Lewis Hamilton poses in kilt in photo shoot to ‘make amends’ after mocking nephew for wearing a ‘princess dress’
Me: Didn’t quite catch that last part; can you repeat it…
Lewis Hamilton poses in kilt in photo shoot to ‘make amends’ after mocking nephew for wearing a ‘princess dress’
An incredulous Me: So you are equating the Kilt to a princess’s dress. Ah; right, I see.
And so, according to Lewis Hamilton, he wore the kilt to ‘make amends’ for berating a small child he had caught wearing a pink dress. In an interview with GQ Magazine, he spoke of his deep, deep shame and regret after posting the video wherein he yelled at the child the emotionally devastating line: ‘boys don’t wear princess dresses’.
And here’s how this whole fiasco went down, via British GQ:
“As well as wanting Hamilton to address the issue, we wanted him to appear on our cover either wearing something prominently pink or in something approximating a skirt or a dress. At the start of the year, when we found out that Hamilton was about to be appointed as an ambassador for Tommy Hilfiger, designing his own line for the brand, we suggested the idea to Hilfiger himself. Unsurprisingly, Hilfiger jumped at the idea, although Hamilton’s people were initially circumspect, worried that this would stir up the story again. As it was, when we suggested the idea to Hamilton himself, he loved it and set about designing his own kilt. He was aware he’d made a public mistake and he wanted to make a very public acknowledgement of this, obviously empowering his nephew in the process”
So, is wearing a Kilt really that much of a taboo? Is it something to snigger at and deride behind coquettishly covered lips? Is it so progressive and outlandish and bold for an Englishman to wear one, that it becomes such a huge statement towards inclusiveness and progressive ideology? Is that not in and of itself born of ignorance and prejudice; that for it to be believed to have impact, and weight, then the act itself must be considered taboo; otherwise, its just a prick in a Kilt.
But hold on a minute, I seem to recall once punching a curry out of my pals hands; does that mean, by means of making amends for such shameful action, that I should then wear a saree? You know what, that makes perfect fucking sense. Its so clear now, that the right thing to do would be to equate the drunkenly assaulted curry with the wearing of a saree, right? I mean, both are enjoyed by the Indian people…
No, no; wait, that would be culturally insensitive, also, I’m a guy. A turban! Of course, a turban then! After all, people who wear turbans are apt to enjoy the diarrhea inducing gift that is curry, are they not?
What do you mean I’m being absurd; obtuse perhaps, but absurd? How is that any more absurd than Lewis Hamilton wearing a Kilt as a way to apologize to a fucking child who wore a pink dress?
No, Ill tell you whats fucking absurd, that that painfully uncool, try-hard little ponce Hamilton is equating the Kilt to a skirt, something inherently feminine, and all in one cringe-inducing photo shoot, complete with a whole heaping lack of self-awareness and irony; and in doing so, go on to ridicule an entire culture with his pseudo progressive apology. The imbecility of this little cool-kid wannabe is matched only by the hell of an ego he sports.
Also; did EDM really kill Avicii? That is the sort of serious questions that need to be answered here folks.
Give me your land! That’s not a request, it’s a demand. Why? Because I was born into an inbred family of attic dwelling monsters whose whim it is to garner and gather all peerage and hollow rank it is that allows them to lord it over stretches of foreign countries of which they have no stake nor claim, by birth or blood, to inherit.
What am I talking about; the English royal family, that’s who. Prince Charles in particular, or, as all his worthless, and unearned titles would have him named: His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, CC, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.
Duke of Rothesay? Earl of Carrick? Baron of Renfrew? Lord of the-fucking-Isles?! And the Great Steward of Scotland? By what right does that feeble little German runt dare think himself the Lord of the Isles? A title of loftier rank than any his Incestual blood should merit, or warrant. He is no Lord of the Isles, and certainly no descendant of Somerled, and yet there it is, right in his long-winded and pompously archaic name. The Lord of the Isles has nothing to do with his English heritage, or his Germanic, Russian, Swiss, Dutch, Romanian and sundry other ancestral ties, and so by what right does he have to proclaim himself thus? And who is his mother to doll out such names in the first place.
And what about the Great Steward of Scotland; a title given to those men whom served a legitimate Scottish monarch; who were created to serve the nation, and its king unyieldingly, and against the English, I might add. What has that vegetable crooner ever done to steward the fate of Scotland, other than wear a Kilt like a fucking tourist anytime he’s sniffing about Balmoral?* Nothing; he’s done nothing for this country, yet gets to shower himself with our ancient peerage, and simply on account of having the most tenuous links to our noble ancestors; literally one ancestor of his was Scottish; hell, I have more Celtic noble ancestry than that ineffectual little shite, so where is my rank and brass; where is my castle and knighthood and issue?
You see, I don’t get one because my mentally unhinged and incestuous ancestors weren’t heathen warmongers who slew, razed, shattered and raped the citizens of a neighboring country through a greedy lust for riches and status and acclaim; to dominate and control all of which they deemed should be there’s alone. I don’t get one, and yet they get to retain their grip on Scotland out of tradition alone; they, whose ancestors raped and murdered us. That is what these titles represent, and that is where they originate; the issue of murderers; dominance.
Ask yourself: does a stranger deserve to proclaim himself’ lord of your back garden? A stranger whose dad literally just hooked your elderly mum in the jaw; does that man then get to sit on your back fence and demand a fistful of money to fuel up his Aston martin, which is also, incidentally, parked in your garage? Ridiculous!
And what’s more, they never earned a single one of their damned titles, or the medals they so smugly wear pinned to their chests; prince Phillip never saw any action during the wars, and yet his old tits sag with cheery little adornments; same with prince harry and his balding gimp of a brother William; they did as little fighting as I do on any online battlefield match. Its utterly disgusting that in this day and age we still allow such empty and archaic practices to endure, that this family’s ambition is still tolerated; that we still raise them up by their fluke of birth alone, when we should tear them down and see how they like living in a one bedroom flat on Jobseekers like half the fucking rest of the country they lord it over does!
Men and women should earn these things, not simply be given them as an afterthought to their arranged-marriage-birth, like nicknames a month into a new school year, you have to earn them. That’s the thing that gets me; that the pale and sickly children of the nobility get everything given to them, when you or I have to work for everything we have. Why should some little plum-mouthed shit be raised above me, without ever having contributed anything to the society above which they perch like fattened and loth crows? What use is the rank, Viscount, to a three year old anyway?
