Cyber Brits and Fish & Chips

Poor Iain Gray’s parting shot was odd. Mr Gray warned his future replacement: “You will be attacked, you will be smeared, you will be lied about, you will be threatened. The ‘cyber Nats’ and the bedsit bloggers will call you traitor, quisling, lapdog, liar and worse. They will question your appearance, your integrity and your sexuality. They will drag your family and your faith into the lies and the vitriol. If you are a woman it will be worse.”

Presumably the the reference to being a woman was about Red Wendy’s doomed days as leader, and notions of traitor, quisling, lapdog are routine – but sexuality? It’s all dire desperate stuff, but does he have a point?

Despite the fact that in Stirling only a few days ago his own Douglas Alexander had offered a belated mea culpa for the decade or so of negativity his party has fed into the national debate, Gray decided to turn on ‘cyber nats’. The outburst evoked a folk-memory of David Steel who’s wife Judy blamed Spitting Image for his demise as he was lodged in the public consciousness as firmly as his puppet snuggled inside David Owen’s top pocket. The problem for David and Ian was always elsewhere.

But there’s a truth here. The stance that takes anything British as uniformly and totally bad, and anything Scottish as uniformly and unquestioningly good is a useless place to start. Unquestioning fealty to Alex and the SNP is also a ridiculous and untenable position. There’s a reason for this positioning (not least the generations of inculcated Scottish cringe, the deep-seated cultural self-hatred and the long-standing media bias) but we need to change the tune. Here’s four suggestions:

Look at some good things about Britain, we might want to hang in to some of them, imitate them or keep them in mind. I have in mind the idea of the NHS and of the welfare state, British institutions we should have been proud of. Unfortunately now the best way to keep alive these ideas is to revive their ideal under a sovereign country. Fish and Chips are also worth preserving, but I think we can cling to these under the encompassing ‘social union’ – sub-group ‘cuisine’.

Develop a non-party base for ideas. One of the reasons for the poor quality of debate is that groups are locked into tribal division by party. Bella supports the idea of expanding the idea of independence and making it a reality. We think the Scottish Independence Convention and other forums are going to be essential in building a mass movement for independence based in civil society and drawing in groups who want to jostle for the vision of a better society than the crumbling unsustainable economic shambles around us.

Challenge the SNP – a culture of self-criticism  is going to be more dynamic and forward thinking. The SNP have got things wrong and the idea that replacing the ‘one party state’ of Labour with a one party domination by the SNP isn’t appealing.

Develop a more nuanced understanding of identity. Cybernats v Cyberbrits is a pretty boring game. And there’s a yawning difference between a nationalist who will accept Trident on the Clyde, the Queen at Balmoral and wants all trappings of the State just moved North a bit and those of us who want to transform society.

The idea of a cyber-anything is quaint. Everyone’s online. Let’s redefine ourselves and create a better quality of debate and a movement that’s deeper wider and more dynamic.

Are you a republican or a nationalist? DigiGael? An iScot? FutureCelt?

Online communities have their nutters but the Cyberbrits are responsible for some real howlers. Michael Moore’s testimony that we’re skint and beholden is risible. As Nicola Sturgeon wrote at the weekend: “The truth is the opposite. What Scottish Secretary Michael Moore neglected to tell people when he recently recyc led this attack previously used by Labour’s Jim Murphy was that the UK ran a deficit of more than £715 billion over the same period.

In other words, Scotland is in a far, far stronger position than the rest of the UK – actually in surplus relative to the UK as a whole to the tune of £19bn – and by the Unionist parties own risible logic, Britain could not possibly afford to be independent.”

The truth is that nether ‘side’ has readjusted to the new realities. Independistas are still imagining and role-playing a world where we are the excluded minority. The Unionists are panicking and flailing about to find a new voice (and no Tory Hoose or Open Unionism don’t count).

