Gender Self-ID is happening - and it is important to Scotland

This year the Scottish Government shall implement changes to the Gender Recognition Act, 2004, under which transgender and non-binary people in Scotland shall be able to self-identify as transgender, and this right shall be extended to 16-17 year olds, who will be able to self-identify without parental consent.  This has been a long time coming.  The initial moves towards this began in 2016, and it has been progressing through the Scottish Parliament, where it had cross-party support, and has gone through the mandatory consultation period, where 60% agreed to the proposals.

Although the change to legislation has the support of many LGBT, family and youth organisations and charities, and other austere bodies, it has nonetheless come in for severe criticism from some others.  Many of those objecting are either at best misinformed, or at worst openly hostile towards transgender people.

Contrary to what many in society think, our gender is not determined by our biological sex; that is the sexual organs we are born with.  And what is more, as contradictory as this may seem, sexual genitalia in itself does not have a gender.  Most people identify as the gender they are assigned at birth, pertaining to their biological sex according to their sexual organs; these people are ‘cisgender’, from the Latin word cis, meaning “on this side of”.  However some others do not identify with the gender they are assigned at birth, but identify with the opposite side of the traditional gender binary, and are therefore ‘transgender’, from the Latin trans, meaning “on the opposite side of”.  Then there are people who can identify with both sides, and are thus ‘non-binary’, those who do not identify with any fixed gender and are thereby ‘genderfluid’, those who can identify with all genders who are ‘pangender’, and even those who do not identify with any gender, and are thereby ‘agender’.

I have only mentioned a few genders above, but the fact is, as absurd as some think it is, science is just discovering that there are a great plethora of genders.  This supports the science as we understand it, that biological sex does not and never has determined gender.   It is not yet known if we are born identifying with any particular gender, or whether it is environmental, emotional, and other factors which determine such, but there is one thing which is irrefutable; gender is decided by the mind.  As a transgender man friend of mine put it simply, “Sex occurs between the legs.  Gender occurs between the ears.”

Those who do not identify with their biological sex / birth gender are identified as having gender dysphoria; a recognised medial / psychological condition whereby “a person experiences discomfort or distress because there’s a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.” (NHS).  This condition is most notable in transgender people, but is also often prevalent among non-binary and genderfluid people, as well as those of other genders.

Gender diversity is never easy to understand.  Far from it, it can be a minefield, and I may even make mistakes in this article.  But the facts remain that we are not all either male nor female, and certainly not determined by what dangly bits we may or may not have, and to identify with another gender is not an illness, it is not a crime, and it certainly does not invalidate anyone’s identity.

Under the law as it stands, if a transgender person wants to officially change their gender on official documentation, which starts with their birth certificate, then they must apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).  To do so is a lengthy process.  Firstly they must live under the gender they identify as for at least two years, and this is only recognised for those aged 18 or over.  The applicant then must undergo examinations by a (usually cisgender) medical professional to diagnose gender dysphoria, and must then make their application, including their diagnosis, to a (usually cisgender) panel in London for a GRC, along with their payment for a GRC.  This panel usually grants a GRC, but it is worth noting that it is equally within their power to refuse them.

The current system is thereby deemed by transgender people to be unfair and deeply intrusive into private lives, where government has absolutely no business being, and where cisgender people – mostly men – can rule over the gender of others, and charge for that privilege.  No wonder that some transgender people call the GRC a “Trans Tax”.  Where younger transgender people are concerned, we can immediately see how the law is deeply skewed against them, and that they cannot actually outwardly display their identified gender until at least the age of 20.  These faults with the GRC are precisely why self-ID is so badly needed, and why Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, has promoted it to bring Scotland into line with “international best practice”.