In fact, you know what; I’m the Lord of the Isles now; a MacDonald of Clanranald, man! MacPhadrain, MacIan, MacSeamus, MacRae, MacAlpin, MacGregor, Howie, and Douglas! So, give me your land, and give me your money prince Charles; and I’ll tell you what, unlike you, there are plenty of soldiers in my family who were never burdened with as many service medals as you are (Stolen Valor), and I bet you they have/had seen more action than you or any of your pampered offspring ever did; certainly, they never had an attack helicopter cockpit, or the hull of a warship out in the Atlantic, to protect them when the rockets fell like fucking apocalyptic hail, or when the ambushes were sprung, or the bullets begun ripping concrete from the cover around them; every single man in my entire family, is whom I speak of, from the Napoleonic wars and Jacobite risings, through to WW1/WW2, the Falkland’s and into Afghanistan and Iraq. I deserve to be steward, and I deserve to be a king far more than you ever will you big-eared, gnome-looking Dumbo son of an inbred bitch.
You and your attic-breeders have no sway over me, and I do not acknowledge you or your rule. You are kings and queens of England, never Scotland. You are nothing; meaningless; indistinguishable from the rest of your ilk. Stay in England, and leave Scotland for us Scots. Oh; but enjoy those medals your mummy gave you Charlie, cause you aint’ ever getting the throne from the ol’ hag. So there is that, at least.
Author: His Royal Highness Cinead MacAlpin, Prince of Scotland, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland, a MacDonald of Clanranald, MacPhadrain, MacIan, MacSeamus, MacRae, MacAlpin, MacGregor, Howie, and a Douglas.
P.S If your still reading this far. Happy Hogmanay, and best o’ luck in the New Year, I suppose. Now, I’m awa tae crack open a bottle o’ ten year old ‘Jura Origins’ Scotch.
Britain should disown the US if it launched a “preventative” attack against North Korea to stop it developing nuclear weapons, according to a leading military think tank.
Is the foreword on the Sky news websites article: ‘Scenes of carnage’ if North Korea crisis escalates into war, British report warns
Sky: The unusually blunt advice from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which is the intellectual powerhouse behind the UK’s military establishment, comes amid growing concerns that such an attack is being seriously contemplated by Donald Trump’s administration. They write.
Me: Oh, what is this? The “special relationship” doesn’t seem all that special now, does it? England preparing to abandon its “closest ally” when things start to look dicey; when a real sense of danger wafts through the air, England suddenly finds its resolve wanting; like a dog barking at the gate, only to high-tail it for the front door when the gate swings open. And this just shows you how much of a shit-show the Westminster government truly is; they make grand promises and assurances, and then buckle under any real pressure; they scramble from their hill of strength the moment a threat approaches.
And here was me thinking that America was our greatest ally; and so since when do allies abandon one another? Isn’t the whole point of fostering alliances solely to provide back-up for either party in the eventuality of war? Sure, trade agreements that mutually benefit either country are by-products of such partnerships, as is continuing peace; but what good is peace and trade, if one half of the deal is armed to the teeth and sailing the waves of the Yellow Sea? Is this the sort of alliance America needs; an England already planning to abandon it in what could become a major world conflict? Now of course, America really doesn’t need England, or the rest of Britain as a whole; America is a powerhouse, a giant and a god of war. So who cares, right? So what; let England scurry away like a cowardly dog, eh?
But then what does that truly say about any such special relationship? Of course America doesn’t need us, but does that mean that we shouldn’t stand shoulder to shoulder with them? Does that mean that we shouldn’t live and die in our convictions as a country that stands by its principles and its word? If we say we have your back, should we not then have your back, regardless even if our friend is big enough and strong enough to handle himself without us?
Sky: A RUSI report says the UK “should refuse to rush into unconditional support for US action” if the US was to attack North Korea in an attempt to prevent it from further developing the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
Me: Now listen, anyone who is familiar with my blog will know that I’m fairly isolationist, and also don’t agree with Scotland sticking its nose into places it doesn’t belong; but Scotland is in Britain, and Britain seems to cling to the teat of America, and so much so that it peddles this notion of Britain and America as brothers-in-arms, and as the best of friends of which the English controlled media that plagues Britain as a whole often likes to force-feed us on a daily basis; so as a Scotsmen, I feel compelled to point out that if America does go to war, then so should we. It’s as simple as that, and that’s my two cents worth on the matter; we should fight alongside them come what may, and not because of some ridiculous idea of brotherhood, but simply for the sake of self-respect and honor! Otherwise what are we but cowards and back-biters on an international scale not to be taken seriously? Isn’t it funny just how hollow the English government now seems as it rolls over and offers its undulating and pendulous belly to the world? And think, what if America was to win this theoretical war, would it not then shun Britain for ever more; leaving us friendless and at the back of the cue for any resulting reconstruction contracts and positions of governance and influence on the post-war world stage? Way to think ahead, British cowards; in your rancid fear, you would potentially throw away whatever shred of credibility you have left to skulk under the desk whilst humming with your fingers stuck in your ears as you assume the fettle position.
Sky: In the report, author Professor Malcolm Chalmers writes: “(The UK) should make it clear that it had not been asked for its views in advance and that it would not have supported military action even if it had been asked.”
Me: So what? If America goes to war with North Korea, then Britain automatically becomes a target regardless of whether or not we declare a side, what with it having up until then proclaimed itself America’s chief parasite. Is North Korea, or even China, or Russia really going to care if Britain distances itself from America, when eventually it’s probably going to join the war at some point anyway? So would it not make sense then for the east to make a preventative strike of their own to thwart that eventuality? Yet, if Britain was in the fight from the very beginning, then we would at least have our guard up from the get-go, and perhaps be better equipped to deal with any such attack in the first place for having a firm grasp on who our enemy is and where the strikes are likely to manifest. War doesn’t care about gestures, it only cares about threats; Britain is a threat, whether or not it cowardly shrinks from the fray meantime, Britain would still be a threat by proxy.
Sky: “Casualties in such a conflict would likely reach the hundreds of thousands, even if no nuclear weapons were used. There could be far-reaching consequences for the global economy, involving sustained disruption of vital supply chains and markets.”
