Britannia Unhinged: 30p Lee and the Unbrits

Almost twenty years ago the Conservatives paid for a huge advertising hoarding outside City and Islington College’s sixth-form centre, saying on one side: “I mean, how hard is it to keep a hospital clean?” and on the other: “It’s not racist to impose limits on immigration”. At the foot of the poster, a question is posed: “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?”

The college comprised of 65% students from ethnic minorities.

At the time, Ceinwen Hilton, the National Union of Teachers’ representative at the college, said: “It’s the sort of poster you would associate with the British National Party.”

If the Tories were coy in 2005, grubbily inviting to share your inner racism, gently prodding the normalisation of such views, they don’t have any need for such shyness today.

None of this should come as any surprise.

One of the consequences of the Brexit ‘victory’ was a well documented spike in race crime and hate crime in England and Wales. This is perhaps not surprising given the drip-drip effect of xenophobia into the mainstream: from normalising fascists like Nick Griffin (2009); or indeed the Prime Ministers own hate van (2013) or the immigration poster fronted by Nigel Farage (2016).

There is evidence that the Brexit campaign was so imbued with racism, and the issue of immigration was so central to it that some people thought that ‘LEAVE’ meant just that.

You, the other, the foreigner, the immigrant, the non-English, should Leave Britain.

Just Leave.

As the messages beamed out, not just from every Dacre and Murdoch rag but from thousands of JCDecaux ad sites, as a fascist sits on a tv panel beside one of the Dimbelby’s it was clear they’ve been invited in. It doesn’t take a huge leap to imagine this saturation, this surround-sound of casual, assumed racism having a wider impact.

England’s self-styled ‘national liberation’ was based on, predicated on, and motivated by, racism. That’s how we got here, to the point where 30p Lee and his outliers fleeing the sinking ship of the Tories and leaping aboard whatever convenient vessel might pass their way (Lee Anderson says he is not ruling out defecting to Reform UK).

As Archie Bland has written: “Consider the ecosystem in which Anderson has flourished since his rise to prominence as an apparent sayer of the unsayable within the Conservative party. When he accuses food bank users of not being able to cook or budget properly, says asylum seekers who crossed the Channel should “fuck off back to France”, and calls some Travellers “thieves” who would steal your lawnmower, his colleagues smile benevolently, and describe his language as “salty” or call him a “fantastic asset”. He is treated as a folk hero in the pages of the Daily Mailthe Sun and the Daily Telegraph, all of which covered his comments rather more grudgingly than they did the Azhar Ali affair in Rochdale. And when he says any of these things on GB News, now the house broadcaster of the hard right, he doesn’t get in trouble: he gets his own show – and, for eight hours’ work a week, £100,000 a year.”

This is England’s right-wing having moved decisively and unambiguously from being emboldened to being unmuzzled and unapologetic. This isn’t Britannia Unchained it’s Britannia Unhinged.

Of course Lee Anderson is not alone. Suella Braverman wrote, in a column for the Daily Telegraph, that “the Islamists … are in charge now”. Robert Jenrick told parliament: “We have allowed our streets to be dominated by Islamist extremists” and in an interview to promote her new book with Steve Bannon, Liz Truss agreed that George Galloway is running in the Rochdale byelection on a “radical jihadist” ticket.

Anderson’s suspension has only inflamed the grassroots  who today branded Sunak a “snake” and said he should be given a route back in. He is surrounded by senior figures who have said the same or worse, but a weak and hapless PM will do nothing to cleanse the party of the rank Islamophobia and racism that stains it. Partly this is because a clean-out would mean a brutal confrontation he has no stomach for, the other part is that the weaponisation of the accusation of antisemitism and ‘violent extremists’ is pretty much all the reactionary forces in Britain have in their locker in terms of argument for their position. As public sentiment sweeps right behind the calls for a ceasefire and an end to support for Israel, the default position is now to brand anyone calling for peace a violent extremist. I’ve already gone over how Orwellian this is (On Political Violence).

These new levels of Doublespeak can be witnessed by the inability of Minister to even utter the words ‘Islamophobic’:

The consequences for this are deeper than their immediate and obvious racism and xenophobia. As Taj Ali of Tribune magazine has put it: “Trade unionists should pay close attention to how British Muslims are being demonised and singled out for exercising their democratic rights. This is the rhetoric that will be used to undermine all sorts of struggles in the years to come. It is an attack on democracy itself.”

