken to it’s logical conclusion, then your doctor could not as much as lance a boil on your bum.

I am not suggesting that anyone in the medical profession should never seek to do no harm.  People go into medicine because they care about others, none would ever seek to purposely harm another, and for that and the work they do, they have my enormous and undying respect.  However, to do no harm, ever, in medicine is simply not possible.  Some treatments are in fact very harmful in their nature, despite the end result being beneficial to the patient.  Chemotherapy, which destroys healthy cells as well as cancerous ones, is a prime example of such.

Therefore we see that however well intentioned, the Hippocratic Oath is simply unworkable and anachronistic in the modern age.  As every bit as so as the Bronze Age books written by men (and I do mean men – people with penises) who were trying to make sense of the world around them, and who had zero in the way of scientific knowledge.

The entire issue comes down to the question of the quality of life, and that is different for every individual.  There is only one person who is the expert upon the quality of any given life, and that is the individual concerned, nobody else.

When there is no hope left, when the individual only faces further pain and torment, when they are going to lose all dignity, then there is no more quality of life, and it thereby ceases to be “sacred”.  Under such circumstances it should be the right of the individual to make the decision when to end that life, and there should be provision within healthcare to assist in those wishes.

When the question of terminal diseases and assisted dying comes up, many say that we would not allow an animal to suffer in such a way, and ask so why should we allow it in a human being.  This is a fundamental truth, but I do not think many realise the full enormity of that observation.  When an animal is suffering and in pain, it does not understand what is happening or why.  It is confused and knows only the pain of that moment, and wants it to stop.  Human beings however are sapient creatures.  When we are diagnosed with an illness or condition, we are informed of the facts of such, given a prognosis, and as it progresses, we have the foresight to know what is yet to come, and if it is terminal, that it can only get worse, with more pain.  To subject any human being already suffering to that form of terror is cruelty of the highest order, and to refuse them the option to avoid that is the most abject hypocrisy.

And the mind is an important point here.  When people speak of assisted dying, they immediately think of terminal diseases of the body.  Yet there may be an argument that mental torment may be grounds for assisted dying, and indeed, there is a precedent for this.  Nathan Verhelst was a Belgian transgender man who was assigned female at birth, but who identified as male from an early age.  Due to familial and societal pressures, Nathan never came out until he was in his 30s, and after living as a man for a number of years, finally underwent gender reassignment surgery in his 40s.  However, the surgery went terribly wrong.  First his double mastectomy was horribly botched, leaving him with terrible scars, and then his body rejected his newly formed penis, which had to be removed.  The doctors informed him that nothing more could be done, so faced with living the remainder of his life, which could be up to 40 years, as neither biologically male nor female, Nathan instead decided that death held less horrors, and opted for assisted dying.  He passed away by lethal injection on 1 October 2013. aged 44.

The case of Nathan Verhelst is tragic, and unbelievably sad.  Some have said that he should have been given more psychiatric therapy.  He was already in therapy, and just how could any therapist empathise with Nathan’s circumstances?   Are there any therapists, anywhere in the world, similarly “neutered”?  Who are faced with a life of being neither male nor female?  The facts are that the grounds for Nathan Verhelst’s euthanasia were that he was suffering “unbearable psychological suffering” and it was under those grounds that the Belgian courts allowed his assisted dying.  And the important point here is that in the end it was Nathan’s decision.  His body, his life; he chose to retain his dignity and do with that body and life as he saw fit.

The entire question of where the mind comes into assisted dying must therefore be taken into account.  It beggars belief that in this day and age we still seem to consider mental conditions to somehow be considered to be of lesser importance to physical ailments.  I once heard a psychologist being interviewed who summed it up; that the brain is an organ, every bit as important as any other organ in the body.  Therefore, when the mind is injured or impaired, then that effectively is a physical injury.  I would actually go further, and suggests that as our minds are what make us, then any impairment or injury to the mind is more important than a physical injury.  After all, most of us could live with losing a limb, but it is the mind alone that would make us realise that limb was missing.  Likewise, the very question about AD is one of dignity, yet dignity is purely a mental construct, and one which is unique to every individual’s perception of such.  Therefore psychological issues must be given as much credence for grounds for assisted dying as physical ones.

There are many who object to assisted dying on various grounds.  There are those of religious persuasions who will be quick to cry out that “All life is sacred”, and that it is a “gift from God”.  Well, sorry (not sorry) but as I have pointed out above, when quality of life is gone, that life ceases to be ‘sacred’.  And as to their god, an increasing number of people in the UK do not even believe in that god, by seeking to maintain the law, they are imposing their beliefs upon others, which happens to be against both the UN Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as completely against basic human dignity.  To put it bluntly, if you believe in a god, then as happy as you are in that, it is not your place to enforce those beliefs upon others who do not share nor have any interest in them, and what others do with their lives is none of your damned business.

