Give Scotland its Independence – Now!

by Anna Raccoon

Note: Margaret Thatcher was neither a libertarian nor a conservative. Whenever she claimed to be either, she was a fraud. This being said, it is also worth noting that the people now celebrating her death hate her not for what she did, but for what her supporters wish she had done. We have no reason to love her. But those most vocal in hating her are people who hate us. See, for example, how The Independent republished my “Legacy of Margaret Thatcher” article yesterday, and left everything in except my complaint that she tightened the censorship of discussion on immigration and race. SIG

Give Scotland its Independence – Now!

Post image for Give Scotland its Independence – Now!

I have finally lost patience with the whingeing weegies in the sulphurous sewer that is Glasgow. The spectacle presented worldwide in national news outlets, of Scotland’s ’finest’, who are normally keen to tell us that they live on the breadline, breaking out the champagne and party poppers to celebrate the death of a woman, any woman, is beyond despicable, and utterly hypocritical. They have no part to play in any nation that contains the words ‘Great’ in its title.

It is time for the Socialist Republic of Scotland to stand alone.

That they all appear to be too young to have any experience of life before Thatcher, their views can only be the product of their schooling and parenting. They have been indoctrinated from birth, and like undisciplined dogs, it would be kinder to maroon them in their inhospitable land now, rather than endure their rabid attacks on unsuspecting citizens.

To hear their views – ‘Thatcher forced the sale of council houses’ – she forced no one. She gave their comrades, their dutiful soviet style fellow citizens, the opportunity to sell their council houses and escape; no one forced them. No one demanded that they deprive future citizens of a council house – they chose to do so in their droves, happy to take the money from hard working citizens who wished to buy – and run; part of the reason that Southern Spain is now full of retired laundromat workers, and amusement arcade mechanics soaking up the sun rather than grinding their way through another day of grunge and humiliation in downtown Glasgow. Do I see the ex-Glaswegians in Spain celebrating Thatcher’s death? No, they at least are not hypocrites.

‘They’ve never forgiven Thatcher for ‘using Scotland as a testing ground’ for the Poll Tax’ – does that mean they wouldn’t have been celebrating if it had started in another part of the country first? I doubt it. They would find another reason. They would only have been happy if Scotland had been excused paying anything at all for its services. They’ve never been weaned from the national teat.

‘They’ve never forgiven her for decimating the mining communities’ – rubbish; the strikes decimated the mining communities. Just as the strikes decimated the Liverpool ship building communities. Strikes called because they saw no reason why their fellow citizens shouldn’t continue to pay over the odds for fuel, and live in a land of environmentally unfriendly smog – so that they could continue to live next door to their Aunty Maisie, with no regard for their Uncle Jimmy and his coal dust slaked lungs, or his crushed arm from yet another pit fall. Come to that, the risk of the comrades ‘glowing in the dark‘. They would really rather, those champagne wielding idiots, be down a mine today? Would they Hell! Given the choice, they’d rather be drawing their dole and whingeing. Let Scotland have its independence – they can re-open their mines and hack away at the unforgiving coal face to their hearts content. The South won’t have to subsidise their vocal demands to live in the past.

It is the socialists who demand so many new hate laws, who rush like lemmings to Twittter whenever they feel outraged on behalf of someone, especially a woman, who has been slighted in some way – yet it is the socialists who feel that it is acceptable to ‘tramp down the earth‘, to dance in the streets, to celebrate the death of a woman with the ‘toffs’ drink of choice, champagne. Why? Because she had a different philosophy to them. 23 years ago.

Can you imagine if Scargill had been successful and the government had given in to his bullying of the nation, that Thatcherites would have been out on the street cheering and celebrating his death when it occurred? It is unthinkable.

Can you imagine if Thatcher had demanded that all mines remain open and all able bodied men in Scotland work down them? Uproar!

Can you imagine if Thatcher had passed a law saying that council houses were only for ‘those in need’ – that you could not pass it on to your children, could not buy or sell it, could only live in a particular type of house whilst your need dictated it? Plenty of houses coming empty as children grew up and moved away – but uproar at the unfairness to ‘the poor’.

Can you imagine if Thatcher had opened the borders and encouraged the immigration of hundreds of thousands of people prepared to work for less money ‘to rub the noses of the left in it’. General strikes all over the country!

Can you imagine if Thatcher had sold all the countries Gold, and then overspent by billions cosseting rich voters in the South of England? By God, they’d have had a million reasons to hate the woman then – but do you imagine that any Southerners would be crass enough, hypocritical enough, ignorant enough, to be found dancing in the streets on Gordon Browns’ death? D’you know what her real crime was?