Me: I’ll let Joseph Dunford, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff respond to that one: “We can’t let a madman with nuclear weapons let on the loose like that. We have a lot of firepower, more than he has times 20, but we don’t want to use it… I hope China solves the problem. But if China doesn’t do it, we’ll do it”
But, at the end of the day, would America really be all that surprised by England’s lack of a spine in such tense, trying times? Of course they wouldn’t; why would they? America is well aware that all Britain is good for is bending at the waist to accommodate their’ slippered feet upon its back. America doesn’t need Britain. Britain needs America, because without them, the empire 2.0 would be steam rolled into oblivion the moment the ships left Portsmouth. So, in understanding that, you would think that the sniveling cowards down at Westminster would be prostrating their feeble bodies in an effort to clamber around America’s feet and swear allegiance to their boot-straps only to fool themselves into, and continue on, with the belief that America will make them great again.
Man up, or shut up; for if it was to come to blows, and then maybe even escalates into some sort of an actual major world conflict; sides will have to be taken. And I don’t know about you, but I prefer fighting fresh, than already bloody. And sure, people would die, but then, people will die whether or not they are holding a gun or not. I come from a military family, I feel I should point out; with every man all the way back and to the Jacobite risings having been a soldier, or in some branch of the military, and so would no doubt have immediate family fighting in any such conflict, yet I’m perfectly fine with that; soldiers are soldiers, and they are trained to kill and die, that’s their entire job description; and so I don’t care about projected casualties, both military, and civilian, because again, people die en masse when wars are fought between powerful entities, and that’s no reason not to fight, and it’s no reason to go back on one’s word, and its certainly no reason to abandon ones ally.
And look, I’m not a warmonger, nor do I have a Michael Bayesque hard-on for guns and explosions, but sometimes wars solve problems, or at the very least, they solve problems for future generations in hindsight. Again, I wouldn’t relish war for the sake of war alone, but from a pragmatic standpoint, North Korea is threatening world stability, it is a menace to peace and is arming itself for conflict, and so needs to be put in its place by a firm hand, and if that means war, then what other recourse is there to counter such a flagrant and openly hostile threat. Diplomacy? Please; ever heard of the catastrophic diplomatic effort known as The Age of Appeasement?
You have these conversations with folk in the pubs sometimes, wherein immediately, and by those of a similar age to myself, and who most likely attend college or university, instantly decry you as a racist if you so much as voice an opinion that is against such a thing as mass immigration, or interventions, or of the sending out of foreign aid or whatever. They seem to suddenly wall themselves off then, and almost shut down, as though their own fragile sense of self and world view are such, that even the merest whisper of a pragmatic, or detached observation on the current climate and its causation’s and effects, is somehow going to herald in an apocalypse in the form of Nazi’s atop four flying panzers.
It’s ridiculous, and it’s pathetic, and it’s infuriating, that a group of grown men and women can’t just sit in a pub and shot the shit for a time, without a number swooning at only the most flirtatious of forays into the world of politics. When did men stop being men, and start being limp-wristed half-men and weaklings? I’m in my mid-twenties, and even I remember a time before this sudden reversal in society’s advancement, and that is what this is; the degradation of society through censorship, fascism and the self-aggrandizing egotistical need of some to have their own ingrained narcissism cloaked as virtuousness; where no one person can seem to look outside of the rhetoric force-fed them by those desperate to seem heroic or worth something, and who so take the easiest root to this position in the form of conceited virtue signaling. They don’t have to fight for it, and really face no danger, nor hardship. They are heroes for the sake of all around them fearing nonexistent conflict. They are raised aloft on shaking shoulders by others who draw strength from a movement that is inherently compromised by weak individuals, and so thrusts them no further against anything that would truly be worth fighting against. Simply put, they are cowards who try and look big and brave flailing at monsters entirely of their own design.
Whelp; Just this past week, in fact, I happened to have taken an impromptu sojourn down through to Auld Reekie; not the cheapest place for a simple man to find a drink mind you; but there I found myself nonetheless. Now, for those of you unfamiliar with that particular city, Edinburgh is wonderful; historically, and architecturally. Yet; were it not for the odd Saltire or tacky gift shop, then one would be hard pressed to declare the city as of Scotland at all; tourists everywhere, and accents, wherein no two are alike, gathered in squares, and collected from all around the world. It’s a cosmopolitan city, like London, only prettier, safer, and, well, better. Anyway; I arrived their early, and got to the drinking likewise. And soon I found myself in the company of a handful of students; artsy types with pube-like goatees and foppish haircuts mid-way between styled and wind-tussled; not exactly the sort of folks in whose circles I would usually walk, but the afternoon started out well enough I suppose; a wee bit o’ banter, banal chatter and some laughing here and there, but then, the conversation soon encroached upon the fringes of politics, and where suddenly, all of these sallow, sunken eyed vegans all at once became the liberal equivalents of Alex Jones; only without the endearing guilelessness that make his mad rants amusing.
There was talk of Brexit, of course, and of the EU; Syria and the resulting refugee crisis; the usual fodder for such lofty patrons to dissect, as was my company, and whose very identity as students alone, seemed to compel them to the highest echelon of obnoxiousness even before the first drink. Now all of this I could tolerate, for I have much to say on these things also, and yet; sitting there in a nice pub in Scotland’s fair capital, I was soon subjected to ill-informed, half-hearted and stunted ramblings on, and misguided understandings of one, Donald J Trump, and by a group of sickly looking students, who, at several points would pause, needing prompts and coaxing from the others when the limits of their understandings and opinion were found wanting after the first reiteration of the buzz lines circulating within their Facebook feeds; Donald Trump; who has nothing to do with them, nor I; Donald Trump, a man from another country who has no effect on their day to day lives, whatsoever. Oh what an absorbing and cerebral discourse it proved to be.
