The 19th September

6151470823_37ea04e42a_z

In Scotland, Morning of September the 19th 2014:

If Yes wins:

Yes voters waking thinking the work is over and the world is going to be transformed will be disappointed.

Nothing, apart from one thing, will have changed and, for any chance of any transformation, the work will have only just begun.

If No wins:

No voters waking thinking the work is over and the world is going to stay the same will be disappointed.

Nothing, apart from one thing, will have not changed, everything else is changing fast, and for any chance of stopping those huge changes, the work will have only just begun.

The only thing that will definitely have changed on September 19th will be that now people in Scotland will have been the ones to make the decision that our sovereign parliament is at Holyrood or will be at Westminster. Whichever way it goes is less momentous than the fact that this time we are the ones who decide. And as for the question we’re being asked?

There is only one question:

Do we have a greater chance of shaping the world we need if sovereignty is at Westminster or Holyrood?

Everything else is irrelevant.

All the fear mongering and hope mongering, all the numbers pretending to price this or price that, all the talk that we won’t be welcome into some club, or that people will be desperate to have us – who knows?

The people telling us are just backing up their side of the argument; they’ve already made up their minds.

So all of that is irrelevant to the decision we need to make.

There is only one decision to make, and once you make it you’ll have to live with it.

If you decide Yes then it will be a Yes.

If you decide No then it will be a No.

That is the magic of democracy they don’t want you to know.

Why do you think the same governments that complain about voter apathy and low turnouts do nothing to change the system? It’s because democracy happens when people believe their vote will make a difference, and if enough people believe that they can make a difference then they are the ones in charge of the system, they are in power – whatever their decision.

When they believe their vote makes a difference, then those who hate the whole political game get out to vote – rather than just those desperate to believe it will work ‘this time’ or those fooled into thinking it works every time.

Look at the 1945 vote and Labour’s total, if temporary, transformation of the UK. Then in 1950 they went on to win the election by 1 and a half million votes, but it only gave them a majority of 5 seats. So they called the 1951 election, winning by a quarter of a million votes, getting more votes than any party has ever got in the UK until 1992, yet lost by 16 seats.

The belief we can make a difference, and the resulting huge numbers that turn out to vote, make democracy and democratic change happen.

Huge numbers voted in 1950 and 1951 but in a voting system that seems designed to frustrate and disillusion people, to gradually turn them apathetic, to make them gradually hand over their power.


However, a referendum (or at least one where 50% +1 vote wins) is very different. It is one where we know we can make a difference so we turn up and make a difference and democracy happens. It’s our decision, we have the power: over this one small but crucial thing.


Each of us deciding is part of a collective weighing up of the options, a collective plumping for one pathway or another. We are free to decide. However much one side or the other may think it owns the debate, it is up to us.


But it is also up to us on September the 19th and every day thereafter . . . and maybe that is how to decide which way to vote.

If you decide to vote Yes in the hope of making change happen, we will have only changed one thing. And it will be up to us to then work to try to make all the changes we hoped for happen. If we sit back on September 19th then everything that brought you to a Yes will be taken from you.

If you decide to vote No in the hope of stopping change happening, we will have only stopped one thing, and it will be up to us to then work to try to stop all the changes we fear happening from happening. If we sit back then everything that brought you to a No will be taken from you.

In the strange game of how we organise ourselves, the only level at which we the people seem to have any real say over how our world is run is by deciding the Government of our sovereign country – but what country?

We will wake up on September the 19th to find out whether we’ve chosen to be governed by Westminster’s system or Holyrood’s. The question is simply: which do we trust more . . .

  • In terms of those things about our society that we love and that we have, (or loved and lost) – which do we trust will help keep or regain them?

  • In terms of the things we find wrong and painful in our society – which do we trust will help resist those wrongs and heal those hurts?

In the end, or maybe in the beginning, on September 18th we the people will make a decision.

All the accusations and revelations, promises and threats, policies and identities, will count for nothing compared to the question of trust.

And it may not even be a question of “who do we trust more to run the place for us?” Maybe all those running Westminster and those running Holyrood believe that they know best, while we watch them hardly lift their eyes to the not-so-far-away horizon where species and societies and our children’s future is crumbling beneath their feet, and plunging into climate chaos.