The greatest division this nation has ever seen were the conflicts of trade unions towards the end of a Labour Government—terrible conflicts. That trade union movement then was under the diktat of trade union bosses, some of whom are still there. They used their power against their members. They made them come out on strike when they didn’t want to. They loved secondary picketing. They went and demonstrated outside companies where there was no dispute whatsoever, and sometimes closed them down. They were acting as they were later in the coal strike, before my whole trade union laws were through of this Government. They were out to use their power to hold the nation to ransom, to stop power from getting to the whole of manufacturing industry to damage people’s jobs, to stop power from getting to every house in the country, power, heat and light to every housewife, every child, every school, every pensioner. You want division; you want conflict; you want hatred. There it was. It was that which Thatcherism—if you call it that—tried to stop. Not by arrogance, but by giving power to the ordinary, decent, honourable, trade union member who didn’t want to go on strike. By giving power to him over the Scargills of this world.

Those dancing in the streets preferred the dictatorship of Scargill. Let them have it.

Is it unfair to set loose an entire nation based on the antics of a few puerile unreconstructed Neanderthals dancing in the streets?

If it is fair to base the effects of a moving global economy, of third world countries discovering that they can manufacturer things cheaper and more efficiently than we can, of technology and innovation decimating some industries – on the words of one woman, and generate so much hatred, then I believe it is.

Unless, of course, the unthinkable were to happen, and those in charge of the Scottish economy denounce those celebrations with the same venom they reserve for those who offend footballers, then I might recant…


21 responses to “Give Scotland its Independence – Now!

  1. As a British nationalist,patriot,and unionist,I totally disagree.I’d abolish the assemblies and have one nation with one system of government.

  2. The important point to emphasis is that those most vocal in hating Thatcher are the same people that hate us, libertarians, classical-liberals and minimal-statist-conservatives. (I’m not yet convinced that “left-libertarians” actually exist.)

  3. “Note” Sean Gabb is “neither a libertarian or a conservartive” whenever he claims to be either, he is a fraud.

    As for the “Independent” newspaper – with its “ex” KGB owner – the least said the better. Sean is welcome to his new friends (of course not so new now) – as he is to the various people (the normal mixture of “Racial Nationalists” and “Libertarian Left” “Bleeding Hearts” straight from central casting – the cental casting agency of Hell) he has attracted here to (in post after post, after post…..) spit and urinate on the memory of Mrs T.

    We have yet to hear from the Islamists (such as the Islamic Republic Of Sudan) here, but there have already been posts on this site (spitting and urinating on the memory of Margaret Thatcher) taking the side of the Islamists – as well as that of international Communism (no surprise to those of us who see how television stations such as Al Jazeera hero worship the memory of such people as Allende and Chevez – the Red-Green alliance is, sadly, real). Declaring that any Western opposition to these noble doctrines is evil “Imperialism” – no doubt for the benefit of “Corporate Profits”,

    For the record Mrs T. (after the tragic error of accepting the outgoing Labour government’s spending pledges in 1979) reduced the share of the economy taken in government spending from 1983 to 1990.

    On labour market reform (what, to use techical term, lying scum – call “attacking the right of workers to organise”. There was again a tragic delay after 1979 (thanks to James Prior) which led to the doubling of UNEMPLOMENT. However, labour market reform (of a limited kind) was enacted (by Norman T.) after the removal of Mr Prior – and unemployment was brought down.

    As for privatisation being just for the benefit of “Corporate Profits” – well at least, so far, we have been spared the view that it was for the benefit of “Jewish bankers” (no doubt that will be in the next few posts) “such as the Rothschilds” in the pay of “Pinochet”.(no doubt a secret Jew – so secret that even he did not know….)

    If anyone believes that if X, Y, Z, were owned by rich INDIVIDUALS (not corporations) the “Libertarian Left” would hate it any less……. well if you believer that I have a nice bridge to sell you.

    David Davis asks if “left libertarians” exist.

    I think they did exist – in a literal sense.

    For example, Frederick Bastiat sat on the left hand side of the French National Assembly (to show that he was not a monarchist – and to indicate that he was in favour of “reform”, he just defined the term in the opposite way to the socialists sitting not far from him) – so, in a very literal way, he was a “left libertarian”.

    But the current bunch?

    No they openly admit to being supporters of “Social Justice” (exactly what libertarians and conservaticves [apart from rather badly informed Cameron government ministers] are AGAINST).

    So no – “left libertarians” presently do not seem to be real. They are just collectivists (Social Justice supporters) who call themselves “libertarians” in order to be irritating.