Now, what is my point here, and why did this annoy me so much? Good question and I’ll tell you. It annoys me because it has nothing to do with us. Whoever is in the Whitehouse has absolutely no effect on Scotland whatsoever! None at all; it’s all but virtue signaling and the vapid, self-absorbed circle-jerking of ones ego in the eyes of a castrated choir preaching the same hymn to affect outrage at his being elected. And also, I just can’t abide shallow parasites. Now look; America doesn’t care about Scotland all that much, and truth be told, Scotland doesn’t care all that much about America; in the same way as we don’t really bother with Papua New Guinea, or the Antarctic; we are but ships in the night, not wishing harm upon the other, but just indifferent in the passing, and not all that interested in dropping anchor and hopping aboard the others vessel. There is no ill will behind it, but America is, simply put, a behemoth content to stomp about its hill for a time, whereas we are the foxes whom have no real business commenting on the affairs of giants. And so who are these idealistic liberals to congratulate one another’s self-serving opinions born of the most basic of sound bites parroted as they heard them on the news that morning, to be so quick to proclaim virtue and honesty, love and compassion, and yet descend upon me with feeble claws the instant I should deviate from their indoctrinated path?
“Donald Trump’s a fascist” One sneered, yet offered no substantial proof to that effect. “Really? But he isn’t the one punching people, or clubbing their skulls in with bike-locks because they espouse a different opinion” I replied, in that same flat, vaguely incredulous tone of voice one would adopt if conversing with a drunk houseplant. “He’s racist” Came another; the pretentious little shits eyes bloodshot, yet no less menacing beneath his dandy fringe of curly brown hair. “How?” I speared. “Cause of the ban; man…” He parried deftly; unaware that Barack Obama did the exact same thing previously. And when he was told of this, well, up went the blinkers and down came the fascist soviet hammer, though admittedly in the fashion of a tired old dog sitting in the park and refusing to move; to scoot an inch in any one direction as its owner tugs and coaxes gently at the leash, as I was apt to have found myself then attempting, and all the while thinking who cares, and, why are we even talking about this shit? And, what has any of this nonsense got to do with us? In my attempt at remaining impartial and objective, it was I who was painted as the fascist, and it was I who was deemed the bigot for not taking up their outrage, and for playing devil’s advocate so as to ingratiate topics and points into the conversation by which to enliven and expand it into something interesting and thought provoking.
Side note: Not once did I challenge any opinion vomited fourth, but simply offered a differing one. I was respectful, and only slightly sarcastic, and never raised my voice above a speaking level when addressing any of these rabid little runts. And yet, these principled and virtuous souls were comfortable with yelling and shouting me down when I was presumptuous enough to offer up an actual verifiable fact to the contrary of that currently farted out into their echo chamber. I should also note that I was the only one in that booth who appeared robust enough to overcome constipation, without blowing my rib cage and spine out through my arsehole in the process.
Anyway, let’s get back on with my tortured dog metaphor; a dog needs discipline, and if you baby it, it won’t listen, nor respect you. You have to be both fair, and firm. You don’t pussy-foot around a stubborn dog like it’s a baby taking its first teetering steps, and so neither should you pussy-foot around faux intellectuals and half-men who see merit in subservience and cowardice, and who couldn’t look their own cock in the eye if they needed to drink their own piss to stave of dehydration in the desert! And so, the point of this meandering, and somewhat rambling rant is this: I just don’t understand what’s happening to my generation. When I was under twenty, all the lads wanted to be seen as men, and most of the lassies wanted to be with a man. There was none of this degenerative and regressive bullshit back then, folk just got on with their daily lives and didn’t take too much offence to every little fucking thing that happened to irk them that day. I don’t want this American phenomenon of SJW half-men infecting Scotland with its insidious, rotten, and hypocritical ideology. But, I understand that America exports its culture worldwide; cheeseburgers, fries, milkshakes, and Hollywood blockbusters and whatnot; and that’s all fantastic! But for God sake; Keep that abhorrent and emasculating dogma to yourselves lads, because quite frankly; it’s fucking embarrassing.
And so, I couldn’t believe that there I was, in Scotland, and listening to these insufferable idiots drone on with barely a constructive argument among them; and I looked at them and thought; you know what, this world is going to eat you all alive; but then realized that no, in fact, it isn’t, because this is the way the world is actually heading; effeminate men too afraid to ask a girl out, and women who think being overweight is a good thing; wee bairns being told they’re fairy’s and he-she’s and all manner of sundry other fanciful things, when they should be told what they are firmly, and leave the soul searching and identity crisis’s for a time when their brains are fully developed enough for them to process the multitude of urges and emotions, hormones and psychological conundrums such thoughts must surely bear.
Now listen; I’m all for equality among the sexes, and of gay marriage; each to their own; do what feels right, and be who you gotta be, and all that. My belief is that one should live one’s life, and do so in a manner which makes life worth living in the first place. I don’t care if your gay or straight, transgender or whatever; I simply don’t care; that is, as long as you don’t try and force it down my throat and make trouble where no such trouble occurs. You aren’t freedom fighters battling against a tyrannical oppressor. You aren’t civil rights campaigners risking life and freedom in a dire struggle to pursue equal rights and liberty. You don’t face any adversity that can’t be overcome by hard work and the setting and following of personal goals. You are just a bunch of whiny little shits with too much free time on your hands, and who are fortunate enough to live in countries where your sniveling rhetoric is tolerated. Get over yourselves, get a job, and maybe try and contribute to changing society in a meaningful way, say, as a soldier, or a UN peacekeeper, or as a politician who can actually affect change in a rundown or deprived area. But no; that would be too much like hard work now, wouldn’t it?
‘Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth’– Matthew 5:5. And right enough! And has the Bible ever prophesied a more concrete conclusion in all its years than that particular doozy?
Foreword: Since its inception, the union was never great, nor was it anything close to a uniting of two nations and their populations. It was the cementing of alliances among the elite; more civilians meant more manpower, labor force and soldiery. More manpower, laborers and soldiery meant further expansions within trade, markets and influence i.e. an expanding empire and an expanding purse for those who helmed it. No one wanted this union, not we Scots, nor even the English. Remember, in the 1700’s, if you were to tell a man that in Africa elephants walked backwards, and that lions rode zebras, it would have been nigh impossible for that man to refute you. But, when you control the media; pamphlets and printing presses; broadcasting institutions/propaganda mills; then you control the narrative, and can structure it around however many lies you so please. And in 1700’s Scotland; Elephants most definitely walked backwards for much of that century.
