A suitable candidate?

The British parties are not relevant to Scotland. It doesn’t matter who gets to sit in the comfy chair, they are irrelevant. They are not part of Scotland’s politics. They are outside interference.

British politicians squat in the Scottish Parliament like malignant, malicious cuckoos. They are interlopers intent on disrespecting, denigrating and ultimately destroying the very institution to which they are privileged to be elected. They, and their colleagues in the British parliament, don’t even pretend to try and represent either their constituents or the country they claim to be ‘proud’ of.

They are British Nationalists. They are a blight on Scotland’s democracy. They are a cancer at the heart of our nation.

It matters not at all which of the British parties they belong to or who their ‘leader’ is, they all adhere to the same ‘One Nation’ ideology and will stop at nothing to preserve their precious Union.

If anyone thinks to condemn this as a sweeping and unjust generalisation, let them first think of any MSP or MP from any of the British parties who could reasonably be regarded as an exception.

That Michelle Ballantyne is being suggested as the new pretendy leader of a pretendy party implies that she has certain qualities. Qualities which most people would feel insulted to have attributed to them. She must be dissembling, dishonest, detached from reality, lacking in self-awareness, unabashedly hypocritical, vacuous to the point of imbecility and totally unprincipled. Most of all, she must be unquestioningly loyal to the real leader of the real party and unhesitatingly obedient in serving the British establishment.

I come to this with no strong opinions about Ballantyne other than the abhorrence I hold for all British Nationalists – particularly those that infest Holyrood. Indeed, I was barely aware of her existence until now. Her gaffes and inanities are pretty tame compared to those of some of her cuckoo colleagues. But the fact that she is considered a suitable candidate to take over from Ruth Davidson necessarily means that she is the kind of individual I consider a plague on politics.

We know how to wipe out this plague. #DissolveTheUnion



If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

11 thoughts on “A suitable candidate?

  1. Is she English as well?

    Prerequisite for ruling over us rebellious Scots. She will no doubt tell us why she moved to Scotland, if it is indeed such a terrible place compared to England.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Agreed. Her status a British Nationalists qualifies her as either a fool or a knave. The latter come in many creeds and colours – English, Scottish, Irish, American, French … no doubt even Martians, if any exist.

        But fools and knaves are the constant.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Spot on Peter, “malignant, malicious cuckoos” sums them up very well. Seemingly their only purpose being to stifle and destroy the hopes and aspirations of the country they pretend to represent in the interests of their London controllers.. If only a large body of the scots electorate were to recognise them as such and begin casting their votes for Scottish-only parties.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “British Nationalist”…..Still such a crap term – it fails to land because it is neither cutting nor truthful.

    Lets start by being honest.
    – Supporting your own country is supporting your nation.
    – Imposing your country on another is Colonialism
    – Imposing another country on your own is some kind of dark inferiority complex.

    As a thought experiment: Imagine if Germany started running it’s political parties in local English elections – whilst calling England a “Region” – because, you know, they are in a union together. Can you imagine the Daily Mail…Or the SUN?

    I suspect “English supporters” actually like the use of “British Nationalist” because that term allows the English power to continue to hide behind “Britain” and it subtly reinforces that seed in everyones mind that Britain is the nation. Either its 4 nations and its a Union – or its a nation.

    England always hides its true self by wearing its colonies as a mask. It is the perfect strawman – an illusion that England is not pulling the strings. “Britain”, the Empire, the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom. It has so many names – No matter which one you use, it will always just turn around and say – Oh that’s not us….we are the other one. Once it gets too hard to avoid issues, it then jettisons the entire mask and says – Oh, we are just England….Nothing to do with us……Windrush anyone?

    We know from experience, England would never willingly give each sovereign nation an forum for equal power sharing – its the way in which we can see that England actually fears its neighbours. That fear is both an internal weakness about living with out its colonial mask and an insecurity that England would never countenance being permanently and repeatedly held to account by its neighbours.

    If the English succeed in convincing everyone that “Brittan” is the nation by stelth and unending propaganda – at that point England will have succeeded. It will have both; absorbed its neighbours as a permanent “food” source and magically become invisible to outsiders (and unaccountable for its deeds). That’s the road to Scotland becoming just a shortbread tin marketing picture. You might as well just call your self “Brigadoon”. (an Imaginary version of Scotland used to sell stuff made up by someone who didn’t know Scotland)

    To be really cutting, YES needs to find a term:
    – Engages the base,
    – Persuades the middle
    – Make the opposition show their true colours.

    “England as Britain” is the closest term I have seen…but it fails to land any real blow.
    “British Nationalist” fails outright because it can’t hit the last 2 points.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I always rather liked ‘Little Britain’ – the connotations with the inexplicably popular teevee show only add to its resonance.

      But is the name perhaps less important than the principles and implications?

      Maybe it is sufficient for example always to attack any implication that Britain is a country, or to invert positions by putting England in the discursive places more often imposed upon Scotland.

      Just some thoughts.

      Like

  4. While English politicians and their attitude to Scotland is clearly a problem for us, and they need Scotland to maintain the international status of England, and the seat on the UN Security Council, etc, our bigger problem is the Scottish politicians, and their allies in Scottish media, who have for so long, sold us out. And want to continue doing so, such as we see in reports that Labour in Scotland want to give rail control to London.
    “British Nationalist” is a perfect term for such as those,the more so, as they hate it, being called “nationalist”.
    However, I would have no hesitation in calling such as this lot, in Scotland, “Traitors”, to Scotland
    They hate that one even more, but alas, it is the actual truth.
    And all the while, we have SNP fulminate day after day, about how this and that is unacceptable, and this and that will be devastating, and so on, and so on, but are yet prepared to do as these treacherous politicians demand of them, from Westminster, such as “ask” for this much fabled Section30.
    That is a waste of time. SNP should stop wasting time, and just go for it.
    And those who continually want to betray our country, this time round, must be forced to justify themselves, in a way they have been allowed to get away with not doing, previously.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I like the word traitors too. Because that is precisely what they are. They have a long history of participation in Scottish politics, kowtowing to the Perfidy of Albion, betraying their own people for power privilege and cash.

      But I come up against the riposte of our times: this language is provocative and confrontational, I should find a different more compromising form of words. Just like attacks on the chief gobshite at Westminster for naming the Benn Act the ‘surrender’ Act, with all those connotations of warfare against Johnny Foreigner trying to impose his will ….

      In essence what Bojo said in response was that he calls it how he sees it, that it would be an act of surrender to postpone again the will of the people.

      So we too should be able to call stuff as we see it, just like the poet who complained of lairds being bought and sold by English gold, we should have no qualms saying that occupants of Westminster acting in the interests of Little Britain are traitors.

      Traitors.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.