Maybe it is not a question of trusting them, but of trusting ourselves. They may well not yet understand what we need to hold onto, and what we need to let go of. Few of us, or none of us, may understand that yet.

But which do we trust we can change when we need to? Making which choice is most likely to help us realise that it is up to us not up to them?

Paradoxically, and probably, it is not the threats and accusations, the policies and promises, the personalities and identities, that will resonate and decide this for us, but it is how politicians and people on either side of the argument behave.

And since this is an existential moment – a moment of decision on where power is to be decided from here on in, not a decision on which person or party is in power for a few years – it will not be how the media and powerful forces seek to portray how the politicians and people on one side or the other behave that will decide this, but how they actually behave. Where, really, is the integrity?

This does not need a TV debate or celebrity endorsements. It does not need a knock out round or a Gordian knot of complications. It is being decided over time in the hearts and minds and guts of us all.

This is too important to be left to politicians or the ‘experts’. There are innumerable answers to any question we may like to put, and none is without its spin, none is to be trusted.

Yet trust is at the heart of this.

And trust is what people are returning to themselves through this process. However hard those with power moan about this being an interminable process, however much they’re desperate it is over and done with.

The process shows where real power lies, and it is not in lies.

Power does not lie in corporations, celebrities, economists or politicians. The power lies with us, whichever way we choose.

And it is worse than that for those who are in power (in power for as long as we don’t realise we are the ones who day after day give them our power).

Whatever way the vote goes, if we choose then we’ve won.

There may be bad depression on the losing side; there may be a tumult of triumphalism on the winning side.

But having tasted this process once, we will know full well that all it takes is acting on our power, and that acting on our power inevitably brings a torrent of twisted denial and deception by those wedded to controlling us. Whichever parliament we decide is sovereign, the people will have decided. So hereon in it is the people, not whichever parliament, that is sovereign.

Do we have a greater chance of shaping the world we need if sovereignty is at Westminster or Holyrood?

  • Which do we trust we can better hold to account?

  • Which can we more easily change when we lose trust in them?

  • Voting which way is a greater expression of trust in ourselves?

The question is not really about them; it’s about us.

We’re told we to decide with our heads or hearts, but neuroscience tells us decisions are made in the whole body, in the common sense of our bodies.

Despite the wishes and the curses of those who are so entrapped in power they think they can entrap us all through their press and their accusations, their threats and their promises; this is a decision we don’t have to think our way into, or feel our way into – whichever way we decide it will in the end be decided in our common sense and through our common power.

Comments (40)

Join the Discussion

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

  1. Gary says:

    Thanks, a great article for anyone who is able to vote, regardless of what they think.

  2. Tog says:

    A marvellous piece that really did get me thinking. I will look at this again

  3. Gordon Wilson says:

    I like the notion of what makes scottish culture special and unique coming to the fore if there was independence, and the common weal sounds good. The problem is democracy is usually about the lowest common denominators which is why we have Salmond and co who are no better then Cameron and Milliband and co. if there are real potential leaders in Scotland who can think about the future of our children rather than short term economics and politicing, who are they and what have they been doing up till now?

    1. Robert Graham says:

      sorry you compare both sides and come to the conclusion both are they same what’s your point in being on here just as a casual observer ? or as is quite common just now a disruptive influence posing as just a normal contributor just like the normal mother with a disabled child who just happens to be in labour’s shadow cabinet i may be wrong but come clean and don’t try and fool people on what is a free and open forum open to all try doing the same on a “no” website as many of us have found out

  4. Like those questions.

    “Do we have a greater chance of shaping the world we need if sovereignty is at Westminster or Holyrood?”

    For me that is the crux of the matter. If we chose Holyrood, then we can roll up our sleeves and decide exactly how we want to shape Scotland as part of the modern world, so that all benefit from our resources.

    If, in fear of change, we choose Westminster I’m not so sure we will all go back to sleep. Having been awakened and explored the possibilities I somehow don’t think we’ll rest until we achieve what we want.