While the majority of respondents to the consultation period were in favour of self-ID, it has nonetheless had its detractors, some of whom have been very vocal in their opposition.  One of the greatest concerns is that self-ID may lead to sexually predatory men dressing as women to gain access to female “safe spaces”, such as public toilets and changing rooms.  I am not for one moment going to dismiss this, or pretend that it does not happen.  But I would ask those with such concerns to look at those countries that already have self-ID.   Canada, Ireland, Portugal, Malta Belgium, Norway, and Denmark have all had Self-ID for some time, and with no significant increase in sexual assaults.  This is because far from being just ‘men in dresses’, transgender women are to all intents and purposes women, and just like women, merely want to pee.  What is more, given that women’s toilets have stalls with locking doors, the chances are that many detractors probably have already shared a toilet with a transgender woman, and never known it.  Spare a thought for transgender men who have not had gender reassignment surgery, and who using a public toilet, will be faced with one locking stall, which could be occupied, and a row of urinals.

Add to this that the vast majority of sexual assaults in toilets are already carried out by cisgender men, and far from being carefully planned, are mostly on the spur of the moment.  Strange as it may seem, a little silhouetted sign of a figure in a dress (why is she bald?) is no deterrent to predatory men.  The men who carry out these attacks tend to be full of toxic masculinity – many are in fact downright misogynists with a pathological hatred of women – and to imagine that such ‘macho’ men would even consider dressing as women to gain entry to toilets is to stretch credulity to its limits.  So, while the vast majority of those carrying out sexual assaults upon women in toilets are cisgender men, who do you reckon make up the second highest offenders?  Other cisgender women, that’s who.  Are we then to allow only one woman into a public loo at a time?

The issue of changing rooms, particularly in schools and colleges, particularly in schools and colleges, is admittedly more complex, not least because not all have cubicles for changing.  According to the National Education Union (NEU), who advise educational establishments on transgender-inclusive policies, the best policy is to provide alternative or gender-neutral facilities when there are no cubicle facilities available, but that “It is not necessary to make all toilet facilities gender neutral however, because some students will prefer single-sex toilets.” and they add “The young person should not in any case be told that they must use the changing rooms that correspond with the gender they were assigned at birth.”  Should anyone think this unfair, then consider how you would react if you, or your child, were told you could not use a shared changing room because of some aspect of your personality.

Where there are still schools and colleges where changing rooms do not have cubicles, this therefore has to change.  Creating separate facilities for transgender and non-binary individuals is in itself not an answer, because that only further marginalises those use them, and identifies them as targets for attacks.  Likewise, making everything gender-neutral is not an answer either, as far from deterring predators, such facilities would only exacerbate the problem.  There are those who try to argue that refurbishing or rebuilding current changing rooms would be costly.  The simple answer to that is creating separate or gender-neutral facilities would cost even more.  Of course, there are some who will completely disregard the latter argument, because they simply don’t want to acknowledge the existence of transgender people.

Some who object to self-ID are quick to point to the case of Karen White, a transgender woman (and yes, she is transgender) sexually assaulted two women in New Hall Prison in England.  However, Karen White was already a known paedophile and rapist, who had been jailed for grievous bodily harm, multiple rapes, and other sexual assaults against women, and placing her with cisgender women was wholly the fault of the prison authorities.  White was moved to a men’s prison in Leeds, and underwent gender reassignment surgery.  So yes, Karen White is a transgender woman, who is also a sexual predator.  This no more makes all transgender people sexual predators than it makes all cisgender men such, despite the fact that cis men carry out the vast amount of sexual assaults.  But then compare that to Scotland, where the Scottish Prison Service already assign places according to self-ID, have done since 2010 – almost 10 years – and with no reported sexual assaults by men ‘pretending’ to be women.  Hmm.  I don’t hear the detractors being so loud about that little fact.

Therefore, one case in England of a transgender woman who is a known sexual predator that women and children are not safe from does not outweigh the many transgender prisoners in Scottish prisons who have never presented any problems.  The problem here is not with gender but rather with sexual assault, which is no respecter of gender boundaries.  There is not the room here to go into them in detail, but there are more than plenty case studies of homosexual assaults in prison by male cisgender prisoners, and indeed, by cisgender women prisoners on other prisoners.