  4. I made a choice not to reply to the various smear posts of Sean and co on this site on the subject of Margaret Thatcher.

    However, I wanted to reply to Anna Racoon’s post – so that meant dealing with the vile little “note” from Sean at the start of it.

    On the post itself….

    I believe that the United Kingdom has a wonderful history and has, in general, been a force for good in the world.

    And the British Empire was at least as much as Scottish Empire as an English or Welsh one.

    It is hard to see how the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (now Northern Ireland) could have stood successfully against either the plans of Revolutionary France to dominate Europe, without the aid of the Scots.

    Or of Imperial Germany to dominate Europe (and the world), or (still worse) the plans of Nazi Germany to do so – without the aid of the Scots.

    The same is true, I believe, of the Cold War against international Marxist totalitarianism.


    There is a dark side – a dark side to everything.

    Just as there was a dark side to the British Empire (sometimes a very dark side) and a dark side to both World Wars and to the Cold War. There is also a dark side to the Union with Scotland – for the Scots it meant (right from 1707) higher taxes (especially for the poor) and (quite some time later) the end to “military tenure” (holding land in return for military service) which led to the Highland Clearances – a mess for everyone (including the landowners who did NOT benefit from the Clearances, they went bankrupt anyway).

    The various “infrastructure” schemes tried in the Highlands of Scotland did not work – they just bankrupted the landowners who contributed to them. The Scottish state would not have had the resources to even try such schemes (as the “Darien” mess showed) – but the Union with England gave people inflated ideas of what could be achieved by what we would call a “public-private” partnership.

    The Lowland areas of Scotland did prosper – thanks to free trade with England.

    But one should not overstress this. After all even at its hight (just before the First World War) Glasgow was known for its poverty – not just its hard work. And the last century has seen a great decline of heavy industry in Scotland – with nothing much (bar government) to replace it.

    Most Scottish people (not all., but most) are dependent on government.They either work for the government – or they live off benefits from the government.

    I do not know what the numbers are in England (to be brutally honest I am too “frit” as a lady from the next county would have said, to find out what the numbers are), but in Scotland the game is lost. The number of independent people is simply too small – much too small.

    The Scots believe that voting for a free market policy is like turkeys voting for Christmas – they know they are dependent on the government.

    I believe they could start again – they could break their dependancy and build a new economy. But perhaps they need political independence to shock them into doing that.

    Wales and Scotland are very different. In Wales people grumble – but they adapt (rather as people do in England). But there is a passionate pride in Scotland.

    There is nothing wrong with pride as such – but in this case it is terrible. The Scots are too proud to admit that there might be something fundementally wrong with their (statist) way of looking at the world.

    In “Labour Wales” only a few years ago the Conservative party actually got more votes than Labour in the local elections – the Welsh are (at base) a pragmatic (small “p” – not American Pragmatist) people. The Scots are not.

    It is a great and wonderful thing to be a person of principle – unless your principles are WRONG.

    The principles that the majority (not all – but the majority) of Scots now hold are wrong. But they will not admit it – they will blame “the English” or even “Thatcher” (not Prime Minister since 1990) for all their problems.

    I suspect that Anna Raccoon is correct.

    Perhaps only independence will really shock the Scots into reexaming their beliefs – in using their intelligence (which is often very great) to consider the possiblity that their basic principles might be wrong…..

    And (yes I will not hide from it) elections would be a lot less difficult in the United Kingdom without the vast Scottish “left vote”.

    Some 80 seats in the House of Commons I believe.

  5. Mr Harry Price

    Quite frankly being English, I don’t really care about the union, obviously England adopted the union, but we must alway’s remember the union flag is not the English Flag, I don’t really care if wales, scotland or Northern Ireland decide to leave the union, I think if they do, it would be common sense to close the treasury chest and pull the pug on the revenues they get from England. Life is tough for the poor in scotland at the moment, especially with many living on food parcels, independence is fine as long as you can afford to pay for it.In some cases people do better out of the union than we do, wales is a good example, free prescriptions, education, ect, I would never object if by democratic vote they wanted to leave. albeit with empty coffers.

  6. I also believe that Scotland, while “ruled” by its current political-EnemyClass, ought to simply be “given” its independence. This is the only stratagem that will concentrate the minds of normal thinking Scottish people on the problem they face right now. And we’ll take away the money-pipe at the same time.

    And, probably, the amotic sumbarines, too, as we’ve paid for them in full, all £50 billion or whatever hairy-fairy-sum the Oily Fish cares to conjure up, if you do a debit/credit account with “The Scotch Government”.

