indy is not giving Montenegro's folks fair local running of land

Montenegro. Small country in the Balkans, that after a century in bigger unions since WW1, became independent in 2006. Sometimes argued as a precedent for Scotland.

So has indy given its ordinary folks a fair life empowered over what happens to them, keeping it locally suitable? Not judging by this story of a rural community's seasonal grazing pasture nicked for international military use. www.radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/saving-a-critical-pastureland-in-montenegro/

Decided from the top "with no publicly available environmental, health, or economic impact evaluations, and without any substantial negotiations with the affected pastoral communities, or any apparent respect for their legal rights."

Because power corrupts the same in a union or in a separation.

in a little box with nasty barricades

For the anti-outsider racism against Scotland's diaspora which made it morally necessary to vote No, the worst of the leading nats was Jim Sillars. He it was who actually proposed that the Scots born in diaspora as the offspring of our emigrants - whose emigration itself was supposed to be a nat issue - should be filtered for desirable skills the same as migrants with no roots here, before they can live in their own country. He took this line of xenophobic hate speech towards a section of his own nation, in his campaign dialogue with George Galloway and to the Yes meeting on 7 May 2014 at Liberton school, Edinburgh. SSP leader Colin Fox was sitting beside him and continued to do a campaigning tour with him calling him a friend.

I saw it because it was my question on citizenship by descent that he was answering. He told the same meeting that he was a Eurosceptic who would rather Scotland be like Norway and join EFTA, he retains from 70s nationalism its anti-EU strain, the idea of sacrosanct national sovereignty not getting pooled and united with anyone. Anti-Europeanism is now another racist anti-immigration position, because it means, and at British level much of it is motivated by, ending the union of free movement and travel. Going back to having nasty barricades up to the rest of the world outside your little box of global apartheid.

It fits him perfectly that he has now announced he's campaigning for an Out vote in the referendum, and splitting with the SNP mainstream by it, as he has ranted against the party control created by Salmond. The nats are better off without him, but will they realise it and break with his sick level of anti-diaspora bigotry?

Sillars will have no claim to moan or to claim any crisis if Scotland votes In and Britain votes Out. It is a matter of record that he wants the opposite.

The very bad economics of independence.

mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&referrer

"I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled."


This is terrific too, comprehensively demolishes everything about Yes: Duncan Stephen, why i will be voting No Thanks

Astonishing chilling threat of mass deportations.

The SNP's threat issued on Jul 14, to take away residency from the EU citizens already living here, effectively a mass expulsion from the country, if we get trouble with rejoining the EU, was an eye opener and shocker for many. The mask dropped from how racistly the nats are willing to operate, all that means for what a new state would be like, and how it correlates with the shocker they are doing to families in their citizenship plan.

Could there possibly be any more to come, you were already wondering?

This has turned up, from Yes street activity, openly being offered to voters. A booklet produced by the famously English-based Yes blog Wings Over Scotland, called "The Wee Blue Book". A booklet of what they say are key point to convert you to Yes and supposed to be difficult for No supporters to answer - in fact they are all the scare claims and unevidenced assumptions you have heard before and very easy for No supporters to answer.

But on p61, in the chapter "Negotiations" on what would happen after a Yes vote, up pops this surprise:

" Scotland being out of the EU would certainly hurt Scotland, but it would massively damage the rUK too in several very obvious ways.

It would be disastrous for rUK businesses, but more to the point it would cause bureaucratic chaos the likes of which has never been seen on these islands, as 400 000 English, Welsh, and Northern Irish people suddenly lost the automatic right to live in Scotland and a similar number of Scots risked expulsion from the rest of the UK.

It is barely an exaggeration to say that the whole of Britain would grind to a halt. People wouldn't know who they could do business with and who might be deported the next day." - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS A THREAT TO CARRY OUT A MASS DEPORTATION! A RACIST ATROCITY! IT IS IN THE CASE YES ACTIVISTS ARE NOW MAKING TO THE PUBLIC IN THE STREET! THERE IS NO THREAT ON THE BRITISH SIDE TO THROW ANYONE OUT, THIS COMES ENTIRELY FROM THE YES SIDE. DO WHAT WE WANT OR WE THREATEN TO OVERTURN THE LIVES AND TAKE AWAY THE LIVELIHOODS OF, AND DEPORT, THEY ACTUALLY SAY THEMSELVES DEPORT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE! WHO AT PRESENT LIVE PEACEFULLY IN A UNITED COUNTRY!

THIS IS THE NATIONALIST MONSTER ON AN INCREDIBLE SCALE!PRINT COPY AND SHARE THIS POST!And remembering that Yes's citizenship plans don't make it unrefusable by descent from a parent, and Alex Salmond himself would not tell me on his phone-in on Jul 29 it would be unrefusable, you can tell that by "English Welsh and Northern Irish" who would lose their residency and become subject to DEPORTATION!!! yes read it in there!!!! they likely count a good number of Scots by background and family too!

THIS IS A FRIGHTENING TIME OF HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCY. WHEN HAS BRITISH POLITICS EVER CONTAINED SUCH A BARBAROUS THREAT OF EXPELLING POPULATIONS????? VOTE NO, VOTE AGAINST THE SIDE THAT MAKES THIS THREAT, AND BE READY TO CHALLENGE THE LEGITIMACY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW OF ANY SECESSION PLAN INCLUDING THIS THREAT AT ALL.

A Scot trapped in exile by a hideous citizenship injustice.

The following page citsee.eu/citsee-story/scottish-citizenship-now-time-start-discussing-it is a link to said professor Jo Shaw's academic questions and thoughts on citizenship, as mentioned last post. But what matters far more than that inconclusive article, is to be found in the comments posted below it.

A commenter named "WithoutHeritage" has posted -

THAT DESPITE BEING FROM GLASGOW THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM BRITISH CITIZENSHIP AND HENCE FROM LIVING IN SCOTLAND, BY REASON OF A CHANGE TO CITIZENSHIP RULES THE YEAR BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.

"I can not explain to you how saddening this is. I have struggled with this issue all my life. I loved the land deeply and felt it is where I came to be." "I tried every legal way possible to claim citizenship. I tried using my parents old passports and entry dates( they are not citizens). "

This is an ethnic atrocity. IT IS HORRIBLE.

WHAT ARE BOTH SIDES OFFERING TO DO ABOUT IT? This person, stuck living in the US, supports independence in expectation that it's the Yes side who will take any interest in this. The question is there for both sides.

Explain why don't we have to get out to stay in?

Tony Blair today says independence is bad for the same reasons as leaving the EU is bad. Cutting ourselves off into a small bubble instead of being cushioned by belonging to a bigger whole in an era when economics works on the big scale. Okay, follow his own reasoning?

What happens in the event that Britain chooses not to listen to him and continues its anti-EU drift that has so swiftly accelerated to such a serious scale that nobody expected. We will see Britain heading for the separatist choice, and largely for racist reasons that will make it a very ugly scenario for many of our continental friends who live here and have important places in our lives. Already it includes right wing moves against the principle of human rights. Then exactly in order to choose against separation we would have to choose to separate from Britain. In order to follow Blair's advice on the EU and stay in that European bigger whole, we would have to leave the British bigger whole, so as not to be included in its leaving of the EU?

With the 2 decisions forced on us in the wrong order, the Scottish decisison happening before the British EU decisison and not informed by its result but forced to gamble on what it will be, won't it be a safer way of following Blair's own reasoning that we separate from Britain for fear of it separating from Europe, and we seize on the support of figures like Blair for the desirability of not shrinking the EU, to use in fighting our way back into it if we get the accession problems the unionists are having us threatened with? Blair obviously would not say it was bad that smaller countries, Slovenia, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, separated out from the former bigger unions of Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, and have joined the bigger EU instead contributing to its expansion, before it was possible for them to bring the whole of the unions they left into the EU. Scotland will be in exactly the same moral position if we buck a very nastily anti-democratic swing to Euro-hate by Britain.

This surely is the only really strong argument the Yes side can use to climb out of the hole the SNP's secret economic nerves have put them in, also today! It means being strong on human rights to differentiate from, and to raise clear alarm against, the way England is turning. But that will only work if it overturns the SNP's own eagerness to attack human rights arm in arm with the Tories, if the Yes side disown and cease to be burdened by Macaskill making you pay for a court defence when charged with a crime. Otherwise, being part of big or small wholes ain't what it's about at all. Survival of free society and getting out of the hole that both sides at once have thrown our civil liberties into, will be the primary item to vote on.

Due protection of the law under neither choice

Today's Daily Express front page, with its usual racist glee, delights in having Cameron float to them a policy to cut availability of legal aid to immigrants. Perfectly legal immigrants including EU citizens who are entitled to be here as citizens. Indeed testing the water of explicitly going against that principle, through an anti-EU paper. It is obviously a beginning of campaigning for the EU referendum on a basis of competing racism.

Thanks to the fight for semi-federalism in Britain being already won in 1997, Cameron's threatened measure would only apply to England. Salmond But in Scotland we already have in parallel with this Macaskill's flagrantly sinister cutback to free criminal defence, for all of us, and putting that under legal aid limits. Which no media are running with as an issue against the Yes campaign here.

Instead of voting for hope or positive new futures, we face voting between 2 options of statehood both offering breach of the human rights standard of access to law, and to put a money power in the way of all justice for society's victims. Both our Yes and No options are offered through, both sides come from, a political class making these core undemocratic moves, that endanger us all, syncrhonised at at the same time.

Now who are the tartan Tories Alex?

Secret session

In this quick new drama of the Information Commissioner taking the government to the Court of Session, over it legal advice on our future EU membership, both sides are at fault, for not disclosing that the court change exists.No matter which way the court decides, no matter which side's campaign it turns out to help, the winning side will miss a way to make Scotland better and the losing side will miss an opportunity to fight back against the damage to them.

As a result the issue will not be portrayed accurately to the public, who all have an interest in the court change becoming properly publicly known and functional as a result of this case. The court change is a massive advance in democracy that the media and political class have kept silent for 13 years, despite nobody ever having any argument to give against the clear reasons why it is real. Whatever is the position on Scotland's EU membership and whatever the court says about it, it includes that all its details are contestable under the court change.

What will you hear of this tomorrow, if you go and watch the Yes campaign's rally in Edinburgh?

Alex goes south

The Olympic Games are a conceptual absurdity. Their modern revival was supposed to be a promoter of peace, and that is what the symbol with the interlocking rings is supposed to show. Yet nothing is less peaceful to raw hurting human egos, than competition, victory, defeat. That is what competitive games do to people, and they showcase nations' posturing pride which goes back to possessive or territorial animals' aggressive displays to each other.

We hear Alex Salmond was there. Why the hell? It was a feast of unionist propaganda, Britain telling its self-promotional story. Like, look how wonderful we are for creating the NHS, to make the outside world find it harder to believe we are destroying it. No Highland Clearances in there.

Scotland is not even competing as an entity, only Britain is.Who has the man who says he wants to vote Britain away gone to its capital, in its greedy third hosting of the Olympics instead of a British bid going to a different city this time, to show his support for?

He went to Wimbledon too. Alex really really luvs going to England.

Who is signing up?

20% of us are called "the persuadables". Because we have not said firmly yes or no, it is open to the SNP to convert us if they say the right things.

Consider what your own self regard as a thinking voter means. It must not take just a hip sounding campaign to win you over, where what is said remains within the crappy bounds of what campaigns always say. To win you over must take committal definite answers to every issue you want to raise. It must take a participative enough form of campaign to show you you have the means to actually extract those answers. It must be the opposite of a controlled filtered respectable message. It must be the opposite of what the SNP did when they said they would not put all the responses to their first consultation onto public record. They showed then a closed up filtering of their message. To watch and point out its continuation was the point of starting this blog.

• Until that filtering has stopped,
• until they do take a definite absolute position in favour of an immigration right to the Scottish diaspora descended from any number of generations returning here from anywhere in the world,
• until they do take a definite absolute position on the specific story of police lying to newly returned diaspora that their newly bought home is in a rough area,

I shall not be attracted from the ranks of the persuadables to sign Salmond's gimmicky people's declaration "saying Yes to an independent Scotland".

Among the signatories you can see today in the Sunday Herald is John McAllion, SSP and formerly Labour when he chaired the petitions committee in the 1999 parliament. As chair of the petitions committee he openly broke parliament's rules at the time by excluding a petition from the agenda and the record, for calling for a restriction on the committee's powers. "I have discussed this with the committee chairman, who is not inclined to include the petition on the agenda for a committee meeting." This was an act of corrupting the rules and dishonest record within parliament's first few months of existence. By the ever so neat rule that such breaches have to be challenged through an MSP and no MSP would pursue it, this dishonest act of class power was allowed to happen within parliament's first few months of existence. Unless Salmond answers this, how well does that bode for the new state whose creation McAllion now signs for? Also there is Margo Macdonald, who has a public writing platform herself as a newspaper columnist yet who was one of the MSPs who declined to act against McAllion on grounds that she agreed with the committee's view against petitioning for things to be published. Against public platform for any facts and info that are outside the already existing class filtered approved view of reality.

Then in 2004 on an SSP platform for their now forgotten declaration of Calton Hill", McAllion called the world's longest running one party state, Castro's Cuba, "a worker's democracy". You notice how it was a hard lefty, an apologist for communism, who committed an act of class power for MSPs to control and filter what content is heard in politics and what issues popularly recognised to exist?

Glasgow free by '14?

So, Glasgow has not fallen. Labour has a majority there again. Salmond can't take his momentum for granted. Winning Glasgow is the latest of his many unmet boasts ever since "Free by 93".

It simply means he needs to let folks be heard. To give voice to the issues around independence that folks have raised, like I raised in my response to the 2010 consultation which he did not put on public record.

It means putting items like that on public record and not manipulating the record in pursuit of complacent voter feelgood. It means the SNP showing any care towards the returning diaspora, taking a position on stories of the state wrecking zionist returns to Scotland such as having the police lie to you on your eighth day here that your newly bought house is in a rough area, when it provenly is not.

Wanting to expose injustices upon ordinary Scots from the status quo is the way to win independence. Wanting to leave ordinary Scots' issues uncommented on, and try to progress just on a feelgood momentum ignoring folks' troubles, is the way not even to win Glasgow. Got it?

You are all suspects now

johnpilger.com/articles/you-are-all-suspects-now-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it : You are all suspects now. A really important article by John Pilger on the cooperation between the Western powers to get rid of the presumption of innocence to an alarming extent, on grounds of security. How this is still going on as intensely as ever since 2001 despite the War on Terror petering out of the media.

Ask the SNP whether their new Scotland will still be part of this process. Watch out for whether they give any commitments otherwise, let along to reverse specific dangerous losses of civil liberty that have happened already.

Crikey Cruddas ! He said it.

The referendum is all over now, innit? Who is ever going to vote No after hearing the leak of what Cruddas said, that they don't really want the Union at all. Cruddas of the expensive Prime Ministerial dinners, and who gave a £1 million to the No to alternative vote campaign last year, I mean that was soooooooooooo soddy - he is who the folks who voted No trusted. It's no problem to him if Scotland separates, and we can keep voting with PR too.

"we as a party have to be seen to be fighting to keep the Union together, even if we don’t agree with it, because, at the end of it all, if the Scots say ‘we’re out of here’ and they want to go independent, we can turn around and say it’s not what we wanted, it’s not what we campaigned for, you can’t have this, you can’t have that, and you can get on with it.”

Yet we still have to sustain a serious threat to vote No if the SNP's position is too neglecting of the diaspora or plays to any racist agendas. Though if they play to the same ones as the Tories do, e.g. by not joining Schengen, that can't tip your vote either way.

After Cruddas saying this, it would be clanging against the SNP down through history if by not being seen to cater for the diaspora they blow winning secession.

NB the Scotsman article linked to is wrong to repeat that scare that without us the Tories would have a permanent majority Presumably we are meant to think we would be to blame for doing that to the English poor if we secede. As shown here, without us Labour still wins a majority all its last 3 wins and all its wins where it had a majority of more than a few seats.

no park in Aberdeen

Not content with supporting Trump and using parliamentary powers to through the golf develeopment against the affected community's will, only for his monster erecently to turn on him, - now Salmond also supports the destruction of Union Terrace Gardens, the only city centre park in Aberdeen, by a stupid pointless business development. Aberdeen has several malls already. Many folks there want to keep the garden space in their city, that is part of the city experience there, that makes such a big difference to any city's niceness to be in, a green lung.

Salmond's Scotland is going to be covered in scars and a less gentle environment for everyone. This constant siding with the fleeting whims of big business is not care about the country.

Which is the vandal ?

Trump again. This is the Mr Big who dug up sand dunes with lots of rare biology in them, vandalised a piece of Scottish environment, and now he says he is our environment's champion, against the sight of wind farms, and has written a rant his old protector and buddy Salmond is destroying our coastline.

It's embarrassing for Salmond though. Not because anything Trump says is right, but because he did do physical damage to Scotland - by forcing through Trump's development ruining the sand dunes in the first place against even Aberdeenshire council's will. This is the thanks Salmond gets for serving money power while presenting as running the government that shows we can care for ourselves.

Just another reason why Salmond and every plan he dangles before us should not be trusted until he becomes open about putting on the record every constitutional issue raised by the people every time he supposedly consults them, which is needed for that consulting to be honest.

decide your statehood from an unpredictable economic forecast

Opinion poll says the country's vote could be swayed entirely by whether folks believe that on average they will be just £500 per year better or worse off in income?

How can such figures possibly be calculated? We live in an era when everyone should have seen that economic forecasts are no more convincing than astrology. Fractional income advantage whould be a shockingly momentary item to decide a country's future on: this vote won't be just like an election that will come round again shortly. But it is natural, and quite Yes Minister, when an opinion pollster asks you in the light of those income figures which way you would vote, that you say the way that sounds better. 61% vote Yes if told the figures are better with independence, but only 21% if told the figures are better off with the union.

It shows the decision is not deeply rooted in national sentiment, either way, and at least the people have got that right. In a time of distrust for political systems, national feeling about homeland should not be converted into feeling for a political state. This should worry the SNP though, there is not much around of the type of deep rooted naive patriotism they want and would make their task easiest. If they respond to that fact by just more of the same message, patriotically trust us, then they deserve the defeat they will risk. If they respond in the way they never yet have, by actually taking on issues about ordinary returners to Scotland from the diaspora, and exposing state dirty tricks like the police lying to returners that their newly bought houses are in a rough area, only then will they show that voters should take any interest in more than just speculative unprovable economic figures.

You've Been Trumped, and so have young homebuyers

Anyone who has seen the film You've Been Trumped, now touring the country, has seen an insight into the moral standards of any bandwagon backed by Salmond, that all voters need to see before the referendum. Not necessarily to vote No as a result, but only to vote Yes if they can see the Yes cause being in caring enough other hands than only Salmond's, that also are strong enough to make any difference to what a new state would be like.

Salmond was interviewed totally fawning over Trump. You remember it was the SNP government that intervened and overrode Aberdeenshire council's planning rejection of Trump's rubbish. Salmond stands there and says the economy takes precedence over the environment. A development not creating local jobs at all, existing only to benefit the world of rich privilege that has enough benefit already, that has the absurd purpose that they will fly across the Atlantic Ocean just to play golf then fly back again, an action whose carbon footprint is just like a boot in the sky splatting on top of us all, overrides a sensitive piece of coast with an equilibrium of dynamic sand and a rare habitat. Destablising the coast. Digging up all the sand dunes and the grass anchoring them, and spreading artificial sand flats here there and everywhere just burying the landscape that was there before.

Vandalising Scotland, in fact. You see it going on around the affected residents' homes, and this is the new Scotland they have got from the SNP, as noticed by one who used to vote for them. This it seems is the Scotland that Salmond the patriot wants to offer in the referendum, wants to tug the heart strings for. He who has helped a man whose fortune could lift many of the SNP's recent voters out of privation, to start digging the heart out of a piece of Scotland. A piece in Salmond's own region, too. Be independent, but not be physically intact as a landscape.

A properly informed referendum is one where the voters know all about that. Are more acutely conscious of what is going on on their coast than they were in the last election.

Meanwhile, a prediction has made the papers that the housing market won't recover into its proper form accessible to everyone, like in the 90s it did recover, and that home ownershiop will on average be unaffordable until folks are in their 40s. What is that going to do to Scots living in exile because their parental homes are in exile, who may have grown up in exile like I did? How are they going to get their human right to live in Scotland not in exile? and get it before they might die for any number of accidental reasons, evilly after never having lived in their own homeland at all? Salmond can help them every bit as keenly as he is helping Trump. He can publicise how rent and mortgages no longer constitutionally exist. A fact, covered up for 16 years, that once made publicly known, abolishes the housing market in its present form completely, so abolishes the problem. Salmond and the SNP know all about this. See the second post on this blog, my submission to the National Conversation, I detailed it all in there, how it follows from how the British state was treating returns of exiles to Scotland in the 1990s, lying to us that our new homes were in rough areas when they provenly were not. Have we ever heard the SNP speak up for the victims of this, and fot the committal fact of the areas concerned being okay?

It is vandalism of this nation, just as much as supporting Trump is, to choose not to expose the truth about rent and mortgages, when our young diaspora are out there suffering the oppression of economic entrapment in exile, not sharing in the new Scotland which is theirs by right.

police station lawyer access

The SNP government has gone out of its way never to sound liberal or enlightened on any issue. To project a severe image of society appealing to the authoritarian vote, which is hardly a vote for healthy accountability of the state in a new independent state, is it? (Yes2AV)

For the folks of their country to feel safe, today's must be the worst item on this list. It has taken a human rights court case at British level to enforce access to a lawyer for everyone being held and questioned by the police. The SNP have never campaigned about this, and on the day it happens, do they come on TV beaming with pleasure for human rights here? Not zilch. Macaskill, and remember he is a lawyer, sounded totally displeased and bothered. His first reaction? To increase the hours the police can bang you up for without charge. To make it the same as England, 24 hours, so that we lose the good side of only being lockable up for less time in Scotland, 6 hours.

There are other times, outside formal questioning, when the police in an English police station can intimidate you without a lawyer seeing, and yes we have custody visitors in Scotland so whatever way the police tried to frighten you, if they held you for long enough for the custody visitor to see you then you could tell them about it. So it is not the case that before today the Scottish position was disastrously worse in human rights terms than the English. It was worse in that way, the detention without lawyer for 6 hours, but better in other ways, the lesser detention time and the procurator fiscal check on charging decisions. It was swings and roundabouts, by accidents of history. There was no need for nationalists to feel miffed or defensive. But above all there was no need for them to defend what was bad and to introduce something else bad in cancelling out of today's step forward.

In making it a lot worse and a lot less safe going through daily life for how long the police can bang you up for without charge, the SNP government is inflicting on itself a lot more cause for the court change to arise in court cases, and for folks to make use of it. This totally sits in conflict with their unworkable effort to continue to ignore the court change, and with suppressing the decription of the court change in my consultation response. The only course it fits with logically, is to openly announce the court change and take a position on it.

SNP's ruling class attitude over Trump shows why they would filter the national conversation

The Scotland On Sunday has exposed that Donald Trump, when he was turned down by Aberdeenshire council and thought he had lost, was told by the SNP government he would still win. Their now obviously biased move to challenge and revers the council's position followed.

To all who care to keep a note of it and remember it until election time, this has exposed that the the first nationalist government is on the side of clearances and evictions. It's a ruling class monstrosity at odds with the most prominent theme of oppression that has run in Scottish history since the union!

This is yet another issue that is affected by covering up the court change. I have been saying here, that the well known folks facing evil deportation from Britain to Africa at knowing risk of their lives are being knowingly and culpably kept in danger by the SNP going along with the British parties in covering up the court change, and neither telling ghem about it nor exposing it publicly. At least the SNP claim to be on those folks' side opposing the deportations, so inviting you to judge them on whether they act that way in practice. Not so with the evictions at Menie. The folks whose homes Trump wants to demolish to assist leisure for the rich, the SNP's first government is openly and blatantly not on their side but happy to be party to perpetrating a modern clearance upon them - and it is wilfully withholding information from them too by not exposing or announcing the court change. Suppressing from the public record my referendum consultation response, that included describing the court change, has had this effect too, we can see that it is another measure whereby the SNP has assisted Trump's clearances by suppressing information.

This may not only be about the court change. My consultation response also described a housing injustice issue that the SNP has wilfully run away from taking any position on for 15 years, but that needs to feature in the referendum if it is to be in any way a fairly informed referendum. This was my story that when I made my zionist return to Scotland from exile, in 1995, and bought a house in a nice leafy section of a half-privatised council estate, on my eighth day both in Scotland and in a newly bought house the police lied to me that it was a rough area.

The lie being proved by police complaint and overturned, the SNP could never have had any legal fear over facts. I explained so in the response. The SNP has never wanted to give an inch to any pressing to take a position on that maltreatment of zionist returners from the Scottish diaspora, by the British state, which if aired properly would inform the country properly on whether it adds to the case for independence.

We can see that by not encouraging awareness or talk about any housing justice issues for the Scottish people at ordinary level, they make it easier for themselves to get away with siding with the world financial elite, like Trump and his customers, against us. Suppressing my consultation response was consistent with this too. Nice folks?

the National Conversation suppressed some responses

When the National Conversation did a consultation about holding the independence referendum, the website announced that some of the submissions received were being withheld from the public. Their own discretion was in control of making that choice. Here:

http://www.blogger.com/www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/05/24131023/0

This blog is for publishing what was censored, and opening to scrutiny the merits of why the SNP government should wish to suppress it. So where is the "harmful to others" content? and where is there any offensive content, apart from views they disagree with? If you spot any, come and comment here and point it out.

Perhaps other writers of the blocked submissions would like them put online here too? I expose here that they have just chosen to suppress views they disagree with and find embarrassing to their own views' merits. Including on issuesd to with racism and with the status of nuclear weapons, both would be important issues in the referendum. That filtering makes for a fiddled secretive and partial consultation process.