Despite all these arguments, there are still people, mostly but not always women, who still stand against self-ID.  But then these same people seek to deny the very existence of transgender people in the first place.

The biggest mistake that most of them make is to wrongly equate gender with biological sex, when the two are clearly not one and the same thing.  Many are quick to state, “XX equals female, and XY equals male”, as if their high school biology is the be-all and end-all of gender identity, or even for that matter, of biology.  In fact, this “gender binary” is not always the case.  There are in fact many human beings who do not have the standard number of chromosomes.  Some have more, others have fewer.  “XXXY Syndrome”, otherwise known as “Third Gender” effects one in 50,000 males, whereby they are born with two extra X chromosomes. 

Some will go further and flatly state, “If you have a penis you are male, and you have a vagina, you are female.  It’s simple as that.”  Again, wrong, as the very existence of intersex individuals – those born with sexual organs of both sides of the gender binary – clearly illustrates.  A 2015 study by Eric Vilian of the Center for Gender Based Biology at UCLA found a great number of “Differences of Sexual Development” (DSD), which included a 46-year-old woman having her third child, whose cells were found to carry 50% male chromosomes, and a 70-year-old father of three, undergoing a hernia operation, who was found to have a uterus.  Dr Vilian’s study have estimated that those with DSDs could be as high as 1in every 100 people.

So much for the biology we all learned in school.  But even if the detractors were correct, this still does not get away from the fact that biological sex does not constitute gender.  And how do these transphobes – let’s call them what they are, as much as they deny it (in the same way some people say “I’m not a racist, but…”) – respond to these facts?  Some will state that those with less or more chromosomes are a “minority”.  So therefore they don’t count somehow?  And 1 in 100 is some “minority”.  Some will outright deny the science, some will reply – and I have actually more or less read this – “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”   And some will more or less shove their fingers in their ears and shout “LA, LA, LA, LA , LA!  I’M NOT LISTENING!”

Really?  Is that your reply to reams upon reams of peer-reviewed scientific research, now going back decades?  To deny it, say minorities don’t matter, make out it’s a conspiracy, and/or simply not listen?  If that’s your view, then you may as well go and join the young earth creationists who say their god created the Earth 6000 years ago, the evolution deniers, the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, and the flat earthers, because you are demonstrating precisely the same level of wilful ignorance (aka “stupidity”) as all of the above do.

The main thing that worries me about the whole self-ID debate is the way it has been hijacked by outright transphobes, who not only do not want self-ID, but completely deny the very existence of transgender people.  I have seen Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) use a dictionary definition of “female” in a feeble attempt to back up their argument; “belonging or relating to the sex that gives birth to young, produces eggs, etc”.  Yet the same women using such a narrow definition conveniently ignore an alternative definition under the same heading in the dictionary; “belonging or relating to, or characteristic of, a woman”, and that definition could very easily pertain to transgender women.  But even then, in using the first definition, the TERFs automatically discount women who for medical reasons cannot give birth or produce eggs.  Are they not “real women”?   Or don’t they count because they are a minority?  Even if that were the case, such a definition must also discount every woman who reaches the age where they can no longer procreate.  Are even they, once they stop menstruating, no longer “female”?  See the dangers of attempting to define gender purely on biological sex?

A side note here.  I have been told that I should not use the term “TERF” nowadays, as it is apparently ‘derogatory’ (for… …reasons).  Well, tough titty.  The fact is that the term was started by women who self-identified as TERFs, and given that I am talking of people who show extreme prejudice towards one of the most vulnerable sections of society, do excuse me for not sparing a thought for their hurt feels.

