Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Peter Dow


Guest Uncle Liam

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 865
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by sifi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that, but I believe peter is under the impression that the dismantling of the monarchy and independence for scotland
Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by sifi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...