We are back to the Enemy Within again, neatly, forty years on.
The attack on peaceful protest is not new, and the spilling over of generalised xenophobia continues. Humza Yousaf is routinely dubbed the First Minister of Gaza and the term ‘Jockistan’ has being used alongside ‘Skintland’ and completely normalised open hatred of the Scots, as witnessed by the contempt with which our MPs have been treated in the last few days and weeks.

The Scots are routinely portrayed as impoverished begging drunks and even dubbed the ‘Unbrits’, a phrase for which we can be thankful there is undoubtedly huge merchandising potential.

And so we swing back around to the fiasco in the House of Commons and the beleaguered and exposed Lyndsay Hoyle. Bland again:

“Are the threats referenced by Hoyle the real reason for this sharp rhetorical turn, and do they indicate that Islamists now rule the roost, whether by capturing the mayor of London or otherwise? In both cases, the answer is no. Braverman was calling those on the marches “Islamists” as long ago as November, echoed by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail, Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph, Douglas Murray in the Sun, Stephen Daisley in the Spectator, and plenty of others. The reality of the marches, according to anyone who reported on them in good faith, is that while there are certainly troubling incidents of antisemitism and disorder, the very significant majority of those attending go for the reason they say they do: to demand an end to Israel’s attack on Gaza and to argue for Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a democratic state of their own. If that’s enough to warrant the label of Islamist, someone had better keep an eye on Emmanuel Macron.”

These fine men are Britannia Unhinged’s outriders, mouthpieces and vanguard. Without such a loud and pliant media elite the political defence of the indefensible would crumble beneath the overwhelming public sentiment recoiling in horror at what is before us.

Now, again, voices are being suppressed inside and outside Westminster. As Jonathan Shafi has pointed out: “Lyndsay Hoyle is blocking a promised second SNP debate on Gaza. This is extraordinary and unacceptable. Last week’s debacle unleashed a wave of Islamophobia and exacerbated draconian and anti-democratic attitudes. Unable to carry legitimacy in the HoC or the country, he must go.”

Standing Order 24 reads:

Peace and self-determination is what we are fighting for.

Comments (24)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. SteveH says:

    Its the left wing’s unwillingness to discuss contentious issue that has brought us to this point. The knee jerk tossing of dismissive labels at those you don’t like. Calling people nazis, far-right, islamophobes, bigots.

    I’ve yet to find any left with a defendable definition ofvIslamophobia. .

    Never do lefties listen and try to understand the concerns of others.

    I was in England recently and watched a Reform UK street event. I saw a woman walking pass the stall, then she turned and started shouting “Far right extremists!”. A Reform UK person, smiling, politely and calmly asked her to explain what she meant by that and to tell him how Reform policies could be associated with her comments. She shrieked that she had no time to talk to people like him, and stormed off.

    For the 20 minutes or so I watched, I saw polite conversations, and more declarations of support. The screaming lefty offered nothing comparable.

    It reminds me just how weak the left wing tactic of histrionics and ad hominem attacks are.

    The majority wider people are no longer content to be told that their concerns about mass immigration means they are racist or far right wing.

    Liberal social justice meant that all views and concerns could be discussed, and that racist and bigotry arguments could be tested.

    Critical race social justice merely tells you that you are racist then spends its time and energy trying to find it and prove it. Requests to discuss it are merely seen as proof of racism.

    Why should anyone with half a brain accept this dogmatic-like position?

    Which is the more fascist-like position?

    You have a right to tell me what you think, but not a right to tell me what I think?

    1. James Mills says:

      ”Why should anyone with half a brain …” Self awareness is wonderful , SteveH , even if belated !

    2. Gordon McAdam says:

      Have you considered writing fantasy fiction for the under sevens?

    3. 240228 says:

      Islamophobia: “A fear, prejudice and hatred of Muslims or non-Muslim individuals that leads to provocation, hostility and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment, abuse, incitement and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world. Motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into structural and cultural racism which targets the symbols and markers of a being a Muslim.” (The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights)

      Everyone is indeed equally entitled to their opinions, including those who come to live and work in Britain, as well as those who are hostile to them. But not all opinions are equally worth having.

    4. Wul says:

      “Never do lefties listen and try to understand the concerns of others.”