The challenge for the nationalist movement is to develop a less defensive posture. Everyone’s desperately re-branding from the Toxic Tories to Losing Labour. Moving from Cybernats to iRep could be a good way of re-imagining how the movement’s expressed online.

Comments (49)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Ah…..exhales. Yes, indeed. We live in hope.

  2. David Robertson says:

    Good article just hope both sides read and act upon it

  3. Douglas McLellan says:

    The problem of online anonymity and the ease of which those who hide behind avatars use abuse and derogatory language is well documented and obviously no limited to politics or Scotland.

    I just wish those who think they have strong views would be brave enough to use their real names. It would become clear to them quickly that their views are actually abuse.

    1. Ard Righ says:

      I agree, however, what price a vehicle for truth? ..and how many sage statements over the centuries were too hot to be ascribed to the life lived as anonymity was not the choice, it was the necessity?

      1. Douglas McLellan says:

        Oh there have been times in the UK where the truth needed to be said in an anonymous way as the authorities were violent and suppressed dissent and alternative points of view. In many places across the world the same could be said right now.

        I would, I am afraid, laugh with derision if a single person in Scotland felt that what they needed to say about the need for an independent Scotland was so seditious and so controversial that the needed to anonymity to protect themselves from violent repercussion.

        Take Ard Righ’s comment below. It is a interesting point phrased in utter nonsense and insult. Why do that? Also, why name him/herself as a High King of Ireland (with dubious historical accuracy) to do it? If a person wants to name someone a quisling or a traitor at least they should have the courage to do it with their real name.

      2. Ard Righ says:

        Evidently, reasoning and readings are not your strong point. I suggest you read the later comment again, I have offered no insult or nonsense. If Ian Gray in his parting “warning” (as quoted) seeks to trivialise traitorous unionist Labour behaviour in Scotland, it is pertinent in a modern and ancient Scotland to make the observation that treason is not something that can be trivialised.

        With regard to your later comments, is appears you are guilty of you’re own accusations. Perhaps you enjoy the role of agent provocateur and are in a fluffy bubble oblivious to the rampant abuse of human rights by way of ludicrously excessive colonial surveillance in the last two decades, you assumed comments of violence and extremities with naivety. I had stripped it down to our Scots perspective, something so alien to the mainstream pro Anglo-Saxon/ Anti Scottish secessionist broadcasting habits throughout Scotland. Perhaps you are an English unionist living here and don’t like that and think we should continue fuelling incompetent governance south of the border? I don’t and we don’t.

        Even if that is your real name, what ground breaking comments have you contributed that have illustrated a Scottish perspective that sheds light and empowers? None. Or do you not have the imagination to think up a fantastical or humorous nome de plume with indisputable provenance that links both Ireland and Scotland, or perhaps you chose not to view from the culture of context and read colonial Oxford publications instead?

        It’s a public internet forum, get with it.

      3. Douglas McLellan says:

        And that makes my point for me. Thank you.

    2. Ard Righ says:

      You have made no point, least of all to yourself, merely just faffed around an ill conceived idea.
      Exactly how is a view abuse?
      Define that please, not just for me but for the entertainment of the hand full of folk that have actually read this.
      ..or is just a case of me, me ,me for you, or is that to strong a view for you?
      Should we all put our telephone numbers and addresses so you can feel that someone with a strong view is some how real? ( Ideas speak for themselves )
      Are you aware of where that road ends? It ends with everyone with subcutaneous chips as part of the global corporation, I suppose you’re all for that and no visions of betterment and a continuing consensus mediocrity and general slavery.

  4. Doug Daniel says:

    “Fish and Chips are also worth preserving, but I think we can cling to these under the encompassing ‘social union’ – sub-group ‘cuisine’.”

    I think we can cling to fish and chips under the far more practical reasoning that the best fish and chips in the world comes from the North-East! If there’s anywhere in England that does better fish and chips than a battered haddock supper from the Bervie Chipper in Inverbervie, then I need to know about it.