There are some will claim, and the God squad are infamous for this, that dying can be dealt with by increased palliative care.  They could not be more wrong, and anyone who claims this has obviously never witnessed someone at the limits of palliative care.  I know it to be wrong, because I have witnessed it with my own eyes.  While my dad was given something to ease his breathing, which worked, no further medication could be given.  Besides which, prolonging palliative care only means prolonging the suffering of the patient.  So much for “First do no harm.”  And here comes the perverse part; when a patient has reached the limits of palliative care, doctors cannot and may not administer any more medication – in cases it kills the patient.

There are some who claim that assisted dying could lead to a “slippery slope”, whereby more and more people are euthanised for the slightest of reasons, or coerced into choosing AD.  The anti-AD proponents often point to the Netherlands, where it is legal for parents to opt for AD for children.  However, this does not take into account the facts that in those cases the children are in extreme suffering and can only be allowed to die if parents and medical professionals agree that is the best course of action.  The opponents of AD citing the Netherlands may as well campaign for no child to have a “DNR” notice on their file, or for parents to have the right to switch life support machines off.

Then there is the “killing granny” argument that many come up with, that the elderly may be coerced into opting for assisted dying, to prevent them becoming a ‘burden’ upon their family.  Throughout this article, I have continually emphasised that only the individual is the expert upon their life, and has any right what to do with it.  This is the line which most proponents of AD take; that it is a decision that should not be taken lightly, and must be taken only if one is of sound mind.  I would suggest that any elderly person who can be coerced into AD is definitely not “of sound mind”.  And actually, the only instance I have ever seen of anyone suggesting that the elderly and infirm should kill themselves was from Baroness Warnock.  Baroness Warnock is a Peer (member of the House of Lords in the UK parliament) from the Conservative Party; the very party which claims to be “Christian”, and stand steadfastly against AD.  In 2013, Warnock suggested that elderly and infirm people should consider AD, to prevent them becoming a burden upon their families and society – her ‘complaint’ being that they survived on government benefits.  Baroness Warnock was 90 years old at the time, and I sent her a Tweet suggesting that as her income comes from the taxpayer, perhaps she should lead by example.

If properly regulated, with extremely stiff penalties for abuse, there is no reason why a system of assisted dying could not work in the UK.  Would it be abused?  The evidence of such happening in countries that allow AD is flimsy at best, and non-existent in some countries.  But then, anything can be abused.  We allow people to drink alcohol and eat unhealthy foods, that doesn’t mean people are not going to kill themselves by them. 

On 21 March 2019 the Royal College of Physicians dropped its long-term opposition to assisted dying, with the president stating that the college “neither supports nor opposes a change in the law”.  It’s a small step, but it is an important one as it is the first step towards AD in the UK, which the majority of people polled support.

It particularly angers me that the late, great Margo MacDonald, a Member of the Scottish Parliament who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, twice put Bills on assisted dying before the devolved parliament, and both occasions the parliament threw her motions out, without even debating them.  Margo, one of the best-known, and best-loved stateswomen in Scottish politics, died without her proposals ever even being discussed.  Most polls have placed public support for AD in Scotland to be around 65% in favour, while one in particular returned 75% in favour.  That’s three quarters of the electorate.  In Scotland there is a 700-year-old principle that sovereignty rests solely with the people; not parliament, nor the crown.  This is one area where I am both disappointed in and angry at the Scottish National Party administration for failing the people and ignoring their sovereign rights.

Do not get me wrong.  Life is precious, I enjoy it enormously, always have done, and I have absolutely no wish to shuffle off this mortal coil just yet.  However, I have always been of the view that death holds no horrors.  I actually don’t think that most people are afraid of death, but more of the fashion in which they die.  As the years advance, I increasingly frightened of becoming feeble, helpless, of losing my independence – of losing whom I ‘am’.  That prospect absolutely terrifies me.  Therefore, I would make it clear right here and now that should the worst come to the worst, I and I alone should have the right over what becomes of my life and what to do with it, and should I choose to end it, then there should be the resources in place to do that, at the hands of medical professionals, who are best placed to end life peacefully and painlessly.

Am I angry?  You bet I’m angry.  I am angry, even 10 years later, at what the state did to a man I loved dearly.  How it made my dad suffer.  How it robbed him off all dignity.  How it assumed ownership of his very person and continued to harm him long after that suffering should have ended.  For that I cannot, and I shall not, ever forgive them.  Even if I were offered an apology, I still wouldn’t forgive them.  I simply can’t.

Our lives are just that; ours.  They are not the property of the state, far less of the Christian churches, or of any other religious belief for that matter.  As such, it should the right of every single individual ultimately what to do with their life.

To argue any otherwise is to deny our own personal independence - our very existence, who we are - itself.

The Independence Movement's Most Dangerous Enemy

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

Ourselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women are NEVER to Blame for Sexual Assault

Notice the length of that dress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordan Peterson

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

This Scot Does Not Want St Andrew's Day as a National Holiday

Who is this Stan Drew anyway?