  5. manandboy says:

    There is only one question:

    Do we have a greater chance of shaping the world we need if sovereignty is at Westminster or Holyrood?
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the one question everyone will be asked will NOT be the one above,

    but this one – ‘Should Scotland be an independent country’.

    And on the 19th, I won’t be thinking about ‘shaping the world we need’ and certainly not ‘in an existential moment’.

    Justin, sorry mate, but I think I’ll just stick with the Yes campaign.

  6. gonzalo1 says:

    We can’t change the world. However we can give an example, eventually, of how social democratic Northern European democracy can operate. Emphasis will be put on the NHS and not on Trident nuclear weapons. It will cause a revolution in London for sure.

  7. Angry_Weegie says:

    Do we have a greater chance of shaping the world we need if sovereignty is at Westminster or Holyrood?

    But if we vote for Westminster, how can the Scots shape the world we need when we are a tiny minority in a country that is hell-bent in going in the opposite direction?

  8. Justin, this is a fabulous article- potent and succinct- thank you so much for contributing it, and I am sharing it far and wide! 🙂

  9. Flower of Scotland says:

    Sorry, didn’t really like that article. How can yes people just accept a No vote when we have had the whole of the British State and most of the MSM favouring a No vote and producing all biased propaganda! The YES people will feel it has not been fair unless there is a huge change in the attitude of the No campaign and eventually answers the Question ” What will a NO vote do for Scotland?”, because there will be NO status quo!

  10. vronsky says:

    For busy people, a précis of the above 1600 words: politics will not stop on the 18 of September.

    1. wanvote says:

      That’s it In a nutshell, vronsky

  11. Tony Philpin says:

    The real work will start on 19th regardless of outcome. I am already slightly apprehensive that our new constitution will be written by party politicians – and the SNP draft fills me with dread.

    I want my constitution written by ‘the people’ after a similar type debate to the one we are having now and written by an independent grouping – supervised by the judiciary rather than any party hacks.

    If its NO then we still need to be hammering the constitutional agenda. A right to life, freedom from want… and let no-one forget the Tories want to get rid of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    1. watty says:

      Have you READ any of the draft constitutions for Scotland that are currently in circulation? The ones I have read have been worded so as to provide protection for the individual and society in a democratic country. I personally hope for a country that represents the values and aspirations of the people living within that country. I trust the people of the country I live in – as a whole – because we display a common bond that shows belief in the Common Weal and we do not display the kind of reactionary, unthinking selfishness of untrammelled greed and xenophobia that have been seen in other kinds of society in recent history, and in current world affairs.
      The Norwegians have just celebrated with great joy the 200th anniversary of their constitution. Germany has a constitution that enshrines the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the state. Why would that be a bad thing?

      1. watty says:

        I was too hasty, having been out of the country for a week: The interim constitution has some disappointing weaknesses not present in previously published draft constitutions –

        http://dissentingradical.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/a-tale-of-two-parliaments/

  12. Peter Arnott says:

    Excellent stuff. Something that is striking me more and more that seems to underpin the nihilist assumptions of the No Campaign is not only their seeming to doubt human capacity for positive change (humans living in Scotland particularly) buit a picture of those who live in the rUK as being petty and spiteful, individually and culturally. They seem to be guided by the presumption that if we dare Vote for Self Government that our neighbours will be roused to terrible vengeance…closing the border, preventing trade etc etc etc. The Yes campaign assumes that the rUk will behave rationally, democratically and well…while the No campaign is fundamentally anti-English. Funny that.

  13. MBC says:

    Sorry, I found this article rambling and rather negative.

    But I agree that the central issue comes down to who you trust more. But the point Flower of Scotland makes is also totally valid. Too many people still think this is all about the SNP and Alex Salmond. Too many people are poisoned by the lies in the mainstream media, which they are not motivated to move beyond. Thus, even after two years, this is not a real debate, because the quality of the press to inform has been appalling.

    If you are comfortably off, and you don’t read much Scottish news (which would not be difficult, since you have to search hard to find it) then you are apt to think: what on earth is all this fuss about? Who are these appalling people who are trying to tear the established order apart? Do we need this at this moment?