I have made mention throughout this article to those opposed to transgender people, but one may notice that the emphasis has been upon transgender women.  There is a very good reason for this.  Mostly it is transgender women and girls which transphobes target.  Rarely you will find them making any reference to transgender men.  There are some who do so however.  I have read and seen videos of TERFs who claim that transgender men who are not at all transgender, but that they are in fact lesbians who have been conditioned to think as men by “the patriarchy” (because of course, we men – who are supposedly all sexual predators – obviously want a planet completely inhabited by men).  Again we see this instance of denying the very existence of transgender people.

Gay men in a Nazi concentration camp

When any society dismisses one section within that society, because they are ‘merely a minority’, when they persecute that section because they do not fit in with their mindset, and worst of all, when they deny their very existence, that society is going down a very dangerous road indeed.  And we need not look very far to see the end result of what happens in those circumstances; we need only look to Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.  Indeed, even in the modern day, we need only look to Chechnya, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and many other countries, where LGBT people are openly persecuted, often to death.

And yes, transphobes and TERFs, I did just liken you to Nazis, and I make absolutely no apologies for doing so.  For when you treat transgender people as any less than human, when you attempt to strip them of their identity, of their dignity, and their basic human rights, then you are behaving in precisely the same way the Nazis did to the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, the mentally disabled, and of course, among others, LGBT people.

Not that I am calling everyone worried about self-ID a Nazi.  My vitriol is not for those with genuine concerns, and / or who are willing to learn, but those who despite all the evidence, absolutely refuse to learn, but are only intent on spreading their own hatred.  And it pleases me to say to such that self-ID is a reality, and it is happening this year, and nothing they say or do is going to stop that.   Get used to it.

Nicola Sturgeon

But I feel that there is something bigger at play here.  Self-ID is yet another step in a plethora of positive moves by Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP Scottish Government which have enhanced the lives of women, the elderly, the young, children, LGBT people, the disabled, the poor, and many more.  I believe that Nicola Sturgeon has a vision of a Scotland yet to come.  An independent Scotland which as fair and equitable for all, where the value of all are recognised, and where none are left behind.   It could be argued, and I believe, that the First Minister is laying the groundwork for that independent Scotland.

I share that vision, as I think the vast majority of the independence movement do.  And it is an achievable vision, but one which neither Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP can deliver alone.  It will take us, all of us, to play our part and help create the fully integrated Scotland which we all seek.  We are not only parts of the jigsaw, we are the jigsaw; all of us are integral parts of the bigger picture, which would not be complete without even one of us.  As Blair Jenkins, the former Chief Executive of Yes Scotland once said that we would get whatever independent Scotland we choose.

If it were ever to happen that we had an independent Scotland where one demographic, or even any individual, were persecuted, maligned, and denied basic human rights purely for being who they are, where even one person is left behind, that in my view would be a free Scotland not worth having.  For as the song goes, "If one of us is chained, none of us are free.”

I Want to Ride my Bicycle

I want to ride it where I like

A story broke recently that Lord Winston shouted at a woman for cycling on a pavement in London.  The woman then shouted abuse back, then stopped, got off her bike, and attacked the 78-year-old peer, kicking her repeatedly while continuing to abuse him verbally.  Lord Winston is now calling for cyclists to carry license numbers, like cars, so that they can be identified.

It was indeed a disgusting and odious attack on an elderly man, but there are some other matters to consider here.

Firstly, when the woman got off her bike, she was no longer a cyclist but a pedestrian.  Had this individual been walking down the street and got into an argument with Lord Winston about anything else, then the likelihood is the outcome would have been exactly the same.  The woman is without a doubt a thuggish moron, and I do hope that police apprehended her soon.

Secondly, another cyclist who saw the incident stopped to ask Lord Winston if he was all right, and then gave a statement to police.  Whilst Lord Winston is busy castigating all cyclists – as many people do – he is playing down the fact that it is a cyclist who came to his aid, and helped the police.

Thirdly, and this may surprise many, contrary to popular belief it is not illegal to cycle on pavements.  It is certainly an antisocial practice, and one that I personally frown upon, but there is and never has been anything in law to stop cyclists from cycling on pavements.