I am a proud Scot.  I know my country's history, I embrace it's culture, and I campaign for Scottish independence.  I also say a firm NO to making St Andrew's Day a public holiday.  Many may wonder why this should be.

30 November, St Andrew's Day, is the feast day of Scotland's Patron Saint.  In 2017 that is an anachronism, particularly in a Scotland which at the least pays small regard to religion, and at the most may be overwhelmingly atheist.  A Survation Poll carried out by the Humanist Society Scotland in September 2017 produced some staggering results, which surprised even this hardened old atheist.

In the study of 1,016 Scots adults, a whacking 72.4% - almost three quarters - said they were not religious, and 58% said they did not belong to a religion.  These figures were up quite considerably from the previous one in 2011, when 58% said they were not religious.

Scotland, unlike England, is not even an officially Christian country.  England has the Church of England as the state religion, with the monarch as it's head.  It has been this way ever since King Henry VIII of England established the Church of England in 1534, with himself as the head of it.  The Church of Scotland, disestablished in 1929, has always been fiercely Presbyterian and recognises no intercessor between mankind and God.  Even Queen Elizabeth II, although Queen of Scots in her own right, when attending church in Scotland enjoys no special privilege or position within Kirk hierarchy, but does so purely as any other parishioner.

And just as Scotland is not officially a Christian country, neither can it be said to be so culturally any more.  Not only due to the overwhelming number of those who count themselves as not religious, but by the dint of now being a multicultural country, which means we are also a multi-faith country.

The Scotland 2011 Census showed that after Christianity, the next largest named religion is Islam, with 77,000 followers (1.4% of the population), then Hindu with 16,000 (0.3%), Buddhist (not a religion but a belief system with no creator gods) at 13,000 (0.2%), Sikh at 9,000 (0.2%), and Jewish with 6,000 (0.1%). Apart from those named religions, 15,000 stated they were of "Another Religion" (0.3%).

Yet despite this, on St Andrew's Day 2017, the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, gave her St Andrew's Day message, speaking of the charity of Saint Andrew, and using that message to announce plans to eradicate homelessness in Scotland.

Whilst I wish the First Minister the best of luck, and support her wholeheartedly in that endeavour, it would appear that in Scotland the Christian tail is wagging the atheist / multi-faith dog.  Having St Andrew's Day as a national holiday could only ever exacerbate that.

If there is one thing I think every Scot - Nat, Unionist, or indifferent - can be very proud of, it is just how very welcoming we are.  How we are a multicultural society who takes the world in and makes them our own.  If we were to have a national holiday based on a Christian saint's day, how can we ever claim to be multicultural or accepting?  The simple answer is we cannot.

What would people do on St Andrew's Day anyway?  I am writing this on 30 November 2017, and I had to take a day off work because of workmen coming.  What have I done?  Well, it is bloody freezing outside, so apart from running along the shops for some provisions, and darting back to the house damned quick, I spent most of it on social media, and doing some online Christmas shopping.

Trust me, that's what Scotland would do with a national holiday at the end of November; Christmas shopping.

There should be a national holiday to celebrate Scotland, but St Andrew's Day is not it.  I for one propose 6 April.

6 April was the day in 1320 upon which the lords of Scotland signed the Declaration of Arbroath; a letter to Pope John XXII, asserting Scotland's right as a free nation, and asking him to recognise that, and Robert the Bruce as King of Scots.  The declaration contains the well-known paragraph Sir Bernard de Linton penned, which stirs the heart of every Scot worthy of calling themselves such;

"For so long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never shall we, upon any condition, be subject to the dominion of the English.  It is in truth, not for money, nor honour, nor gold we are fighting, but for liberty alone, that which no good man lays down, but with his life itself."

In 1999, New York City celebrated 6 April as "Tartan Day".  Since then, Tartan Day events have spread across the USA, celebrating Scots culture; yet Scotland has nothing similar.

I say that Scotland adopts this date for a national holiday, perhaps calling it "Declaration Day"  Being at the start of April, it is at the beginning of Spring, which may afford us better weather for a national holiday.  People will certainly be in better spirits as the days are getting longer, and it would resurrect the spirit of the Spring Galas of the past.  It would be a day that everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof, culture, background, could get involved in, if they count themselves to be a Scot; born here of long lineage, born of immigrant stock, or who has come here and counts themselves as an "adoptive Scot" (we certainly adopt any and all of you).

And no, before anyone says it, it would not be "anti-English".  The Wars of Independence were of Scots fighting for freedom against tyranny, not against the English through any imagined hatred.  Strange as it may seem, you can celebrate your country's history without hating countries we once fought.

So, let us have our Declaration Day, 6 April, as a national holiday, and keep St Andrew's Day for it's dwindling number of believers, and for Christmas shopping.

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.