    I.e., they just don’t get it. Safe in their comfortable homes, the have not identified the ravening wolves circling on the horizon, they have no sense of panic, except the panic raised by the spectre of Alex Salmond running Scotland as a dictatorship – which is what they honestly believe.

    I was talking to a bunch of these people yesterday at Edinburgh’s Canal Festival, and was appalled by how bigoted and misinformed they were, and how detached from the campaign. Any campaign, either Yes or No, because I had no sense that they had stirred themselves to go to any No meetings, which as far as I am aware, haven’t ever happened.

    I hope I did something to raise in their minds that an apparently reasonable person such as myself could be a Yes voter, but I think all I achieved was that they thought somebody they had thought was constructive and intelligent was just a nut all all along.

    So no, I don’t think this was ever a proper campaign.

    But I agree the real work begins on September 19th. The Yes momentum and organisation continues whatever the result, and if Alistair Darling thinks this will put the constitutional debate to bed for a generation, he is very much mistaken!

    1. Robert Graham says:

      yes with you mbc its a real hard grind and like you i am shocked how little most people are involved in what is the most important vote ever in scotland i often think god give me strength to waken these people up i just hope we have enough time to overcome the “no” lots debate shut down by not attending any meetings to defend their point of view i have never came across a campaign where one side has refused to argue its point of view but then again with a compliant media pushing unchallenged lies on a daily basis they don’t have to try so i guess they feel smug at fooling everyone well the ones who don’t bother trying to find out the facts good luck with your mission ha ha dont give up there are a lot of us we might just make a difference

  14. Sufiscot says:

    Appreciate its hopeful tone maestro Kenrick but like Gonzalo no i dont think we can change the world by voting yes in scotland, the world isnt run by politicians but imo the trillion $ script writers deforesting as fast as.

    After the US foreign policy is set by its neocons on wall st the UK population is already politically irrelevant (gulf War) & by being balkanised is smaller, irrelevant & even more dependent on hidden globalist (neocon?or plain fascist) financial hands than ever. Blair lied to all & i assumed it was because he was made an offer he couldnt refuse. Salmond et all will do the same imo, we have no Chavez to give polonium to here.

    Au contraire This being Scotland in Edinburgh the establishment love working for The Man & celebrate our fiscal skills so we & our ‘independent media with no news about fascism this week’ will ensure ‘the electorate’ go on expecting the Man to provide our globalist jobs and keep whiskey on the table. Here lieth Trident base issues etc. A tenner on Trident being saved for the Snp’s Nation when that comes up on the agenda. Portsmouth will however take a differnt view.

    This establishment tendency soldout in 1707 for a mess of pottage via ponzi entrapment. Now we have libor, gold standard, enron, QE show its dishonest thru and thru and still the public debate is about austerity not corruption top to bottom.

    Rememer CHE closed by The Man via sockpuppets at Ed Univ., they bother that much to oppose opposition. This sort of corporate corruption is not on the table and Will We be following Icelands lead if voting yes?

    No i dont think Scotland will prosper, but neither will it staying in the UK. Its not as u say the issue

    Ongoing growth& Prosperity is as deeper greens used to say is bullshit. Snp deal in BS but they will win as they arent old labour drones or new tories, who else as the Greens r now corporate EU’ists

    However u view em #UKIP are surfing the zeitgeist re EU’ists and centralising bogativeness

    There are dangers here IMO as given the extent of snp ‘s EU flagsucking we will be stuck with the eu mega state centralisers, no doubt saving the earth with developers windmill subsidies. The large windmill developers corporate owners in mining for examle willl continue to ‘rock on’.
    We might told we will avoid fracking due to the toon council, even that is BS given geology

    If we referendise the entire decision making process away from the Edinburgh town counci via say the web then there might be hope.. Do i trust the government to be governed by the people? No

    im deply cynical about snp’s nato policy and now the apparatchikked big state Greens who i have long voted for.. Greens indistinguishable from PC grey nowadays. I need to get out more. If i vote yes its to stop scots having to fight in BS US wars and NATO, but still scots lads will still flock to the Army if history is guide, so no i doubt Sctlands can change much but itself. Is a pyrrhic victory still worth having?