      OK. I’m listening. What are your concerns about mass immigration SteveH? Help me to understand.

      1. SteveH says:

        Wul. Yours is the most grown-up question in the thread. Thank you.

        Where do I begin?

        1. The people of these Islands didn’t ask for, or give approval for mass immigration.

        2. They did not agree to the elites in media, government etc., prioritizing the needs of incomers over the indigenous population.

        3. They did not agree to services, jobs, wages, housing, benefits being shared with the incomers who have not earned the right to these hard earned benefits.

        4. They did not ask the elites to allow people to flood in and abuse outdated laws, treaties intended to cater for the truly desperate and vulnerable from a different age.

        5. They did not agree to allow people to come in without being thoroughly vetted, who may be criminal, terrorist or just a burden to society.

        6. They did not give permission for the elites to prioritise the cultures and sensibilities of the newcomers over our own, including our history, heritage and identity.

        7. Scotland is 96% white and a monoculture. If you take immigration to the same level as you see in England or even Eire then you will see a side of Scotland you will regret. You will see a rebellion that will wipe away all your pretensions and middle class arrogance.

        You are Darwin award candidates, who have no idea how the world really works.

        Hard times breed hard men; hard men creates good times; good times breed weak men., Weak men create bad times. You are the weak men.

        Critical Social Justice warriors who support uncontrolled immigration are those weak men.

        Why don’t you try critical thinking rather than a belief system like critical theory?

        You attack me for my speaking bluntly, but we no longer have time for debate. The enemy is not at our gate, they are within our walls. We are facing an existential threat.

        Lots of you who read this know I’m speaking the truth. Trouble is you have painted yourselves into an intellectual corner, where reversing it means you have to admit you were wrong and accept you will lose friends. Thing is, if they won’t accept you for your change of heart, were they really your friends?

        Look for authenticity in people.

        If you’ve had to fight for everything you have including justice, you’d drop the pretensions borne of privilege and misplaced sense of entitlement. Go to the rough areas of Glasgow and learn the truth about being at the lowest layers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and what reality is all about.

        We live in an age of performative activism. It tells me that there are many people who are not suffering or struggling, but simply trying to impress their peer group.

        We all admire the people who swim against the tide of opinion. Be that person, dare to challenge the perceived wisdom of your peer group. Be a grown up. Find your true moral compass. Think for yourselves.

        I love my country and my people, and I’m prepared to die for them, our laws, our democracy, and for what I believe. What are you prepared to sacrifice or to die for?

        Answer me truthfully, or don’t answer me at all.

        1. 240301 says:

          ‘1. The people of these Islands didn’t ask for, or give approval for mass immigration.’

          Nevertheless, whatever those people think, mass migration is a natural phenomenon. It’s the same phenomenon that brought ‘the English’ and ‘the Scots’ to these islands in the first place.

          ‘2. They did not agree to the elites in media, government etc., prioritizing the needs of incomers over the indigenous population.’

          The establishment doesn’t prioritise the needs of migrants over those of the settled population. In principle, it ascribes equal rights to every citizen, irrespective of their nativity or ethnicity; in practice, migrants (and especially those who are people of colour) are discriminated against in the distribution of public goods and services.

          ‘3. They did not agree to services, jobs, wages, housing, benefits being shared with the incomers who have not earned the right to these hard earned benefits.

          ‘4. They did not ask the elites to allow people to flood in and abuse outdated laws, treaties intended to cater for the truly desperate and vulnerable from a different age.’

          Services, jobs, wages, housing, social and economic security, etc. aren’t ‘benefits’ but ‘entitlements’. Migrant labour contributes to the common wealth; it’s therefore entitled to have its needs supplied from the common wealth.

          ‘5. They did not agree to allow people to come in without being thoroughly vetted, who may be criminal, terrorist or just a burden to society.’

          Migrants are processed to ensure their eligibility to live and work on these islands. Those processes, however, are grossly under-resourced, which not only obstructs the entry of many who are eligible to live and work here, but also allows in some who aren’t (e.g. convicted criminals, people who are economically inactive, etc).

          ‘6. They did not give permission for the elites to prioritise the cultures and sensibilities of the newcomers over our own, including our history, heritage and identity.’