Stage One: deception
In the early years of the eighteenth century, resentment was running high between Scotland and England. Each country had enacted laws that angered the other; the English Act of Settlement in 1701, the Scottish Act of Security in 1703, and finally, England’s Alien Act of 1705, which threatened Scottish people with the status of aliens, as well as a restriction on trade, if they did not accept the English choice for the throne. Something needed to be done. A commission was created to consider the terms of a union between the two nations, and they met on April 16, 1706. But, even whilst the official cogs were turning within the rickety machine of half-hearted diplomacy, and both nations entertained the thin pretense of parliamentary procedure; the games played between Kingdoms would ever involve spies and deception; and so enter, one Daniel Defoe.
Defoe, an accomplished writer, adventurer and journalist, had been rescued from prison, and then enlisted by one, Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford, and spymaster for the English Government, and then tasked to travel north and infiltrate Scottish society; using his evident wiles to try and sway public opinion in favor of the idea of a union, by any means; and so begun Defoe’s nefarious campaign.
First, through The Review, and other pamphlets aimed at changing English opinion on the matter of a union, he had claimed that it would not only end the threat from the north; gaining for the Treasury an “inexhaustible treasury of men” in the process; but would also open up a valuable new market for increasing the power of their nation. By September 1706, Harley had ordered him to Edinburgh, as a secret agent sworn to do everything possible to secure acceptance of the Treaty of Union from the people. And he was certainly conscious of the risk to himself that such an endeavor invited, for in his first few reports, he had included several vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations taking place throughout the city, against the Union; Glasgow even requiring government troops to put down the rioters tearing up copies of the Treaty at almost every mercat cross (Scots: Market cross) in Scotland. When Defoe, the ever astute liar that he was, visited the city in the mid-1720s, his explanation for the troubles was that the hostility towards his party came about, “because they were English and because of the Union, which they were almost universally exclaimed against”
He also claimed: “A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind”. Years later, John Clerk of Penicuik, a leading Unionist, had written in his memoirs that it was not known at the time that Defoe had been an English spy, stating:
… to give a faithful account to him from time to time how everything past here. He was therefor a spy among us, but not known to be such, otherways the Mob of Edin would had pulled him to pieces.
Now, as a Presbyterian who had suffered in England for his beliefs, Defoe had been able to utilize this as a means of not only infiltrating the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland as an adviser, but the committees of the Parliament of Scotland as well. He told Harley later, that he was “privy to all their folly” but, “Perfectly unsuspected as with corresponding with anybody in England”. As a result of this, he was in a position to manipulate, and influence the proposals that were put to Parliament. His next report reflects this:
Having had the honour to be always sent for the committee to whom these amendments were referrèd, I have had the good fortune to break their measures in two particulars via the bounty on Corn and proportion of the Excise.
Stage Two: propaganda
During his time weaving a web of lies in Scotland, it should also be noted that he had used radically different arguments and persuasions upon the populace, than those he had deployed when in England; usually ignoring the English doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament altogether, he would expound upon the Scots the guarantees in the Treaty, and of the benevolence and sincerity of the English government. The fact that he had needed to address these points so strenuously, and tackle them first and foremost, where as in England he had simply needed to remind them that Scots made good shock troops, is evidence of not only the resistance to the idea of union in Scotland, but of the machinations, down to the lowest man, of the English.
Some of his pamphlets championing the union were even purported to have been written by Scots, and would go on to subsequently mislead even reputable historians into quoting them as evidence of Scottish opinion of the time; that they were in fact favorable of it, when they simply weren’t. The same is true of a massive history of the Union which Defoe published in 1709, and which some historians still treat as a valuable source for the thoughts of that period. In these, Defoe had always taken great pains to try and present his ‘history’ with an veneer of objectivity; giving some room for arguments against the Union, but always having the last word for himself; setting up strawmen that he could easily set alight with predetermined counter arguments.
Fortunately, this snake received very little reward from his paymasters, and of course, no recognition for his services to his government. But, he did manage to use experiences in Scotland to write his Tour thro’ the whole Island of Great Britain, published in 1726, wherein he even admitted that the increase of trade and population in Scotland, which he had so erroneously predicted as a consequence of the Union, was “not the case, but rather the contrary”. But hey; at least he got a book deal out of the whole ordeal.
“For every one in favour of the union there are ninety-nine against it”- Daniel Defoe.
The Lies and Coercion’s from the Author of Robinson Crusoe
An Essay, at Removing National Prejudices, against a Union with England. Part III. London, 1706.
After Defoe’s first two pamphlets were reprinted in Edinburgh, opponents used them to try to show that all the advantages would go to England. And so here, the focus shifts to the Scots in an attempt to allay their fears that their church would be weakened. While Defoe does concede that Scottish political power will be weakened with the loss of their own parliament, he argued that the influx of manufacturing and trade into Scotland would more than compensate for such a loss.
Hint: now one problem I have with his argument is this: What good is money to a country’s economy, when they don’t have a parliament to administer over it?
A Fourth Essay, at Removing National Prejudices; with some Reply to Mr. H- – -dges and some other Authors, Who have Printed their Objections against an Union with England. [Edinburgh], 1706.
James Hodges wrote several essays, including The Rights and Interests of the Two British Monarchies, in opposition to the Union. Defoe’s reply argues that the parliaments of each country do have the right to make such a Union. Against those who would say that England is too immoral a nation to ally with, Defoe rejoices that the Union’s opponents are reduced to such ridiculous arguments, for it shows that there really is no major obstacle against the treaty. He does still, however, provide some evidence that “England, Bad as she is, is yet a Reforming Nation.”
Hint: see, what he does here, is acknowledges the idea of an untrustworthy England, an immoral and sinful country; essentially taking the side of Scotland by ingratiate himself to the side of the objector, but then ridicules him, as if to say, well, there’s bigger issues to deal with, so let’s just forget about this particularly silly notion, eh; therefor presenting it as nothing more than silliness, foolishness.
A Fifth Essay, at Removing National Prejudices; with a Reply to Some Authors, who have Printed their Objections against an Union with England. [Edinburgh], 1707.
According to Defoe, neither the fourth nor this fifth essay on the Union was planned beforehand. Instead, each was written out of a need to respond to those who continue to raise objections, whether “only to oppose the Thing in General, and prevent the Uniting the Nations on any Terms whatever, or those which are really offered from honest Scruple at the Particulars.”