When this story was being debated on LBC Radio, it attracted the usual uninformed motorists mouthing off, thinking they are sure of their facts, when they actually could not be more mistaken.

Chief among these was the old war cry that cyclists should pay Road Tax (actually irrelevant to the story, as the cyclist was on a pavement), with the usual “It’s my road.  I paid for it.”

Let’s put this one to bed once and for all.  You do not pay Road Tax.  You have never paid Road Tax, or if you have, then you are so old then your ability to drive should immediately be called into question.  Why?  Because Road Tax as abolished in 1937.

What motorists call “Road Tax” is actually Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), and it is not even ring fenced for road building and maintenance.  The UK government ran a Road Tax from 1888 to 1937, which was indeed hypothecated (ring fenced) to build up the road network, in the light of the advent of the motor car.  However, in 1937 hypothecation ended, and road building and maintenance was largely passed to local authorities, who maintain that responsibility to this day.  The “Road Tax” thereafter became part of consolidated tax; that is general taxation, which goes directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to spend on whatsoever he sees fit.

In the modern age, VED is based upon vehicle emissions; the more emissions making more environmental damage determining what level of duty the vehicle owner must pay.  Given the amount of emissions which cyclists emit which harm the environment, just exactly what percentage of fuck all would the government like us to pay?

Stirlingshire / Perthshire boundary

As I said above, road building and maintenance is largely the responsibility of local authorities, and is financed out of Council Tax, which we all pay.  This is why when you pass from one local authority area to another, you may notice a change in the road covering, due to differing councils having different road coverings, and times when they are resurfaced.  This also means of course that when a motorist passes out of their own local authority area, they are not on “their roads that they paid for”, but on someone else’s roads that they paid for.  It also means that within my local authority area they are also my roads, and as such I’ll do whatever I want with them – including cycling on them.

I did say that roads are mostly financed from Council Tax, and indeed there are a small number of roads which are funded from central government.  In England these are motorways, some major bypasses, and some road bridges.  And what else do all these have in common?  Cyclists are not allowed on them due to the high speeds and high volumes of road traffic; quite rightly in my opinion.  In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, motorways, major bypasses and some road bridges are funded by the Scottish Government, and the Wales and Northern Ireland assemblies, from the annual block grants which Westminster allots to each.  The City of Edinburgh Bypass and the Queensferry Crossing, for instance, are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, as are all motorways, other major bypasses, and some other road bridges in Scotland.  And again, cyclists cannot use these.

Amidst all the furore we have the complaint of cyclists running red lights.  Yes, some cyclists do.  But not nearly as many as the motorists who do so.   I am not at all making any excuses for cyclists who run through red lights, particularly at pedestrian crossings.  It’s an odious and downright dangerous practice.  However, a 9-10 stone cyclist on a bike of around 30lbs or less is going to do a lot less damage than a car weighing one tonne or more.  In 2016 careless cyclists killed three pedestrians – the only year there have ever been recorded deaths due to collisions with cyclists.  Compare that to the 1,793 people killed on UK roads in 2017, the highest annual total since 2011.  On average, around 1,500 people are killed on UK roads ever year, and nine times out of ten, a motorist is at fault.  Similarly, in over 90% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists, the motorist is at fault.

Allied to this was another complaint I heard that cyclists rarely give signals when they are turning.  Again, they should.  But again, like motorists are innocent in this.  There seems to be an increasing trend among motorists who think that their indicators are either an optional extra, or that they should only use them once they have started turning.  Not to mention the clots who change their mind, signal one way, and then turn the other.  I have lost count of the number of times I have almost come a cropper, both on my bike and on foot, due to these very instances.  And do some motorists actually know what some cyclist hand signals have.  I have on more than one occasion put out my right hand, pointing my finger, and made a circular motion, indicating a motorist behind me to overtake, only for them to stay behind me.  Likewise, at junctions I have held my right hand straight up, indicating I’m going straight ahead, only to be cut up by motorists who thought I was turning.  I know the Highway Code, guys.  I suggest you try reading it.

"Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavements,
they should stick to their own cycle lanes!"

Why don’t we use cycle paths when they are provided?  Well, if they are on-road cycle lanes, we will use them – if we can.  But often we cannot, because there are cars parked at the roadside right over them, which means we have to ride “high side” to get past them.  Similarly, in city centres we have to make allowances on on-road cycleways for delivery vehicles and taxis picking up or setting down parked across them.

As to off-road cycleways, they are not always convenient to get where you need to go, but even when they are, they can present their own problems.  Another story, which broke on the same day as the assault on Lord Winston, was that of three cyclists in Edinburgh being pushed into the Union Canal as they cycled along the towpath.  Some brain-dead thugs seem to think it’s a laugh to do this.  However, it is downright dangerous, and given that the canal is deep enough to allow boats to pass, it could end in someone’s death.  Similarly, there have been instances of cyclists being “bikejacked” on off-road paths; forced off their bikes and having them stolen from them.  This can be a particular problem on some disused railway paths with tunnels.  Some idiots also think it is funny to tie string across off-road paths, and this has caused more than a few injuries in one area of Edinburgh.   Then there is the problem of idiots driving motorbikes, and even cars, on off-road paths.  I have personally witnessed both of the latter.  Littering and fly-tipping can be a huge problem in some areas.  I have on more than one occasion had to repair punctures due to going over broken glass on the same path, and am always wary in that area.  And I’d like to know why fly-tippers think that old railway cuttings are a municipal dump.  Not only do I often have to perform a chicane around rubbish, one time I was almost hit by an old fridge some moron had just launched down a cutting.  And who’s doing the fly-tipping?  People in fucking cars and vans, that’s who.  We’ll start using the paths when you stop illegally dumping your shit on them.

The simple fact is that cyclists are vulnerable on some paths, and not all of them are lit, which makes them even more vulnerable.  But even when there are no such dangers, many paths are not properly maintained by the local authority responsible.  I have seen paths that have fallen away at one side, or which have deep ruts in them due to rill and gully erosion.  You motorists bemoan potholes?  You have no idea how lucky you are.  How do you fancy being on two wheels on a path that is falling away to one side?  Then there are some paths which are prone to flooding, which the local council does nothing to address, or the entire path is simply inadequate for cyclists.  A prime example of this is the stretch between Pencaitland and Saltoun on the Pencait Railway Path in East Lothian; a disused railway line which once went to Gifford.  On the particular stretch I mentioned, all that has been done is the track has been lifted and the railway ballast removed.  However, the path, now dirt and cinder, has never been smoothed to remove the indentations left by the railway sleepers, making for a somewhat bumpy ride.  Here’s the laugh – the Pencait Railway Path is advertised as suitable for wheelchair users.

As for shared pavement cycle lanes, they present their own particular problems.  Often they are too narrow, there is too much ‘street furniture’ on them, people put things out for refuse collection right on top of them, motorists half or even fully park on them, but the biggest problem is actually sharing them with pedestrians.  Even when a shared pavement cycle lane is clearly lined out, with cycle and pedestrian logos in those lanes, and with signs indicating the division, it is inevitable that you will still get pedestrians who meander over the line, into the cycle lane, and often right into the path of cyclists.  And it is not the first time I have encountered this, and got a mouthful of abuse from the pedestrian who is clearly in the wrong, including being told, “You shouldn’t be on the pavement.”

