Silencing the Nationalists?

Today a THIRD pro-independence blogger was silenced, a great loss to the independence blogging community. She was harassed into silence.

I have been told that the first two DESERVED to be silenced. They used a FEW obscenities and a lot of sarcasm and irony. I didn't believe it, but this proves that more is involved. Subrosa was as polite and mild-spoken a blogger as you can imagine.

All she EVER did was express her opinions on politics--pro-independence opinions. Heck, she didn't even always agree with the SNP: in fact, she frequently didn't. She spoke for herself and gave a forum to a lot of other people to express opinions.

That she has been harassed into silence is outrageous. She posted that her identity and her address had been tracked down and published. Legal action needs to be taken against the person or persons who did this.

I have this question. WHERE is the mainstream media on this? The were eager enough to attack Wardog. Where are they to defend subrosa and the right of nationalists to free speech?

I can tell you where they are. Out mouthing pro-Labour press releases for Iain Gray. Like Labour they care NOTHING for Scotland and the rights of Scots.

Do NOT delude yourself. All they care about is their own power and profit.

Unionists in Censorship

Another Independence blogger, formerly known as The Universality of Cheese, has now been silenced. He had the temerity to attack a bullying unionist chap by the name of Euan McColm, as mindless apparatchik of the unionist parties as ever disgraced the name of Scotland and who now makes it his business to censor what bloggers can and cannot say in Scotland through a certain dirty rag of a newspaper. Yes, I do indeed think you're a c*nt, Mr. McColm, and good luck censoring all of us.


Or was it for pointing out that "Colin Smyth, Scottish General Secretary of the Labour Party and Labour councillor for Nith Ward was kicked out, ejected, expelled, nay cast out by popular vote from a Dumfries and Galloway council meeting on Thursday this week." Good for them. This man is a known bully as well.

Before being taken down, a poem was on the blog in question. It addressed why unionists stopped believing (if they ever did) in Scotland. I'll post it here:

"The Unionists" by Matt O'Neill

Are you the man ah'm lookin' for - the proud, unconquered Scot?
The man who hauds his heid up high regaredless o' his lot?
D' ye believe in "Wha daur mess wi' me?" The Declaration o' Arbroath?
If ye'r country wis in danger, wid ye rise tae swear that Oath?

Does ye'r heart fair swell wi' pride when the piper fill the bag,
or when ye see the Saltire or the Lion Rampant flag?
Dae ye raide a glass in honour tae oor heroes o' the past
who fought tae win oor liberty an' defend it tae the last?

If ye answer "Aye" tae aw these things, ye might jist be the man -
but dae ye know abbot oor history since the Union began?
There's maybe things ye dinnae know that should be brought tae mind;
some pointed facts - the battleaxe - tae cut the ties that bind.

For the past three-hundred years we've aw been subject tae the south;
cosseted an' humoured, tricked along by slight o' mouth.
Noo we're Anglicised, institutionalised, absorbed intae their state -
did ye never wonder why that is? Did we really earn this fate?

The truth is aye, it's aw oor fault, we did it tae oorsel's.
We didnae pay attention while the fly-men wove their spells.
We've lost oor independence, oor honour an' oor pride,
by handin' power tae Unionists who court the ither side.

For centuries the English tried tae drive us tae defeat;
they won some an' they lost some - but they never had us beat.
Then the Union took oor rights away, wi' the help o' traitor -Scots,
an' the Unionists have held us since while London calls the shots.

For years oor Scottish history wis "discouraged" in oor schools -
a policy o' dumbin'-doon tae turn us intae fools.
The teachers taught o' Hastings, King John n' Runnymeade,
while oor weak-kneed Scottish Unionists thought no' tae intercede.

When Thatcher harried Scotland, her war went unopposed;
oor Unionists, they aw stood back while industry wis closed.
They muttered fae the shadows, but widnae brave the light,
their jobs were too important tae be riskin' in a fight.

How can they be proud Scots when England tells them how tae act?
Ye cannae serve two masters - it's a plain an' simple fact.
Oor parliament in Holyrood wis wrung fae them through fear -
the fear that we wid break away - wi' Independence near.

When the Unionists rule in Holyrood, they're no' concerned wi' you;
they make it nae mair than a branch o' the Westminster HQ.
Aye, it's business there as usual - busy arguin' the toss -
but when somethin' major comes along, they check it wi' the boss.

The lies they've spread, the fear they've bred, tae keep the Union hail;
like border guards an' passports - lies that still prevail.
They lie, come Independence, we'll be livin' hand-tae-mouth,
an' oor kin will be like foreigners if they're livin' in the south.

They'll smile at ye sincerely, they'll gie ye'r haun a shake,
they'll warn that Independence could be Scotland's big mistake.
But jist remember how they think, the surest antidote -
it's England before Scotland, an' themsel's that they promote.