    1. Douglas McLellan says:

      As a Fifer I would have to say: http://www.anstrutherfishbar.co.uk/

      1. bellacaledonia says:

        Good point DD – you are clearly a sophisticated iScot of some good taste, though Douglas is obviously correct, you can’t beat Anster fish.

    2. Siôn Jones says:

      I thought Fish and Chips were a Jewish import!

    3. naldo says:

      Does the Bervie do sauce?

  5. Richard Lucas says:

    I’m a Fife-dwelling Yorkshireman, and must put in a word for proper Yorkshire fish and chips. That said, the Bervie is my Scottish favourite.

    I think southern chip-shop oddities such as saveloys, rock salmon and jellied eels should be banned in Scotland post-independence, but I would like to see a post-independence freedom to trade black puddings between Scotland and England – there are many wonderful regional variations on this noble food in both countries. A free trade in the products of small craft breweries would be welcome.

    1. Angus McLellan says:

      Count me in for that black pudding smuggling ring. And Fish and chips always tasted best in Whitby or Scarborough. Another fine Yorkshire delicacy remembered from holidays when I was little that we could do with having here is pig’s cheek fresh out of the butcher’s oven. And real Cumberland sausage from Cumberland too. And … no, I better stop. I’m getting hungry.

  6. Osbert says:

    On the subject of names…

    A previous post extolled the virtues of multiple identities: Polish Scots, Italian Scots, Pakistani Scots etc. Love it. Of English origin but having lived in Scotland since my teens and now heading towards 50, now with deep roots here, I’m very happy to identify as a New Scot. (Years ago, my daughter was talking about Scots v English, following a discussion at primary school. I mentioned where I came from: ‘you mean you’re *English*?’ she said in amazement and disbelief.)

    But what variety of New Scot am I? English Scot sounds strange, Anglo Scot has unpleasant overtones of Empire. Perhaps I’m a Saxon Scot? Can we reclaim Sassanach? Any better suggestions?

  7. bellacaledonia says:

    I’m liking the idea of reclaiming Sassenach. Why wouldn’t Anglo Scot be akin to Afro American? I will ask twitter. Twitter always knows the truth.

  8. Siôn Jones says:

    Poor old Ian Gray looked as though he really didn’t want to be there making the speech. And who could blame him? 10 weeks before the election he had regarded himself as the next First Minister, and it must have been a real personal humiliation for him to have presided over such an electoral massacre of his own party!

    A depleted and desperate man, he could only call on Rab C Nesbitt to boslter the cause for the union. Poor wretch.

  9. Andrew says:

    As a leither who has travelled some what , the battle of the chippies is a hard one to judge, the Anstruther chippie is very good but the inverbervie chipper is also very good. I think that perhaps because of the tourist factor i would have to favour the Inver bervie as its not to busy. Aye and i like the Sassanach thing as well Oswell, makes you sound more distinguished.

  10. I will defer to Anster folk’s pride in their chippy – not yet been, but I intend to, one day. But spare a thought for the dear departed Bratasani’s of Edinburgh.

  11. David Cross says:

    actually the best fish and chips I know is in Seahouses and I’m always delighted to cross the border for this treat. And I don’t expect any border posts to suddenly appear when Scotland governs itself

    1. bellacaledonia says:

      Quite right David the bogeyman of border posts is just nonsense. As Sturgeon wrote last weekend:

      “Allied to the other EU myths is the canard that an independent Scotland would be forced to set up border posts and customs barriers. The reality, in 21st-century Europe, is that you can drive from the Arctic Circle to the shores of the Mediterranean without encountering a single border post, and Scotland would be no different. “

      1. Scotland might well be different. No reason to believe that rUK would dispense with the UK Borders Agency when Scotland becomes independent and thus even less reason to believe that rUK Borders Agency would leave its northern border wide open unless of course a rUK/Scotland treaty was entered into whereby UK Borders Agency continued to operate accountable to both jurisdictions. But that solution would be dependent upon rUK and Scotland having exactly the same immigration laws which, I suggest, is unlikely. Therefore, this is not a bogeyman/myth/nonsense – in practical politics I cannot see how one could avoid rUK Border controls between rUk and England.