I will admit that there does appear to have been an increase in inconsiderate cyclists.  I put this down to a few factors.  Firstly we do not have cycling proficiency taught in many schools nowadays.  I well remember the police coming to my primary school to teach us how to cycle safely and courteously, as well as testing our bikes for roadworthiness, and teaching us basic cycle maintenance.  That there has been a downturn in such lessons has undoubtedly led to people with no idea of the Highway Code, or how to behave properly on a bike.  Secondly we have people who have maybe never cycled since they were a kid, getting on a bike, and having no idea about considerate cycling.  Thirdly, due to higher volumes of traffic, there are more and more cyclists feel safer on the pavements.  Fourthly, there are too many people nowadays who are just plain mean and rude.  This final point is not exclusive to the roads.  The world nowadays appear to be full of arrogant, ill-manned, abusive shithouses, who think that ‘freedom of speech’ means being as fucking rude to others as possible.  A scroll through Facebook or Twitter any day confirms this.  Oh, and motorists – and pedestrians – are no slouches at being such assholes either.

Therefore, I am in no way attempting to defend inconsiderate cyclists, nor would I ever do so.  Indeed, I am probably angrier than anyone with them, because it is careful, considerate cyclists like myself who bear the brunt for their misdeeds.  Just as it is good drivers who often take the blame for the actions of those you would not entrust behind the wheel of a pedal car.

Many people have to take the blame here, and keep a few things in mind when out and about.

Cyclists:  Be considerate to other road users at all times.  Be aware of traffic and pedestrians at all time, and that includes looking back every few minutes to see what’s coming behind you.  Do not run red – or even amber – lights.  Both mean stop, so you stop.  No ifs, buts, or maybes.  If you don’t have one already, fit a bell on your bike.  It’s a lot more considerate than shouting at people to get out of the way, and sounded a little distance off allows pedestrians time to move.  Oh, and say “Thank you.” as you go past.  Good manners cost nothing.  Likewise, make sure you have lights and a rear reflector on your bike, and keep them well maintained and clean.  There’s no law saying you have to wear a hi-viz vest and a helmet, but I would strongly recommend them, particularly when cycling on roads.

Most of all, unless they have a shared cycle lane, get off the bloody pavements.  It may not be illegal, but it really is inconsiderate, dangerous to pedestrians, and a downright bloody nuisance.  I have been cycling on roads since I was 12 years old, and now in my 50s, I still don’t have a problem doing so.  If you are wary about using the roads, check with local cycle shops, cycling groups, or your local council about cycling courses.  Many cities now offer such.

Motorists;  Give cyclists room.  The Highway Code expressly states that you should give a cyclist the same space as you would afford a saloon car.  Please abide by this, as there may be times cyclists have to swerve round cars, drain covers, potholes, etc.  Do not pen cyclists into the left of the road, and do not overtake them then suddenly perform a sharp left.  Please do not park in cycle lanes; they are not there for you, and while we’re about it, stay off the bloody pavements.  Give cyclists time as well.  You can maybe accelerate away quickly, we cannot.  See those little orange lights back and rear of your car?  Those are indicators.  Please use them well before you intend to turn, to give cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users advance notice of your intentions.  And please, acquaint yourself with the Highway Code, particularly the sections on cyclists, pedestrians – and someone else I have not yet mentioned here – horse riders.  You may be surprised to discover that you do not know it as well as you think you do.

Pedestrians;  Do not suddenly step out into the road.  Stop, look, and listen.  This should go without saying.  Be particularly aware of cyclists, and remember that we are silent, so if you step out without due care and attention, we can be on top of you before you know what is happening.  This is particularly important for people with babies or toddlers in push chairs.  I still recall the day a woman pushed a pushchair out off the kerb without looking, and it was only my quick reactions, swerving around at the last moment, which averted me potentially killing a child.   When there is a shared pavement cycle lane, please stay to your own half – which is usually on the inside (as it should be), and remember that we cyclists are there quite legally.  If you must cross the road, look both ways before crossing the cycle lane.

Cyclists, motorists, public transport drivers and users, pedestrians, we are all really doing the same thing; trying to get from one place to another.  If we all show each other respect and consideration, and exercise care and awareness, then we can all get there without incident, and a lot happier to boot.

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.