Hint: Each rebuttal was actually him, and presenting an opinion that he had already crafted a reply to. That way, those who dissented were hoodwinked into thinking their protests were actually being addressed, when in reality, much of the narrative against the union being roundly publicized, was in fact, being controlled and manipulated by Defoe himself.
Two Great Questions Considered, I. What is the Obligation of Parliaments to the Addresses or Petitions of the People, and what the Duty of the Addressers? II. Whether the Obligation of the Covenant or other National Engagements, is Concern’d in the Treaty of Union? Being a Sixth Essay at Removing National Prejudices against the Union. [Edinburgh], 1707.
In this final essay, Defoe addressed what he considered the improper behavior of some who would petition parliament against the union. Parliaments are bound to hear petitions, but they are not bound to agree to or act on them, and the people have no right to press the matter.
Hint: The parliament serves the people, not the other way around. But by shaming the dissenter in such a fashion; reminding the plebs of their subservient station, and of their ignorance to such lofty matters; who of any great merit would challenge his opinion, and been seen to take the side of the common, uneducated, and filthy rabble, over the splendor and right of parliamentary procedure.
The second issue he tackles is whether persons, who have taken oaths to Scotland, or to the Church of Scotland, could agree to the Union without perjuring themselves. Defoe says that these oaths in no way prevent them from uniting with England, and that those who say so are merely trying to frighten “Innocent People from joining in the Good of their Native Country”.
Hint: By portraying opposes views as though they belong within some shady group of nefarious individuals, and by presenting the reader, in their own mind, as an “Innocent” and the union as being in “the Good of their Native Country” Defoe simply employs a kind of No true Scotsman fallacy.
Although the 1707 settlement took the form of a complete ‘incorporating’ union between the two parliaments, many Scots preferred some sort of federal arrangement. There was even discussion of whether Scotland should unite with the Dutch Republic, rather than the English.
Speeches by politicians in the Scottish, and English parliaments were published, alongside religious sermons on the question of union. But, even though the Union did eventually come into force on the 1st of May, 1707, the controversy of it continued. Seven years later, George Lockhart of Carnwarth, a pro-Stuart MP who had opposed the Union, published his influential Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland. This work helped to cement the image of Scottish independence betrayed by corrupt Scots politicians, such as Queen Anne’s chief minister in Scotland, James Douglas, Duke of Queensberry. Sir George Lockhart, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that “The whole nation appears against the Union” and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was “contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom“. Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes all across the country. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union:
That it is our indispensable duty to signify to your grace that, as we are not against an honourable and safe union with England far less can we expect to have the condition of the people of Scotland, with relation to these great concerns, made better and improved without a Scots Parliament.
Furthermore, not one single petition in favor of an incorporating union with England was received by Parliament; so much was the support against it. On the day the treaty was actually signed, threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law. The immediate fallout of the Union ranged from complex arrangements for the adoption of English currency in Scotland, to proclamations ordering the suppression of anti-Union demonstrations in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dumfries.
In late 1706, crowds in Dumfries were observed “insolently burning, in the face of the Sun and the presence of the Magistrates, the Articles of Treaty betwixt our two Kingdoms“. An official clampdown was ordered through proclamations posted to mercat crosses throughout Scotland outlawing all “Tumultuary and Irregular Meetings“. So far, it doesn’t seem like the majority of Scotland ever wanted this horrible union, not before, nor afterwards.
Stage Three: an insidious encroachment fostered Upon the Nation
Though the outcome of the 1707 Union is usually viewed in the terms of elite politics, its influence was soon felt in everyday life as well. Even the way in which Scots measured their food and drink had changed, with the introduction of English weights and measures in an effort to standardize and regulate the economy with that of England’s. The Union not only changed the infrastructure of Scotland, but altered it in other more subtle ways; though retaining many of its pre-existing intellectual, economic and religious links with Europe; Scotland had become increasingly influenced by English trends, such as the fifteen, of twenty-five separate articles of agreement which dealt with economic matters. Articles 16 and 17 of which, had an immediate impact on the day-to-day lives of ordinary Scots, altering how they standardized the weighing of goods, measurements, and how it was all paid for; such as the proclamation concerning the adoption in Scotland of English silver-money; with coins still being minted in Edinburgh, indicated by the letter ‘E’, which of course, continued for only two more years, despite the provision in Article 16 that a mint would be maintained in Scotland. It was not. The abolition of the Scottish Privy Council, increased taxes on a number of goods, and the very real threat to the predominance of the Presbyterian Kirk also occurred; all of which, were in direct contravention of the agreed upon articles of union.
In short, all of this unfolded, bit by bit, slowly and methodically, and against the will of the people, until eventually even Scotland itself was gradually re-interpreted as ‘North Britain’ as a result; a country with neither parliament, nor name.
Stage Four: deathblow
The eventual consolidation of the Union should not disguise the fact that it had still faced a multitude of serious challenges in the decades after 1707, what with the Stuart-led Jacobite risings still sweeping across the nation, as well civic unrest and dissent amongst the general population; intermittent support from enemies of the new British state, such as Spain, France, Russia and Sweden, no doubt also helping to fan the flames of Jacobite passions. Then, with the death of King James VII and II, the leadership of such struggles was passed on to his son, James VIII & III, or: the ‘Old Pretender’.
And as a result, the next three decades following 1707, were to witness political upheaval, and needlessly bloody conflict, and all whilst the powers at be still sought to figure out what form the union would even take. Either way, with the subsequent defeat of the Jacobite forces in 1715, 1719, and then the eventual suppression of the movement entirely in 1746; the union, for the most part, had been cemented for ever after. But although the exiled Stuarts had promised to annul the Union, they still in fact remained committed to the idea of monarchical union of the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland. And so it seems for many, that their banner was the better of two evils on which to attach their cause.
Now, the Jacobite risings are often portrayed as a war, or rebellion, by those who sought the restoration of the Scottish parliament, and thus sovereignty, with those whose allegiances now lay with the newly minted British state. But, in many ways, both sides were ultimately unionist in their goals. The Stuarts, as mentioned above, had sought to become Monarchs of not just Scotland, but the whole united country; though promising the Scots the freedom of parliament, church and law, from that of England in any such union. And then, only to complicate matters further still, with the succession of a German dynasty, the Hanoverians, to the throne in 1714, Britain’s relationship with a number of European powers was greatly soured; further undermining the legitimacy of the union in the eyes of many Scots. Over the next few decades, Britain then found itself in dispute with not only Russia, but Sweden, and Spain, and so for Scots still unhappy at the loss of independence; Jacobitism must surely have seemed like the only efficient means of reversing the tumultuous 1707 agreement, and removing Scotland from the entire dangerous fiasco.
The above Basket-hilted broadsword is a not only a perfect example of the Jacobite commitment to ending the Union through definite means, but also as an illustration of the above statement; the enduring sense of Scottish nationhood evidently first and foremost in the hearts of many supporters of the exiled Stuarts, for on both sides of the blade were once highly detailed engravings; first, the figure of St Andrew wearing a mitre and holding a cross, with the inscription “PROSPERITY / TO /SCHOTLAND/ & /NO UNION”; and then the figure of King James VIII & III on the reverse.
Due to increasing war efforts, England actually found itself with insufficient manpower to fight said wars, and sustain manufacturing whilst also expanding its empire. English feelings at the time that Scotland was acting as a rogue nation even contributed greatly to their governments’ willingness to sabotage the Darien scheme through which Scotland had attempted to establish itself as an international trading nation in the late 1690’s. English desires to control the Scots became more acute after the accession of Queen Anne, particularly as the Scots seemed reluctant to accept the eventual Hanoverian succession, as stated above. Financial issues had also become critical as England then embarked upon the War of the Spanish Succession. Because the Jacobites were strongly backed by Louis XIV of France, this engagement could well have turned into a war for the British succession. Renewal of war further exposed a demographic crisis in England, and brought about a major shift in government policy that suddenly favored of the union after all.
Again, England had insufficient manpower to fight these wars, sustain manufacturing, and continue the expansion of its empire, and so to them; the Scots were increasingly viewed as a ready reservoir of both fighting men, and coin. Greed, greed, greed, and greed; all for the sake of empire and greed. Everything that occurred leading up to, and well after the union, was solely in the name of greed. And In the end, the loss of Parliament, Church, and many thousands of Scottish lives had been sold to Scotland by only a margin of 37 votes.
Well, well, well; it has been a good long while since I had a wee rant about some such trite issue or another, of which, for reasons known only to me and my psychiatrist, I’ve once again chosen to take personally. Beneath, is the title of the question asked, and beneath that, in italics, is what was asked, with my response beneath that; layers, so, so many layers.
Why do Scottish, Welsh and Irish always deny themselves as British, hate England and brag about their culture?
I’ve noticed a lot of Welsh, Irish, Northern Irish and Scottish people always deny themselves as part of Britain, a lot of them hate and criticise England, are disgusted by being under the same category as it, and from what I’ve seen online, almost every Irish, Scottish and Welsh person brag about their culture, have usernames related to it and go on and on about themselves and their country.
Do you see me or any English people coming online, slagging off the Welsh, Irish or Scottish, writing stuff in Cornish, going on about English history and pride in our culture and giving ourselves usernames to do with England? NO, YOU DON’T.
Me: Woah, whoa there buddy; no need to raise your voice…
It’s OK to love your culture and take pride in your country, I do take pride in England and I also have admiration for the Scottish, Welsh and Irish and I do truly feel that we are all British united (Ireland needs to join Britain, they’re just making excuses to not be involved with the English because its a self-obsessed nation). We’re all part of the same thing and I don’t know why non-English Brits or Irish hold things against us for events that happened centuries ago, or deny themselves to be connected to us and part of Britain and thinking of Britain as “England” simply. I find it unfair.
Me: Well firstly, being British is simply an idea, an exercise in thought. It is the name applied to the union, which then lends itself to those within that union. However, the term Scottish is actually an ethnic and culture identifying moniker for the Scottish people/those of Scottish heritage. Secondly, as to why (some) deny ourselves the glorious and storied moniker: British; is because it is a meaningless blanket term foisted upon individual nations whose differences are glaringly evident, and which serves no true purpose other than to confuse Americans and other foreigners as to just what in the hell Britain and the U.K are. But then, even had we all been but wobbling and gelatinous blobs devoid of any distinguishing features or character, shuddering pathetically all across the land from Orkney down to Cornwall, the name still would have been the only thing uniting us.
‘I’ve noticed a lot of Welsh, Irish, Northern Irish and Scottish people always deny themselves as part of Britain-‘
Me: Scotland is (Unfortunately) a part of Britain, as in it exists upon the landmass of the ‘British’ isles (As does Ireland, technically/Geographically), and no one disputes this; not even a die-hard nationalists such as myself. But, we all know that isn’t really what you meant, don’t we pal.
‘-a lot of them hate and criticise England, are disgusted by being under the same category as it’
Me: Well, in modern times, it maybe has something to do with the twisted, biased English-run media acting like the greasy and odious fog horn of the British propaganda department 7 days a week that irritates us (All links at the bottom). Or maybe it’s all of the economic hardships endured during the 70’s and 80’s that did the trick; Poll tax? Closing of shipyards? Or could it be the blatant loathing of Westminster that we take issue with? Who knows! Could it simply be down to all the nippy, and sometimes openly hostile little jabs that get flung our way at every opportunity; the venomous contempt of David Starkey and Katie Hopkins chief among them, and of which is so routinely given a platform. Or, could it have something to do with the general fucking ignorance of English people that engenders in them a type of insufferable, haughty, and wholly undeserved sense of superiority which slightly fucking annoys a lot of us Scots? I dunno, take your pick.
‘-from what I’ve seen online, almost every Irish, Scottish and Welsh person brag about their culture, have usernames related to it and go on and on about themselves and their country.’
Me:Pride? Bragging? Useeeerrrrrnammmeeeessssssss??? Surely not; dear god, surely not the English!
‘Do you see me or any English people coming online, slagging off the Welsh, Irish or Scottish, writing stuff in Cornish, going on about English history and pride in our culture and giving ourselves usernames to do with England? NO, YOU DON’T.’
Me: YES, YOU DO
Me: Also, what is wrong with someone communicating freely on the internet in Cornish? Just because you can’t read it, doesn’t mean that it has no value or place within society, regardless of the banal platform it appears on. How arrogant do you have to be, to deride the continuation of an ancient and rather beautiful language, simply for its existing out with Standard English; on Britain, a landmass that hosts at least five separate/related native languages and dialects?
‘It’s OK to love your culture and take pride in your country-‘ *He says without a hint of irony, and without ever expanding upon it, conveniently ‘-I do take pride in England and I also have admiration for the Scottish, Welsh and Irish and I do truly feel that we are all British united (Ireland needs to join Britain, they’re just making excuses to not be involved with the English because its a self-obsessed nation).’
Me: So, it is OK *to love your culture and take pride in your country, but just not when it’s done online, and when it excludes Britishness? I don’t understand, what is your issue here? Is it because you perceive the Saltire on a YouTube avatar as some sort of snub to your sense of hollow British identity, which just so happens to be how you identify; you?
‘We’re all part of the same thing and I don’t know why non-English Brits or Irish hold things against us for events that happened centuries ago, or deny themselves to be connected to us and part of Britain and thinking of Britain as “England” simply. I find it unfair.’
Me: Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason many of us want to be free (i.e. Not connected to Britain), is for the sake of freedom alone; to stand on our own feet and be Scotland again, to be a nation apart, as we had been for roughly 80% of our long, long history? And did it ever occur to you, that it might actually have nothing to do with England whatsoever, and everything to do with Scotland itself? You know, where the non-English Brits live; i.e. Scots. Is it so wrong that I have pride in being Scottish, and that my heritage, culture and traditions take precedence over some man made title that has no inherent meaning or value to me. Just because I really don’t care about England, or Britain, at all, shouldn’t be enough to cause you an identity crisis. Is it so damaging to your fragile identity, that without this begrudging and hateful Scot, your entire sense of self would crumble to dust? Does Scotland really hold all that much power over you, that the very idea of a country waving its own flag is unfair, to you, an Englishman?
You know what? Maybe try waving your own flag for a while, buddy, and get a feeling for what it is to belong, rather than viewing yourself solely by the lands subjected. Try Morris dancing or something, fuck, I dunno; go visit Stonehenge and see if you can’t reconnect with some of your ancestors, maybe find some self-respect in being English while you’re at it, because eventually, Scotland will be free; I might not live long enough to see that day, and perhaps you won’t either, but one day, it will happen.
BTW: It’s usually the Americans and other foreigners who conflate Britain with England, not us. We have literally never done that, in fact, it fucking annoys us more than you lot do.
Below, was what was said by conservative MP Lucy Frazer, during the queen’s speech debate in the House of Commons:
“It is the home of Oliver Cromwell, who defeated the Scots at Dunbar; incorporated Scotland into his Protectorate and transported the Scots as slaves, to the colonies”
She remained standing there with a barely stifled, smug-laden grin, as the chortling, sycophantic sneering, and venomous contempt had petered off long enough for her to add “Now there, is an answer to the West Lothian question; but not one that of course I would recommend”
What a disgusting wretch of a woman; hundreds of dead Scots being heaped into mass graves after succumbing to the conditions onboard those ‘Slave‘ ships; is that really something in which you find a perverse sort of joy; a conceited smirk playing on your thin English lips as you so flippantly disregard the agonizing suffering of women and children having starved to death within the cramped, suffocating squalor of those ‘Slave‘ ships?
How vastly would the tables be turned, say, if I were to make such an inflammatory and derogatory remark in regards to the recent Westminster terrorist attack? After all, what are the English to me; nothing; foreigners; so why wouldn’t I be able to mock and scoff at the loss of life in that attack, when its fine and dandy for a Goddamn fucking English MP to not only make light off, but seem almost pleased about, the horrendous deaths of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Scots? And all done with that repugnant contortion of the English snout that passes for the self-congratulatory smirk of a whimsical quip delivered.
Here is a better look at that horse-faced English scarecrow witch:
But what sickens me the most, is that there will be many people in Scotland who will still vote for these horrible little rats; old people clinging to life seemingly just to make it harder for the rest of us through their selfish and bad choices; those old bastards who scuppered the first Independence referendum complaining about their pensions; fuck you! You’ll be dead in the ground long before now, so why not leave a better future for your grandchildren than a Scotland yet chained to its abuser! These Vile, contemptuous British puppets, grovelers, sniveling and prostrating, servile and subservient Brit nats; quisling Scots who don’t deserve the blood in their veins, pedaling the lies and misinformation drip feed to them by their English Tory overlords; too meek and blind to see through the bars of their own cage, and out into the world changing around it.
We’re part of some harmonious union? Dear god; we are nothing but a device, our presence assuring the hollow Englishman of his ‘British identity’ when in reality, no such identity exists out with the delusions of grandeur so many of their ilk possess. We are not simply a region of England, we are not north Britain; our country is older than England; we were Christian first, whilst they continued to wallow in mud and wattle dwellings like the Germanic savages they were! They are the scum in this pond; they are the beasts needing leashed; they are the broken leg needing amputated! We are better than them in every way, socially, medically, and educationally; remember they send their patients up to Scotland for a reason. And our universities consistently outperform theirs. We are smarter, more creative, more musical and more pleasant than they could ever hope to be; they are the parasite, not us!
It is time we removed ourselves from the English and their toxic presence, and just got on with our own self’s. Leave England to suck America’s teat; those two countries can jerk each other of all they want; they can rebuild the empire 2.0, with England acting as uncle Sam’s footstool; whatever! Both are as meaningless to me, as the apple is to the wolf. Let them fight Russia in Syria, and let England fight Spain; but let them do it alone, and without the scottish soldier; the only reason as to why England ever got itself an empire in the first place; let Englishmen die, and let English families weep and wonder why.
Scotland deserves to be free. If you can’t see that, then for you, what hope is their left? Surely it isn’t from fear of being cast adrift cultureless and without identity, without a sense of self and belonging; for that is the wheel of the hollow Englishman. What then? Scotland is too small to stand on its own? Whereas Ireland and Iceland do just fine; when tourism and Whisky, and yes; OIL; are as plentiful for our country as insecurity is for England! Is it the thought of unchecked mass immigration that plagues your mind? Well, vote for independence and then never vote for the SNP ever again; simple! Why vote Tory or Labour just to spite your own nose? What does that really achieve in the present, or the long run; more punishment and less freedom; English law in place of Scots? What dog is so whipped that it can’t even realize when it’s being beaten? What sorry excuse for a human being would rather accept the rule of one country, over the self determination of one’s own soil?