      2. Douglas McLellan says:

        Scotland will either have to maintain something very close to the border controls that now exist or develop a border control with rUK. England will never countenance an open border with Europe which is why it has the UK has the border controls it does now.

        If Scotland adopted a more Schengen-like approach with no border controls on ferrys from the EU etc then rUK would be concerned and probably put in place some level of border controls.

        It is not a scare tactic by unionists. Just an attempt to maintain their current policy of not being in the Schengen area. Surely they should be allowed to do that if Scotland does have more open border controls?

      3. Indy says:

        Why would there be border controls with Scotland when there are none with Ireland? That doesn’t ,make sense. Even at the height of the troubles there was an open border with Ireland. Ireland and the UK do not have the same immigration rules but still have an open border and the same would be the case with Scotland. That does of course mean that an independent Scotland would not be in Schengen – just as Ireland is not in Schengen. So we would continue to have border controls for people entering from outside the UK/Ireland.

        1. Ireland example is not relevant. Yes, the border is open between Republic & NI but are subject to UK Borders Agency at Belfast (formerly Stranraer) is you travel to Scotland. No-one gets into UK (ex NI) without being subject to powers of interrogation by UKBorders Agency. It does not necessarily follow that rUK would automatically leave one bit of its border open because if it did, it would be pointless to police Dover and Heathrow when folk could sneak in through the back door.

  12. Michael Gardiner says:

    Indeed. Well put, refreshingly non-partisan, sanely future-oriented.

  13. I find Elmer’s use of the pejorative ‘cybernat’ like his politics – a bit woolly.

    I am an old style Liberal – more in common with Jo Grimmond than the clegg – yet as I look around I search in vain for anything liberal in the approach of the Libdems in the UK or Scotland.

    I see no attempt at bringing forward a FFA Bill by any Westminster Party as they continue to cover their modesty with the increasingly shredded Y-fronts of Calman’s illegitmate child, the Scotland Act Amendment Bill, and the increasingly Pythonesque amendments to said bill by those great thinkers, Wallace, Foulkes and Forsyth (No patch on Wardhaugh, Ball and Conn in my view).

    Given the choice between independence and the status quo, as that is all that is on offer, I find myself seductively drawn towards independence, it makes sense emotionally, socially, historically and financially.

    If that makes me one of Elmer’s ‘cybernats’ and thus doing all the unpleasant things Elmer says I must do then can I make myself clear to other Scots around me: I am infringing the ‘cybernat’ ‘does what it says on the tin’ description because I find myself on blogs often agreeing with female posters, applauding Tory and Libdem bloggers who argue well and in general conducting myself in a generally non ‘cybernat’ manner and in generally in breach of the Trade Description Act as far as the brand ‘cybernat’ is concerned. Strangely I find most of the rest of the folk who blog on like minded sites to Bella Caledonia do not fit Elmer’s description of ‘cybernats’ either.

    I am certain Elmer’s ‘cybernats’ exist but they are far rarer than he claims and tend ot have a short life span on the blogs I frequent.

    1. Michael Gardiner says:

      Of course this ‘cybernat’ is nothing like as homogeneous as he suggests, and ‘bedsit bloggers’ says more about his class prejudice than the activists themselves.

    2. Douglas McLellan says:

      Like you I am a Liberal that is finding himself increasingly considering a Yes to independence vote. My own personal definition of cybernat is not a person who believes in independence but needs to be insulting and using language of hate as opposed to engaging with the facts. Trends show that the people who do this use online names as opposed to their real ones or often comment anonymously. Those who name themselves and provide a positive vision of an independent Scotland don’t fall into my definition of a cybernat.