    As for Scotlands future defence forces….

    If this sounds angry i regret it but its a heartache – we seem to live in a world of weaponised selective human rights which dont apply to close ‘allies’ . A time when the USA gets to bring war to whoever it likes and uses proxy deniable asset armies in warfare in Syria, iran, iraq ukraine and more likely –

    UK homeland security industries set to expand via returning ‘who am i fighting this week jihardis’, and even our Scots borders are not ours to control.

    A time of political actors from Poroshenko to Snowjob and mercenaries all over the place. 217trillion$ floating around stock exchanges awaiting payment somehow … Then no i do not see scots as up to speed to change the world. The cooncil cant even get to reforesting let alone prosperity, a time when a Polish football casual can get $50/day playing @fascism for the ukrainian regime,

    optimistic no

    will yes precipitate a revolution in London other than the ‘1000 year english reich’ ? That suggestion is at least is raised above, but it wont be bad for business and no trees will be planted.

    Treepeace campaigner who drank to much of pleasures in the hills to be prudent this morn

    Salaam shalom Mir och aye

  15. YESGUY says:

    Have to go along with most of the comments here.

    A negative argument that focuses on the world view and how we can shape it. To be frank i don’t want to change the world. The people choose their own way to live. I care about Scotland. I can’t change the world but i can change Scotland.

    Mums and dads at foodbanks don’t have the time or care about whats happening out in the big world. Unemployed in Scotland don’t go looking for work thinking hope the French/Dutch are ok.

    The question is “Should Scotland be an independent country.” not if i vote one way or the other will it effect the whole world.

    Too deep, too negative and too long winded.

    We don’t all have an education or world view. ,and most of us can only see whats in front of our eyes. And it’s not Scotlands job to tell the world how to live. We’re fighting to get the right to choose how we want to live.

    The MSM and the state lie and scare the people of this country every day and i don’t hear any voices from abroad saying any thing about it. Leaders from other countries being asked to remark on a Scottish issue by a govt that should represent us and spinned into keeping us in a union that has failed the people of all of Britain.

    I will vote YES for hope
    I will vote YES for the future of my family.
    I will vote YES to help build a fair and prosperous Scotland.

    I won’t vote YES to change the world. Thats far too far a leap for me . so i concentrate on what i can do for me , my family and my country.

    1. Sufiscot says:

      Alas that way relies on ignorance… Which will not do much for any hope for family futures that are fair… As for prosperous, thats a pott of massage. Thats gone as we know it Jim. welcome to this fair and peasant land of pax americana – are you with us or against us, no amount of ignorance alters what goes on around us. If your approach had legs why did iceland or ireland get screwed up in record time.

      Eyes down look in play housey housey. Is that what Scotland is voting for?

      1. MBC says:

        You’re weird. Iceland and Ireland are doing just fine. They are well on the way to recovery. A Sufi master once said that no man should carry a burden greater than he can easily manage, and I go along with that. We are in this world for the long haul. No point in killing yourself and putting your karma out of the game. There are no prized for dead heroes, but we can change the world for better one bit at a time. Let’s secure a happier future for Scotland, and that ripple can spread outwards from there.

  16. Gordon Asher says:

    Hi Justin– thanks for the piece. Couple of thoughts/questions:

    Aye – “If Yes wins: Yes voters waking thinking the work is over and the world is going to be transformed will be disappointed. Nothing, apart from one thing, will have changed and, for any chance of any transformation, the work will have only just begun.”

    “There is only one question: Do we have a greater chance of shaping the world we need if sovereignty is at Westminster or Holyrood?”
    Hmmmm – do we not have to ask – What level of sovereignty has, does or might reside with either/both Holyrood or Westminster? THEN we need to ask – will voting ‘yes’ make it more or less likely, now and in the future, that there is greater opportunity to shape the world we need?

    1. Thanks for thoughts, appreciation, dislikes – all welcome!

      Asking ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ is a question that works for some, but for many I meet it doesn’t work for them, doesn’t resonate with them.

      So this piece wasn’t written for those voting Yes – for me dear vronsky, Yesguy, MBC (though I loved your response to Sufiscot (Sufiscot you remind me of Rumi’s story of searching for the key at night under the lamppost where the light is rather than where you dropped the key. Why? Because there’s more light there!)) FlowerofScotland, manandboy – though I read and love your posts on Bella and elsewhere.

      It was trying to frame the question in a different way, and for a section of the undecided and no leaning folk. I was seeking to reframe their ‘problems’ as ‘possibilities’ and make what (to you guys) may be painfully obvious also possible for them. We need different angles, different ways in to this, to welcome more folk aboard. So, if it doesn’t work for you then fine. If it works for one person then that’s enough for me. I’m aiming for one person a day (mostly in one to one conversations) – some days are much better than that, but if this worked for one person who is undecided or no, if this opened up a possibility, then that’s enough for me.

      And I guess I have to differ on where the ‘real world’ is – for me it’s here in the body and in relationships and in the land and in the question of whether we make these step by step choices that – as MBC says – ripple out . . . and by ‘change the world’ I really only mean that the world my kids grow into is one they can live in, and not be destroyed by. It’s not ambitious, its recognising the most basic of needs.

      Gordon – I think of sovereignty as either there or not: either the Parliament at Holyrood and the sovereignty of people in Scotland or the Parliament at Westminster and the sovereignty of people in the UK. Does that answer your question?!

  17. Muscleguy says:

    Can’t we have the 19th, and the weekend to celebrate and recover from celebrating and start work on the 22nd please? I’ll hopefully be far too euphoric and my head will be too full of myriad potentialities to make much sense or be constructive on the 19th. I’ll be full on, shoulder to the wheel, on the 22nd though. Promise.

    1. I like that train of thought!

    2. Flower of Scotland says:

      I’ll settle for that Muscleguy!

  18. bellacaledonia says:

    “Too deep, too negative and too long winded.” There’s the tabloids or 1000 blogs that will keep it real simple for you if you’d prefer?

    1. vronsky says:

      Don’t be so sulky. You must look at yourself sometimes. The essay is a painfully extended statement of the obvious and makes possibilities sound like problems. Why not leave that to Mr Darling?

  19. Dan Huil says:

    First things first: Vote Yes

  20. Craig P says:

    Great article – I will be sharing it with some nos and undecideds. Because for most of the nos I know, this vote is all a big distraction and they can’t wait to vote no and stick their heads back in the sand.

  21. Thanks Craig

    In my experience many are planning on voting No because they’ve been told the only question is ‘‘Should Scotland be an independent country’ and that sounds too much like its about boundaries to them, and they’re not interested in that question.

    The article is meant for those many many many who trust Holyrood more than Westminster, in the hope that they can see that if the question is ‘Do we have a greater chance of shaping the world we need if sovereignty is at Westminster or Holyrood?’ then it’s absolutely worth it to vote Yes.

    Sorry if the article was tedious, boring, long winded and pessimistic for many who already know they are voting Yes, but it wasn’t meant for you! Maybe it should have started with a disclaimer: “Not to be read by anyone planning on voting Yes’!

  22. Douglas says:

    Well done, Justin!!! I enjoyed your piece.

    All you folk who go to the trouble of telling somebody who has spent time and effort on writing something for no money should go and have a look at yourselves in the mirror.

    This is the free press; it is basic courtesy to not go out of your way to NOT LIKE something.

    Good on you Justin, more power to your pen.

  23. vodelogis says:

    I wouldn’t vote for a sovereign Parliament at Holyrood. Sovereign Parliaments are what got us into this mess. I’m voting Yes for a sovereign people: Parliament’s power limited and bound by a people’s constitution. Anything less is a bait-n-switch.

  24. yerkitbreeks says:

    This article is magnificent.

  25. Sufiscot says:

    A joy to meet students of Sufism, your reply about looking at the bit thats illuminated illustrates my concern exactedly so you sort of understood my concerns.

    snp isnt looking at the bit under their feet and as for the srrounding darkness …Rumi is best not used to make political points as everything he speaks is after surrender and this after having publically come out as a rather deep shade of green renunciate throwing all his academe down the well and doing a year zero reset.

    We do not have that in indy ref we are not even see what is below our feet and if London says you cant have that asylum seeker – Scotalnd agrees? This is not independence

    seeing religious references have been made I’ll quote St. Noam – “The general population do not know whats happening and they dont know they dont know whats happening” –

    one never knows in these post modern times but i assume the Holy Prof Chomsky is not being elitist here

    To your grasp of sufism in regard to my views above

    This referendum isnt about this spotlight ground under my feet… Sadly

    the point of the sufi story is more than meets your I, as in this case its the the surrounding darkness with shades of fascism in it im drawing attention too.

    The cash available to fund nation states is a set up to rip off taxpayers before defaulting. defaulting brings the house down and imf AUSTERITY programs come in even harder, hello Greece and Cyprus, Potugal and Ireland. You know all this stuff.
    Maybe Darien is pertinent re fiscal blowhards

    Its what this darkness surrounding ‘the national debate’ means to an indy Scotland im asking about.
    What level of debate in the public forum is there in a society where jobcentre youths from Poland are ‘offerred jobs in security in ukraine’ – and all is weirdly ignored? The stuff our parents fought and often died fighting against.

    So many shades of fascism are employed in pursuit of US geopolitics all around us. Is it credible Scotland is going to escape? What are all the yessirs saying about the meaning of the word independence when really really bad processes are being deliberately set in play by our ‘closest ally’ ( if not actual owner -) all around in oil, war, bogus wars, fake wars, fake fear porn and presstitutes in the mainstream subconcious media

    In my view the arguement left the shire long ago, its a very wild world.

    how the …
    What is …..
    A Scots role faced with such ruthlessness largely un recognised unacknowledged in the press and off limits politically but strutting the world pyschopathically with 8 more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together and bases in some 200 states

    The duplicity of the central banking financiers seems to know no limits, iceland was prepared for sacrifice and then screwed, it was a setup, thats the point of mentioning Iceland.. As for ireland doing well… ThaT would be an ecumenical matter.
    Im Yes but for abstract reasons and im worried about Scotalnd being someones elses pawn other than London. Whose pawn? For me the yanks are seriously bad news politically and the eu is just the globalisation central with greenwash. Where will Scotia go?

    Is it indy foreign policy that concerns me, will we show on a world stage what being Scots means in such frankly wicked times via Messr Sturgeon and Salmond, whose dream is of billionaires and golden golf courses of political grease

    More interested in Golg than Gaia who is as ever shunned, no one publically cares,

    Greens used to ask ‘ so what do people expect to eat?”

    i feel the inner eco fascist coming on –

    I’ d keep up with the sufism then youll get the foot and the grace notes. Both needed before invoking renunciate poets in political BS.

    things are so bad energy food and war and planetwise that renunciation looms but no one talks about it except as ‘austerity’

    A debate withnunfulfillable fiscal Pi in the sky, and really nothing to do with independences future wellbeing. I think living will get worse due to zero new straight decent work or self employment and why set Scots up to fail by that criteria. The walmart economy is of course recruiting slaves and will go on doing so. I saw Darien as privatised way to wreck an economy and ensuring a severe bankruptcy leading to 1707

    The west is in the normal sense of the term bankrupt, it will erase its debts one way or another, we taxpayers cant pay off all this central bank bolony money however long we live. Compromises are likely re the Earth and so the patern repeats

    It seems to me we live in very dangerous times as our own side as per fiscal business is morally deranged and will not look at the illuminated creative ground under its feet, nor allow the public illumination of the problems hiding in the darkness

    Notably at present for instance western use of fascists and globalism etc The daily shelling or bombing of large anti kiev cities in Ukraine for weeks now, shelling its own people as it were.

    the word weird was used about me its more weird that our eu and USA use fascists to achieve foreign policy objectives.

    That door they have unlocked means the key needs finding, whose looking?

    I did say deeper green and so its wyrd not weird

    Typing on tablets so any E& O are etc. apols if needed for length, i need to get out more. Im grateful for the original piece Bro. kenrick

    1. Sufiscot says:

      Ooops… ‘More Golf than Gaia’

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