    I’d “let Scotland keep the oil”…after all, isn’t this what leftoNazis always and everywhere, all the time, 24/7, for ever and ever and ever…are going on about as regards “wicked capitalists and fascist neoCons like Halibushitler”…?

    Eat your oil, lefties. We’ll let you.

  7. John O' Leary

    Anyway, oil is no guarantee for scootlans future, new technologies are being developed, it’s only now a matter of time, I’m sure can live without salmon and whisky,of course I think we all realise, one they get thier independence, the valves on the money pipes must be closed without further a do! The situation regarding ship building is simple, we just move it to england. Remember we still have hudge coal reserves, they laughed when hitler said he would turn it into oil.

  8. Mr Harry Price

    I think you make some good points John, you’re right about Hitler, had a few drinks today I take it. Anyway, I think it would be a wrong assumption to presume the money pipes would keep pumping, the valves would be closed with immediate effect. There could never be a stituation where england acts as a finacial subsidy for those who leave the union, if they work on this premise I say No,No,No.

  9. Jhon O' Leary

    I just had a drop of sherry, I think I had to much last week thought I saw
    one of those ghost things.

  10. Ah, ghosts! Is one of them Alex Salmond then….hahaha

  11. Mr Harry Price

    Ah, John knows what he’s talking about I have studied science, “Syntheses” is a process of turning coal into fuel, I can’t give the full discription for obvious reasons, but it involves cooking coal, 10% produces what we know as petrol, the other 90% is diesel, coal can also be turned into diesel by the “Fischer-Tropsch” process this produces diesel oil and other products.

  12. The South Africans had a good go at turning coal into oil – you can do it, but it is expensive (otherwise the Australians would have done it long ago – now there is a country that has just about every mineral resource….).

    As for the oil around the Shetlands – what has this got to do with Scotland?

    If Scotland can declare independence – so can the Shetlands (and so on).

    I am not aware of there being vast amount of oil around Glasgow.

    Although – what do I know? After all I am so silly that I did not understand that the Cold War (the Berlin Airlift, Korea and so on) was faught for the benefit of “corporate profits”. If only everyone could be as clever as the “Libertarian Left” – I hear the latest research progect has proved that Nelson never went to sea. Nelson was too busy earning corporate profits with Margaret Thatcher you see…….

    No doubt they wonderful people are still celebrating up in Glasgow. I wish Mrs T. actually had cut their welfare (rather than just trying to hold the line on spending so that economic growth would reduce it as percentage of the economy) – up till 1845 there was no compulsory Poor Rate in Glasgow (or most of Scotland) the Rev. Chalmers managed to organise the relief of poverty voluntairly.

    I wonder what percentage of Scots now know that?

  13. Mr Harry Price

    Yes, it is expensive, but remember the germans did this during a war. It’s viable it’s proven, and with new develpments in technologies it has become much more viable in cost with right management and pre-planning,The latest power developments in germany are interesting, so many free kilowatts, I never thought it could be done. We have enough coal to last 300 years in England, it’s only a time and re-design issue. What percentage, I don’t know. I doubt they care.

  14. A lot of people said that “fracking” would be impossible (it still is in New York – but everything is in that State), and a lot of people said that it would be impossible to get oil (economically) from the tarsands or from shale. Yet companies in Alberta (and other places) manage to make a profit doing it.

    So perhaps you have a point Harry.

    It reminds me of what a lot of us suggested during the one year when so many coal miners did not turn up for work (either because they did not want to turn up – or because of the pickets, who flung blocks of concrete from bridges on the cars of people who tried to go to work).

    Give King Arthur the pits – every last one of them, to run as he wanted.

    Have them as a workers coop – if he wanted.

    But no taxpayer funding.

    As for the Scots – I fear you are right.

    They do not care for the pro freedom part of their history.

    It does not fit their current principles.

    What percentage of the English care (really care) about the tradition of freedom in the history of England?

  15. Mr Harry Price

    30 dollars a barrel paul, we have three hundred years of coal, I’m doing
    some mre research, but it looks if they may have cracked it this time. Yes
    you’re right on the (rc) bit I’m off coal mining to find out more.

  16. Mr Harry Price

    Of course paul the plants are already up and running, South Africa, USA,
    getting great results from Lignite, we have black coal even better, plants
    can be part powered by the new german solar tec, this would in therory
    also cut CO2, they have cracked it. Just the greens slowing things down.

  17. Mr Harry Price

    Of course no doubt what you say is true, but irrespective of 2013, science is a progressive tool, look at Lignight Pty Ltd, some amazing new developments. how about turing sawdust into aircraft fuel, top scientists are now concluding coal will be the fuel of the future, with so many valuable by-products being obtained from the latest production processes, it is predicted we have enough coal for 400 years we know of. David might be right, they can eat their oil.

  18. Mr Harry Price

    I have to say paul you are wrong about coal, I have just been on my web cam inside the new production plant in new South Wales,tThe new critical super reactor can produce three high value products from coal, gas oil and carbon, as well as products for making plastics, 1 ton of coal produces 1.5 barrels of oil, and a lot of valuable by-products, with the new technologies all this can be done from very small production plants, i think the English plans to burn coal under ground are folly, the way forward is bring the coal to the surface for production for maxium profit, with new solar developments the plants can be run with free energy, the scientific developments were not available 20 years ago, coal is now being described as the new Gold with these new found production and extraction developments.

  19. Well Harry – when the South Africans produced oil from coal it was expensive.

    If you are saying it is more cost effective now (due to changes in technology – and/or the price of oil going up) then I bow to your technical knowlege.

    I barely know how to replace a fuse – so I have to bow to your technical knowledge.

  20. Mr Harry Price

    Well I admitt, I sometimes take a bow to your political history Knowledge
    without doubt.

  21. It would appear that this may be the first response to the commentary above, and I will make it brief and to the point: both sides of the independence issue are avoiding the real question.

    What is the “real question”, you may be cynically asking?

    It is this:

    From WHAT is the movement that wants independence for Scotland, wanting independence from?

    It is NOT from England, not from Wales and not from Northern Ireland, but from the United Kingdom. This raises the question:

    What is the United Kingdom?

    Is it Parliament?

    No, the half-elected (House of Commons) Parliament at Westminster is the ultimate power rules the United Kingdom. A clue. It is in the name of the sovereign nation.

    But if the Kingdom which is represented not by a king but a queen, has sovereignty, where does that sovereignty reside?

    It is with the British Crown.

    Therefore we should ask: What is the British Crown?

    It is a corporation sole.

    The present Queen is merely its representative – sort of like Minnie Mouse is to Disneyland in California. (I refer you to Minnie in this instance because in this instance we have no Mickey. The King is dead, long live the Queen. That is the essence of the Crown Corporation Sole.

    But if the Queen is merely that hand-waving old woman who likes to bet on horses, then who is running this “Crown Corporation Sole”?

    Answer: The Privy Council.

    Someone went to all the bother of asking if the Crown Estate is a corporation sole, and the answer came back – no its not. Of course it did. The Crown Estate is merely a part of the smoke and mirrors attribution of the Crown Corporation Sole that hides the real power.

    So what of these Privy Councilors? What do they do?

    Answer: Who knows – it is a highly secret organization – each member is sworn to secrecy.

    If you want to look for their handiwork – look for Orders in Council that are made at a level where Parliament has no say – they are above Parliament.

    Oh, I know about the charade of the “Crown in Parliament”, but the real power resides with the Privy Council. If you want to find their legal representatives look at the Treasury Solicitors – the guys with the flim-flam that conceal the stolen wealth (lands) of the so-called United Kingdom.

    Who is to blame for this mess?

    The Scots who sold-out and lined their pockets at the expense of the majority of Scots. Read what MP Willie Hamilton wrote years ago in “My Queen and I”.

    So before getting sidestepped into a debate over free markets, let’s begin at the beginning where Ron Paul started from: a written NEGATIVE constitution where The People told THEIR government beginning in 1789 what it could NOT do. The fact that Ron Paul thinks that the USA has gone off the rails is due to the ignorance of the average American who has not read their own constitution.

    But what do we have in the United Kingdom?

    Nothing. No written constitution at all.

    Since England was a republic between 1649 and 1660, it might be a good idea to see how a free nation can turn into a military dictatorship (Oliver Cromwell) without a negative written constitution authored in the name of The People.

    So before there is any more talk of libertarianism relating to money and wealth in Scotland, it would be advisable to look around for the group that is waving a negative written constitution for a free and independent republic.

    By the way, Cromwell’s republic came to an end when his Governor who was ruling Scotland switched sides and gathered an army at Coldstream, Scotland and staged a coup in London to put Charles II on the throne. There is a lot more to that story of course involving the Old and the Young Pretenders to the throne; a Dutchman who staged his own coup, followed by a line of Germans who also took over the throne, until one day we ended up with the present mess and theft of liberty based in London, England.

    Should Scotland be independent?


    But the question comes back to the fact that The People have to know what they are declaring independence from!