  14. Ard Righ says:

    ““You will be attacked, you will be smeared, you will be lied about, you will be threatened. The ‘cyber Nats’ and the bedsit bloggers will call you traitor, quisling, lapdog, liar and worse. They will question your appearance, your integrity and your sexuality. They will drag your family and your faith into the lies and the vitriol. If you are a woman it will be worse.”
    It is interesting that Ian Gray trivialises the depravity of any Scot who promotes and enables enormous percentages of Scotland’s resources and wealth to feed the south coast of Britain. That is treasonable behaviour as a traitor, which is not something that can be trivialised, what can possibly be worse than being branded a traitor by your own countrymen ?

    1. If it is treasonable to allow Scotland’s resources to “feed the south coast of Britain”, it is treasonable to allow our land to be owned by foreign powers and held in offshore tax-havens and who is responsible for this?

      1. Ard Righ says:

        Company Law/ Maritime law?
        Certainly, foreign ownership of proportionally vast areas or quantities of land and resources of Scotland is abhorrent due to the relatively small size of Scotland, the means by which this came into effect is treason no doubt. When is the question. Do you trace it back to the 400-600’s with the creation of the fictitious person in ecclesiastical land ownership in Lindisfarne or the Holy Isle, or do you identify the 1705 Alien Act as a cause along with the union in general, or should we lambast Roman Law and Primogeniture? I think your published and far more comprehensive reasonings are better that I can muster here, I just wish more people would read more of your uncovering of the various land legislatures through the ages.

        I wish more people would read.

        1. I rather mischievously asked the question because Alex Salmond had a meting with the son of the Emir of Dubai who owns a large tract of land in Ross-shire held in a company based in the Channel Islands. I am not aware that Mr Salmond raised the matter – no doubt it would have been bad form to discourage “inward investment”.

  15. Gerry Hassan says:

    This is a good piece. We have to raise the debate above ‘cybernats versus cyberbrits’ – as Mike says a quaint set of expressions in today’s age – but also a dialogue of the deaf which alienates and repulses most people in Scotland.

    On the serious subject of fish and chips, my understanding is that they are a Scottish invention, and the first fish and chip shop in the UK was in Dundee. I could be wrong on this, but it does mean we can keep fish and chips, the Broons and Grand Theft Auto: all Dundonian inventions!

  16. Joe Boyle, glassartists says:

    A good and balanced view point and one that I hope carries forward into this new potential Scotland

    But if I were opening a chippie in Scotland in the near future, I think I would definitely be consulting with Prime Minister David Cameron for some advice regarding the investment in such a business at such a time and in such a place as Scotland.

    After all if he thinks its too dangerous for large Mulit-nationals to invest in Scotland in the near future, then whit chance huz ma wee chippie got.

    Ah wiz so worried aboot whit he said in parliement the day , thit ah contacted yon Guinness Book awe records tae ascertain if ah British heid awe state hud ever uttered similar wurds aboot ennie uther bit awe the British Isles afore.
    Heer ah dont think thit ennie boddie in the Parliament even ever said yon aboot Northern Ireland when it wiz huvin its troubles.

    Ah think he huz no jist set a British record fur a heid awe state..but a world record as well.

    Chrings an jivens its guid tae know thit us British ur still world beaters when it comes tae records.

    Whit wull thay think awe next, ah feel sorrie fur Ian Gray, he should awe thought awe yon first, but as usual he wiz pipped at the post and at the last minute this time by yon craftie Cameron boy..a truely extra ordinary punter so he is.

  17. Castle Rock says:

    “You will be attacked…”

    Iain Gray should have a word with some of his troops on the Scotsman site, they don’t need a full moon to set them off snarling, barking and howling, some of the posters are even worse.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  18. David McCann says:

    A very perceptive piece Mike, in nice contrast to Iain Grey’s benedictory rant against the perceived path that cybernats are supposed to tread. It seems to me that certain Unionists are out to vilify anybody who dares to have an opinion that supports independence. Iain Hepburn’s Op-Ed in ‘The ‘Drum’ magazine, is another which supports my theory that a trend is emerging.
    http://thedrum.co.uk/opinion/2011/10/30/nat-bang
    Like Peter Thomson above, I also find that most of my fellow ‘cybernats’ on the blogs I frequent do not fall in to this category.

