Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

Please don't repeat the SNP lies and allow the confusion of the term "independence for Scotland".

This from my website explains what anyone who is tempted to use the phrase "independent Scotland" needs to know.

Political Independence for Scots

"Independent Scots" or "an independent Scotland"?

The land mass of Scotland is never going to float out into mid-Atlantic to prove its independence. The land sits there on the tectonic plate and under the sky and it is not going anywhere, independently or under the Queen's direction. Scotland is staying put.

That which could be independent or not, is people. What should be the concern of a Scottish National Standard Bearer and is the concern of all good Scottish nationalists, socialists, republicans, liberals and democrats is

the independence of the people, the nation, the Scots, us

.

The land we stand on wouldn't know what to do with independence. We Scots are the ones who need independence rather than continue to be enslaved by the Queen, her ministers and her officers.

Therefore please support national independence. Please don't talk endlessly about the independence of the land,

"an independent Scotland"

because you'd be parroting a verbal trick royalists use to confuse the issue.

By

"an independent Scotland"

royalists mean the Queen is the one who gets to be independent, whereas we Scots get no independence whatsoever if royalists get the

"independent Scotland"

they want. Under a royalist

"independent Scotland"

, a Scottish Kingdom, we who are allowed to live and who are not killed by the Queen's officers will live as subjects of the Queen and there would be no Scottish national independence.

The phrase

"independent Scotland"

out of the mouths of royalists is worm-tongue language for Scots under subjugation. So any time you hear Salmond use that deceptive phrase, ask yourself, 'well what actual people will be independent under Salmond's

"independent Scotland"

- the Scottish people or the Queen and himself Salmond as the Queen's First Minister of Scotland'?

Salmond wants his own independence for himself, to rule as a dictator which the Queen would allow because she almost never contradicts her ministers or her officers. Salmond cares nothing for an independent Scottish nation guaranteed by our freedom to rule ourselves with our personal freedoms as citizens to speak out and to protest defended by our own elected president upholding a written republican constitution guaranteeing the rights of the people. Salmond likes the status quo when the Queen's officers keep the opposition unnaturally quiet and respectful.

Out of the mouth of Salmond and other SNP royalists, when, as they do, they claim to speak for the interests of the Scottish nation, their continual reference to an

"independent Scotland"

and hardly ever a word about

"an independent Scottish nation"

is a lie.

SNP royalists like Salmond are liars and by repeating their

"Independent Scotland!"

squawk SNP supporters are parroting their lies like wee royalist lackeys the Queen would be happy with.

So yes to

"independent Scots"

and only when an

"an independent Scotland"

clearly means

"independent Scots"

with our national independence guaranteed by a republican constitution then fine, that would be

"an independent Scotland"

worth having.

Therefore the "impact" of Salmond's version of an "independent Scotland" could be the impact of the truncheons and bullets of the Queen's royalist fascist police state under Salmond's SNP ruling Scotland impacting into the vulnerable bodies of the Scots. The impact could be even more brutal than the UK state is to the Scots already..

The major impact of what the SNP and what you, I guess, mean by "independence for Scotland" could be to English consciences, not English constituencies. In other words, could the people of England in all clear conscience quietly stand by, turning a blind eye to the rise of a fascist police state in Scotland?

Could English people sleep soundly in their beds while Scottish people were being dragged out of their beds by the Queen's police of Scotland to be murdered in police custody?

Or would English people stand with the Scottish people against the fascist enemy as we have often done as in 2 world wars?

This is a question for English consciences and for what kind of neighbouring country you could bear to live beside?

[Peter Dow]

Saltire?

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[sifi]

What would St Andrew say? Well as he was born in 1st century Judea, he would have spoken Aramic so you wouldn't understand him. But he would have asked where the fuck is Scotland?

Stupid man asking stupid questions get answer he deserves.

Edited November 20, 2011 by sifi

[Peter Dow]

I agree with that, but I believe peter is under the impression that the dismantling of the monarchy and independence for scotland

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

What's bizarre is that he's idealistic about the ultimate triumph of democracy, yet practical about dissolving borders instantaneously.

[Peter Dow]

Griffin being on TV is one of the greatest things to happen for the anti-racism movement in this country in years.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[feral chile]

In an earlier post, I asked you this:

'If the continuation of a monarchy was put to a democratic vote, would you accept the outcome if more people voted to keep her than get rid of her?'

I'm still interested in your answer.

Part of democracy is being able to vote for something undemocratic.

[Peter Dow]

So you're a democrat,

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[feral chile]

No matter what republicans say - and many republicans do try to explain that having a republic instead matters a hell of a lot and it is a lot better, saves more people etc - we are not understood, we don't gain recruits to republican revolution as a priority because what republicans say is the exact opposite of the pro-royal message they get told daily by the TV.

You really need to be very clever to see through all the brainwashing on TV.

So if people are not clever enough, or put it another way, too stupid, to see through all the TV brainwashing, then that is why they don't support republicanism.

[Peter Dow]

apart from the financial mess, Europe has been reasonably succesful

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Uncle Liam]

Neil, the case for the prosecution rests. Of course, didnt really expect the chief defence witness to be so useful to the prosecution.

Actually, knowing the man, I probably did.

[Uncle Liam]

This never fails to make me laugh. I really must seek a job at this school.

[kaosmark2]

Neil, the case for the prosecution rests. Of course, didnt really expect the chief defence witness to be so useful to the prosecution.

Actually, knowing the man, I probably did.

[Peter Dow]

The Queen only has nominal power.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[sifi]

A recent poll indicated that more than 60% of the nation are proud of the Queen. I reckon that Dow's best chance is to knock her off and start his revolution whilst Carlo is on the throne. And I don't mean the sort of throne that old horse face might give him a blunkin on.

Edited November 20, 2011 by sifi

[Peter Dow]

Which would suggest you're not a good leader if people are misunderstanding your attempts to inspire them.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

I'm fairly sure he won't be allowed Internet permissions from the secure facility for the mentally deranged in which he'll be incarcerated when his Condi obsession reaches it's inevitable end.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Presumptive nonsense. Alex Salmond is aware that Scotland would require the EU to survive, and a fascist police state to the extremity you're claiming would result wouldn't be allowed in the EU.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

What would St Andrew say? Well as he was born in 1st century Judea, he would have spoken Aramic so you wouldn't understand him. But he would have asked where the fuck is Scotland?

Edited November 20, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Part of democracy is being able to vote for something undemocratic.

[kaosmark2]

That is not part of democracy; insisting that the minority who lose a vote still get their rights to continue to govern, to live to vote another day, despite a vote for something undemocratic is part of democracy.

It is even more democratic to have a vote where all the options on offer are pre-selected to be democratic options - that way no-one thinks for one minute that an undemocratic vote is going to be accepted in its undemocratic aspects.

In other words, as the BNP may want to vote for good housing for "whites" or "indigenous Britons" only but because this would be undemocratic, such a vote and the BNP must be rejected, overruled, banned and generally binned.

The democratic alternative is to have a vote for good housing for all, no matter what colour they are.

[Peter Dow]

I'm confused now.

[Peter Dow]

This never fails to make me laugh. I really must seek a job at this school.

[Peter Dow]

Ignorant retarded nonsense yes,

[Peter Dow]

A recent poll indicated that more than 60% of the nation are proud of the Queen.