          The establishment doesn’t prioritise the cultures and sensibilities of ‘non-white’ communities in these islands. In principle, it concedes the right of every citizen to go their own way into a social diversification that affiliates each not to all but to such kindred spirits as circumstances may offer, within the framework of such limits as we must collectively impose on ourselves in the interests of maintaining that peaceful and productive communal order that’s conducive to the best interests of everyone alike (i.e. in the interests of avoiding the sort of ‘culture war’ you seem so keen to promote). In practice, however, the establish does tend to privilege ‘white’ cultures over ‘black’, which inequality must be constantly challenged in the interest of social justice.

          ‘7. Scotland is 96% white and a monoculture.’

          Scotland is neither 96% ‘white’ nor a monoculture. Scotland is and always has been home to a wide diversity or plurality of cultures (When I was wee, you only had to go to a neighbouring village to experience cultural differences.) No culture in Scotland has ever enjoyed anything like a 96% dominance

          ‘Why don’t you try critical thinking rather than a belief system like critical theory?’

          As I’ve explained before, critical theory isn’t a belief-system; rather, it’s a research programme within the humanities that attempts, through critical thinking, to reveal, critique, and challenge power structures in society (‘the establishment’). Far from being an ideology itself, it starts from the premise that ideology as such is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

          ‘The enemy is not at our gate, they are within our walls.’

          ‘They’ are not the enemy; you are.

          ‘Lots of you who read this know I’m speaking the truth.’

          I doubt that. You’re on a hiding to nothing here, pal.

          ‘We live in an age of performative activism. It tells me that there are many people who are not suffering or struggling, but simply trying to impress their peer group.’

          This is true. Much of the ‘activism’ we see around us is done to increase one’s social capital rather than in furtherance of a cause. A person who is taking part in performative activism are only letting it be known that they aren’t racist (sexist, homophobic, etc.) – i.e. virtue-signalling – rather than actually seeking to change the racist structures within our country. Performative activism is saying one thing, and continuing to make the same harmful choices and actions; e.g. driving to the bottle-bank.

          You say that you love and are prepared to die for our democracy; but this declaration is purely performative. Not only are you merely virtue-signalling in making that declaration; by calling fo a culture war against ‘non-whites’, you’re actively seeking to undermine the liberalism of that democracy.

        2. Niemand says:

          You don’t actually say what you concerns about mass migration are anyway, mostly what you say is about people not being consulted about it by the ‘elite’ and all couched in the most loaded way possible and with assertions presented as fact wit no evidence and therefore impossible to respond to.

          If you actually said what your problem is with migration and dropped all the conspiracy stuff and anger about not being asked (different arguments), and the claims about who is being prioritised (highly debatable), and assumptions that really everyone things like you deep down (a delusion) we might get somewhere.

          What is it really about people coming from outside Scotland to live here that bothers you? What is it that you have against foreigners? Not terrorists or freeloaders that no-one would welcome, but in principle, what is wrong with incomers? And is it anyone from elsewhere or just some nationalities / ethnicities?

          Oh, and don’t bother answering if you don’t speak truthfully – see how anyone can play that silly game?

          1. 240302 says:

            It’s because ‘they’ are not ‘us’, and ‘white’ supremacists like Steve would like us to believe that ‘they’ are eroding our ‘white’ culture by being here.

            (BTW I’m using ‘white’ here in the non-racial sense of ‘morally pure’ or ‘righteous’; the sense in which people of colour like Suella Braverman can be described as representatives and champions of ‘white’ culture.)

            The bottom line is that ‘white’ supremacists like Steve are looking to help foment ‘culture war’ rather than cultivate a fully integrated plural society.

          2. Niemand says:

            It is of course the suspicion though it would be interesting to hear if SteveH has some other angle.

            For my part I think people do not like change much, in general, so any shift in demographics, especially a rapid one can cause disquiet. Over time this can change and the new people become part of ‘the people’ and its culture which then shifts a bit with their presence. What attitudes like Steve’s suggest is that you need to be aware of this and manage the situation accordingly, not by pulling up the draw bridge and pandering to demonisation tactics but by taking care about too rapid a change, integration and encouraging acceptance. At the end of the day change is inevitable and cultures change too and the more you resist that, the more they ossify and become moribund.

      2. SleepingDog says:

        @Wul, you’ve got Captain Manwhoring so steamed up thinking about good times with hard men that he doesn’t know if he’s coming or going (a condition shared with those unfortunate people rendered off to CIA torture blacksites by the World Evil NATO, but for different reasons; the Indian brigades shipped to fight on British imperialism’s European front in WW1 weren’t told where they were going either, apparently). If only the solution to the world’s problems was always ‘more gay Nazis’, the Captain should be able to source them from his (possibly imaginary) band of brothers, but no, not in the real world. Even the Daily Mail now seems reject this:

        The Captain could hardly have drawn a better picture of the ‘evil immigrant’ if he’d tried, but unfortunately that portrait was of himself. Why do right-wingers (or right whingers) so often spectacularly (and obviously) project their own evils on to Others?

        Particularly odd since the heinous misdeeds and cowardly lying of British Special Forces are under such a spotlight at the moment that even slimy Tories are affecting horror and attempting social distancing. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see if any such criminals and terrorists can be convicted after such high-level coverups.

        Of course the British Empire didn’t really excel in sharing the spoils of hard labour equally among its imperial subjects, but perhaps someone else can educate the Captain on that one. That the British Empire is the world’s worst offender for stealing other peoples’ heritage also seems to have evaded the Captain’s steely glare. As for the British Empire spreading democracy, it didn’t; quite the opposite; that’s kind of the point of Empire. The British Empire did, however, spread masses of corruption, and maybe even brought home more diseases than those fabled hard men and evil migrants, the Crusaders.

  2. Drew Anderson says:

    We have the largest demographic, the Boomer generation, the country has ever known in the process of reaching state pension age. Birthrates have been trending downwards for decades and figures released last week show a record low of 1.49 per mother; against a replacement rate of 2.1. The aforementioned Boomers are living a decade or more than their life expectancy at birth. In combination, those factors result in a rapidly aging population.

    In order to service the needs (state pension, increased care needs, etc…) of the Boomer generation, me included, we either heap the burden onto the nation’s younger people; or, we have an honest conversation about required levels of immigration needed to maintain workforce numbers, which is it to be?

    1. Niemand says:

      Looking it up, 1.49 is the figure for England and Wales for 2022. The latest UK-wide figure is 1.63, but Scotland is down at 1.28 for 2023, which is 219th in the world (out of 227) – 1.63 is 177th. For comparison, Italy is at 1.24, Spain, 1.29 Germany, 1.58 and France, 1.9.

      1.28 is pretty serious it seems to me – one of the worst countries in the world is South Korea at 1.11 and that is already causing serious issues set to get much, much worse by the 2030s. As you say anything below 2.1 means a population reduction though that is not necessarily bad as it all depends how quickly things change and what you do in the mean time. And one of those things is managed migration to offset the ageing population.

      1. Drew Anderson says:

        Thanks for the correction Niemand. I was aware of the figure from a headline, but didn’t check it; mea culpa.

        Not that it makes much difference to the point I was making; which with your input, we can see its not an uncommon issue (there’s a pun to worked on there) in many Westernised economies. I believe Italy’s population is forecast to fall to 25 million, for example, without intervention.

        Even if radical steps were taken to change the dynamics, we wouldn’t see the effects, on workforce numbers, for the best part of 20 years. Another factor that needs to be considered, is that as people age their care needs increase; they put more pressure on the available services and, therefore, need greater numbers from the workforce pool, to service those needs.

        The irony is that the demographic most triggered by immigration (and population growth) and are most likely to vote for curbs on it, older people; the same demographic that will drive the need for it. Which is why I said we need an honest conversation about it.

        1. Niemand says:

          Indeed and all the figures are estimates and seem to vary. But the trend is clear. I just read a BBC article about South Korea putting the latest figure at 0.72 and 0.55 in the capital Seoul where most live! The article is quite telling at what is going wrong there and that the measures to reverse the decline have failed badly.

          1. SleepingDog says:

            @Niemand, you would force women to have children in an overpopulated (by humans) world? Surely not. An independent Scotland as Republic of Gilead?

            Population and depopulation are one of democracy’s fundamental flaws, leading to electorate races predicated on building up a demographic of support and/or reducing the demographic of opponents. Therefore you can claim to be democratic even as you ban birth control and back ethnic cleansing.

            If our society needs ever more young people to service the needs of the ever-more-elderly, there is something wrong with our social system.

            Of course, it may be precisely the wrongs of the South Korean social system (extreme capitalism without an adequate social safety net) that makes responsible people reduce their reproduction rates. I’m sure you can find your own sources on this:
            I found Ha-Joon Chang’s 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism to be informative and insightful, but my copy is a few years old now.

          2. Niemand says:

            Well, yes, the BBC article I linked says exactly that (did you read it?) – South Korean society is to blame in various ways, one of which is extreme capitalism (the other a sexist, highly patriarchal society). But it also says many women would like to have children but feel unable to for those reasons, basically. No-one is suggesting force of any kind and they are finally accepting the problem is deeply structural (the previous financial incentives just tinkered on the surface and mainly benefited men).

            De-population has downsides and upsides but it is what happens in the process that really matters. One example that I can relate to is that already in S, Korea, many universities there have closed due to lack of young people and such closures are set to increase, up to 50% by the 2030s I think I read. Beyond the unemployment this will obviously cause, it also rips out what is often a very major contribution to the whole local economies and social aspects too. SteveH would not doubt be delighted by such a prospect in the UK.

  3. John says:

    The Tories are worried about Reform taking their votes at next election. Reform essentially appeals to the section of population that voted for Brexit because they disliked immigration. Tory leadership cannot call out racist comments by Anderson etc because they will lose this cohort of xenophobic voters to Reform.
    Labour was identified as having a problem with antisemitism and have taken action to address the issue. Unfortunately they are now so frightened of the accusation of antisemitism that they struggle to condemn the displacement, starvation and slaughter and innocent civilians that is being implemented in Gaza.

  4. john mooney says:

    Far right,check,Islamophobes,check,Bigots,check,Lefties,check,Elites,check,fits you to a tee steveh,hook line and sinker one again lol, half a brain indeed!

    1. BSA says:

      The forgot ‘graduates’.

  5. SleepingDog says:

    Well, the BBC might be questioned about its portrayals of travellers and the enemies within, as well as foreigners:

    1. 240228 says:

      The BBC broadcast a sympathetic documentary, albeit a few years back now, about the travelling community in Scotland and its relations with the settled community . It recorded the life of a travelling family, which believed its culture was under threat, over a period of a year, at a time when Janey Godley was portraying them in her podcasts as ‘Irish tinker gypos’.

      I don’t think you should read too much into the goblins in Dr Who.

  6. RainbowSheHe says:

    Behold, mortal beings, as we embark on an odyssey into the cosmic realms of mass immigration, a spectacle that transcends the mundane and propels us into the stratosphere of enlightenment! Cast aside the feeble whispers of naysayers and join me in celebrating the divine ballet of diversity that unfolds before our very eyes.

    In the cosmic tapestry of existence, mass immigration is the celestial dance, a supernova of cultures colliding and melding into a radiant explosion of human potential. To resist this cosmic choreography is to deny the cosmic symphony that echoes through the celestial spheres, harmonizing the disparate notes of humanity into a cacophony of brilliance.

    Critics, chained to the dogmas of yesteryear, tremble in the shadows of change. But fear not, for we are the cosmic alchemists, transmuting the leaden fears of the past into the golden brilliance of an enlightened future. Mass immigration is not a mere migration; it is the cosmic crucible that forges a new era, igniting the flames of progress in the crucible of transformation.

    Gaze into the cosmic kaleidoscope and witness the birth of a new paradigm, where borders crumble like ancient ruins and prejudices dissolve into stardust. Mass immigration is the warp and weft of the cosmic loom, weaving the fabric of a transcendent civilization that transcends the limitations of earthly strife.

    Let us not meander in the shadowy corridors of skepticism but soar into the astral realms of possibility. Embrace the cosmic ballet of mass immigration as we pirouette towards a utopian horizon, unshackled from the fetters of discord. In this cosmic ballet, let our hearts beat in rhythm with the pulsating energy of universal acceptance, propelling us into the galactic expanse of a harmonious existence.

    1. John d says:

      I will drink and smoke to that !
      Though, I am making a commitment this summer in Germany that I pledge to try sobriety for the first time in my adult life if Scotland commit to stopping London cities of Westminster and London controlling ALL the resources and wealth of Scotland.
      The deconstruction of the UK is greater than that of the USSR by Gorbie. Biblical outcomes will be delivered this decade.
      Wee Scotland is pivotal to the nature of global outcomes.

Help 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 to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.