  19. James Morton says:

    Oh dear, Captain Dreich went out the same way he came in – dull and miserable. This parting shot demonstrates what ails Scottish politics and stifles decent debate. The man had no talent whatsoever. He wasn’t a good public speaker or able to cut a dash in political debate. No empathy, no real qualities that stood out – and that pretty much describes most of the other opposition. So what you get is truly childish temper tantrums and strops when they know they aren’t going to be able to stop the SNP – or attempts to pose legal challenges to question the Scottish governments competency to form policy at all. It beggars belief that they can be this shallow and beleive that the rest of Scotland isn’t watching and listening to them. It was this relentless negativity in opposition and during the campaign that saw them defeated in the first place after all. It is correct and proper that a government be held to account, by the opposition and the electorate. The opposition parties do themselves and those that voted for them, no favours whatsoever, with pointless and worthless attempts at point scoring. What these childish antics do though, is to show in stark relief, to all of Scotland is what a useless and cartoonishly inept array of chancers they are.

  20. Indy says:

    I felt a wee bit sorry for Iain Gray because I think if any politician sat down and read all the things that are said about them online it would be an upsetting experience because it can be quite hurtful. And clearly he has been hurt by some of what has been said. But I don’t think it is sensible for him to take the people who comment on the Scotsman website seriously. It tends to be the same people who comment and they are not serious commentators, it’s all really childish and silly. And quite entertaining sometimes. But certainly if anyone online starts commenting about someone’s sexuality or appearance or family matters then that is completely wrong – the Scotsman should not publish comments like that, neither should any other site.

    As for people making comments about traitors and quislings I think that is also well over the line and I wish they would realise how ridiculous and stupid it makes them look – just as accusations of the SNP being neo-fascist or whatever are ridiculous and stupid. But overall I think a lot of the discussions on sites like this and Better Nation and even Labour Hame tend to be quite good and also valuable in that they give people who come from different political perspectives the chance to share their opinions and debate the issues and that is a chance that, in real life, we wouldn’t often get.

    1. Ard Righ says:

      You feel sorry for someone who is perpetuating the slavery of a nations people and resources? – that’s interesting, so you are an imperialist focusing on an individuals feelings whom had the opportunity to be constructive within a new parliament, yet remained parasitic?
      You would prefer that some unionist puppets well-being is more important than all the natives of Scotland and their future?

      Presumably you think selling out Scotland is a legitimate endeavour and is not an act of treason under current statutes?
      You think that treasonable behaviour is acceptable, not to mention the negativity, sleaze and outright fabrication in lies that have come from the Labour puppets camp dancing to Wastemonsters tune since 1997?
      You think that the act of treason is somehow trivial?
      You think that the act of treason is somehow ridiculous?
      Clearly you are part of the problem.
      Your welcome to remain on the sinking ship “Grande Bretagne ”

      Lastly, as any good observer will note, once the grain is separated from the chaff, there are some incredibly intelligent and serious commentaries on the subject of independence via the Scotsman forums. However there are no serious journalists left in the Scotsman, that publication has been dire for sometime.

      1. Douglas McLellan says:

        I am a Scotsman. I am a free man, not a slave. Indy is not an imperialist.

        There are no grounds for treason. If there were then you could take the issue as a citizen to a court. I would actually like to see that. I wonder what statutes you would cite?

      2. Joe Boyle, glassartists says:

        Well Ian Gray chose his path, as many have, and history may well judge him, and them, to have chosen to represent the well being of a political party over his and their legal obligation to his and their constituents.
        As to treason I wonder that if in this new Scotland, will we treat treason in the old tried and tested manner.
        Will we consider the right to express freedom of speech and opinion, no matter how much it differs from our own as treason.
        Will we stifle debate with the threat of treason.
        Will we govern with the threat of treason
        Will we use the word treason in anger and frustration when we have finally run out of the ability to debate in a civilized and honorable fashion, no matter how we are in turn debated against.