There's nae end tae their treachery, nae end tae their lies,
nae end tae the depths they'll stoop tae keep their Union ties.
They'll sell themsel's for coppers, an' their nation cheaper still,
they'll infect ye wi' their cowardice an' shackle ye'r free-will.

So when next time ye go tae vote, remember who tae blame,
the Unionists are waitin' for ye, confident ye're tame.
Remember that ye're jist a pawn in their bogus bon accord;
so become the proudest Scotsman - an' put them tae the sword!

BBC Misrepresents Al-Megrahi Prognosis

This is perhaps a bit off-topic, not relating directly to independence, but many of my friends (from those I have spoken to--I should, perhaps, say most) are extremely concerned about inaccurate reporting by the BBC, and today I heard to blatant examples on BBC Radio.

I was listening, reluctantly but I like to hear what they're saying, to Good Morning Scotland at around 07:35 when correspondent Tim Reid stated:

"Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill released Megrahi who has prostate cancer and was given three months to live by doctors."

This is a blatant inaccuracy.

The fact is that al-Megrahi was never "given three months to live by doctors".

To make such an inaccurate statement in a case as important and controversial as the al-Megrahi release is unconscionable.

Here is a direct quote from the official medical advice released by the Scottish Government:
"The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a 3 month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient."

No physician claims to know exactly how long a terminal patient will live. NONE. It was never more than an estimate. Mr MacAskill's comment on the time frame was this:

"There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period...."

Further, Mr. MasAskill stated:

"A report dated 10 August from the director of health and care for the Scottish Prison Service indicates that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. The advice they have provided is based not only on their own physical examination but draws on the opinion of other specialists and consultants who have been involved in his care and treatment. He may die sooner - he may live longer.

"I can only base my decision on the medical advice I have before me...."

Mr. MacAskill never claimed to know how long al-Megrahi could live but acted on reasonable medical advice on an ESTIMATE of how long he might live, knowing that it might be less than three months or more than three months, but that al-Megrahi does have incurable, terminal cancer.

During the evening of 24 November at approximately 17:10, the Westminster correspondent David Porter made exactly the same claim, again incorrectly stating that Megrahi had been given three months to live.

This is twice in the same day the BBC blatantly misled Scottish listeners over a very serious issue. The fact that this issue has been politicised by the opposition parties at Holyrood make this appear even more serious on the part of BBC. It gives at the least the appearance of partisan bias on their part.

Indeed the Labour MSPs have made exactly the same claim and attempted to cast doubt on on the honesty of the physicians who gave the medical advice and the honesty of Mr MacAskill.

This misrepresentation by the BBC may well serve to support political claims in the opinions of listeners not aware of the truth, that the three months period was at most an estimate and was never given as an exact time period.

There seems to me to be a serious problem both in the fact that both of these BBC correspondent gave exactly the same inaccurate report and that this report is politically sensitive serving to attack one particular political party.

The actions of BBC needs to be closely examined. At the least, I urge all Scots to make a formal complaint to BBC regarding the inaccuracy of their reporting. Scotland deserves and should expect accuracy, especially on a matter as important as this one.

A Salute to the Late Wardog

Hallo,

I followed WarDog's pro-independence blog for quite sometime until certain elements brought him down in flames: The Scotsman, The Herald, et al. Unfortunately, he was in a position where his job and his livlihood could be threatened. Not all of us are vulnerable to such threats, I'm happy to say.

Why did this happen? Some say it was because he called a certain Honorable James Murphy, MP, a c**t. Now, I happen to prefer to refer to even Mr. Murphy by more civil terms, but threatening a man's job because he uses an obscenity one now hears on the schoolyard is unlikely. I find it unlikely the editors and reporters at those newspapers were all that shocked that a blogger used an obscenity in reference to a politician--something that happens every day of the week.

Very possibly it was really because he made numerous FOI requests and revealed what many didn't want known about the recent Glasgow North East by-election, that the news had ignored important information about that election. Labour probably lost 7% of their vote share.

Whatever the reason, it became very clear that certain newspapers and politicians want to stop to pro-independence bloggers, the only source of news not controlled by pro-union partisanship. As someone who is in a position that I can not be intimidated, I'll take up the banner and give my own views on independence for Scotland and the fight for it.

So let me start with the most basic question? Why do I think Scotland should be independent?

On the most basic level, simply because all nations do best when they stand on their own feet, take care of their own business and pay their own way. Scotland is more than capable of doing this and should be able to do so. Not only should be able, but has a responsibility to as do all people. It's being a grownup to take care of yourself and your own.

Next time, I'll look at some other arguments for and maybe even against.

Slàinte mhor a h-uile là a chi 's nach fhaic!