        Have we really lost “the sticks and stones………”

        Personally I think that history tells us that when the word treason is dragged out then on the whole the innocents suffer the most

        1894 ..Alfred Dreyfus accused of Espionage..a traitorous act..defended in an open letter, J’accuse!, 1898, by Emile Zola in the French press and in 1906 proven innocent

        WW1, shell shock was considered treason and resulted in legal murder, being a pacifist was considered by many at that time to be treasonable, so that included Quakers and many many others.

        1916….The Dublin Post Office..were those guys traitors, they did not think so.

        1917…British and German troops play football at christmas in no mans land….fraternising with the enemy…..treason.

        WW2, Hitlers Germany….to be a Jew, a Gipsy, a pacifist..in fact anyone who disagreed with Nazi position..was a traitor and terminated or imprisoned and enslaved.

        In Russia at the end of WW2, if you came home from a POW camp…then you must have survived by treachery…result……life in a Gulag in Siberia

        1950`s America…the McCarthy era, all it took was to express a slightly different position or defend another persons right to free speech….and that was traitorous.. the fate of the Great Paul Robson springs to mind amongst many many other innocent people who suffered for many many years after it was all over……shattered lives and careers…and all for nothing really..just a myth.

        Afganistan..as I write…….to be a woman doctor or teacher for many men in that country is treachery against Islam..result murder of these poor women…but the Koran does not teach that, these men choose to believe it.

        History is strewn with examples of innocents who have been branded as traitors and its a word that should be considered to be one of the most heinous words that we use in any language or belief system…..its use brings out the worst in us.

        I could go on and on and on, but we all know the examples don`t we and the historical outcomes.

        Treason is still on the UK statutes and can carry the ultimate sentence..death…..is this a statute that we really want to include in a new Scotland.

        Now the word, deceitful, thats a word with true meaning and proper weight behind it and all the more appropriate than the word treason any day.

        But at what point does one stop being “the grain” and become “the chaff” or even “part of the problem”, and what are the consequences of becoming so and who decides this and for what reason……………treason,

      3. Ard Righ says:

        DM, you talk for someone else? I suspect trolling.

      4. Douglas McLellan says:

        @Ard Righ – I talk only for myself. You may think I am a troll on one side of an argument just as I think you are a troll on the other side of the argument. Difference is I don’t need be anonymous and I don’t view people as traitors or quislings etc.

        @Joe Boyle – I do wonder what legal obligation Iain Gray has failed to meet? But your points about treason are 100% correct and needed to be said to those who revel in the term. Although the punishment in the UK is no longer death – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom#Punishment

  21. Ard Righ says:

    DM, Sorry to break it to you, but you were literally sold into slavery as soon as your parents engaged your birth certificate. At present, in the UKplc, we are not citizens we are subjects of the Crown, you might want to think about these legal “instruments” and the profound effect they have before perpetuating myths of citizenry. If you have ever signed a census or included by proxy, you are no longer a freeman. You might want to consider exactly what free man is and how it is achieved.

    How is a view abuse? Please enlighten us.

  22. Ard Righ says:

    JB rather that listing foreign comparators, I would have thought the insurrection of 1820 may have been of more interest to consider what a traitor is and to whom- in Scotland then and now. As for Dublin, you may be interested to read this: http://www.irishdemocrat.co.uk/features/seizing-the-gpo-in-1916-made-military-sense/

  23. Ard Righ says:

    The clearances!

  24. Ard Righ says:

    “I am a Scotsman. I am a free man, not a slave. Indy is not an imperialist.”
    You talk for someone else? If not you are a troll.
    Nice hole you’ve dug. lol.

    Are you even aware the Scots Law is quite separate to English Law?

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia