Monthly Archives: September 2014

Passing of Peace Activist Fred Branfman – Reblogged from AlterNet

Fred Branfman’s final piece for AlterNet asks Israel’s supporters: Where do you draw the line between ‘defense’ and atrocities?

September 27, 2014 |

Editor’s Note:AlterNet is resurfacing this article publishing in August by Fred Branfman, who passed away this week in Budapest. Over the past 5 years, AtlerNet was proud to publish his articles focusing on war and empire and the rise of the national security state. Branfman has been an touched the lives of many prominent activists and intellectuals and public figure, from Noam Chomsky, to CodePink founder Jodie Evans to California Governor Jerry Brown. This passage from an essay by Branfman shares the account of how he met and inspired Noam Chomsky in Laos to join the antiwar movement:
Forty-two years ago I had an unusual experience. I became friendly with a guy named Noam Chomsky. I came to know him as a human being before becoming fully aware of his fame and the impact of his work. I have often thought of this experience since — both because of the insights it gave me into him and, more important, the deep trouble in which our nation and world find themselves today. His foremost contribution for me has been his constant focus on how U.S. leaders treat so many of the world’s population as “unpeople,” either exploiting them economically or engaging in war-making, which has murdered, maimed or made homeless over 20 million people since the end of World War II (over 5 million in Iraq and 16 million in Indochina according to official U.S. government statistics).
Our friendship was forged over concern for some of these “unpeople” when he visited Laos in February 1970. I had been living in a Lao village outside the capital city of Vientiane for three years at that point and spoke Laotian. But five months earlier I had been shocked to my core when I interviewed the first Lao refugees brought down to Vientiane from the Plain of Jars in northern Laos, which had been controlled by the communist Pathet Lao since 1964. I had discovered to my horror that U.S. executive branch leaders had been clandestinely bombing these peaceful villagers for five-and-a-half years, driving tens of thousands underground and into caves, where they had been forced to live like animals.

I had learned of countless grandmothers burned alive by napalm, countless children buried alive by 500-pound bombs, parents shredded by anti-personnel bombs. I had felt pellets from these bombs still in the bodies of the refugees lucky enough to escape, interviewed people blinded by the bombing, seen napalm wounds on the bodies of infants. I had also learned that the U.S. bombing of the Plain of Jars had turned a 700-year-old civilization of some 200,000 people into a wasteland, and that its main victims were the old people, parents and children who had to remain near the villages — not the communist soldiers who could move through the heavily carpeted forests, largely undetectable from the air. And I had soon also discovered that U.S. Eexecutive branch leaders had conducted this bombing unilaterally, without even informing, let alone obtaining the consent of, Congress or the American people. And I realized that these devastated Plain of Jars refugees were the lucky ones. They had survived. U.S. bombing of hundreds of thousands of other innocent Lao was not only continuing but escalating.

From Branfman’s Wikipedia page: Fred Branfman “was an American anti-war activist and author of a number of books about the Indochina War who exposed the covert bombing of Laos by the US. … Branfman worked as a policy advisor for former California governor Jerry Brown, Gary Hart and Tom Hayden. Branfman was working as an educational advisor for the U.S. government in Laos, when in September 1969 thousands of refugees fled into the Laotian capital of Vientiane. … His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Harper’s, Playboy, Salon and The New Republic.”

The following is the final article Branfman wrote — visit his AlterNet archives here:

Open Letter to Israel’s Supporters: Where Do You Draw the Line Between ‘Defense’ and Atrocities?

Dear U.S. supporters of Israel in Gaza:
If you believed the IDF could destroy Hamas by employing portable gas chambers or chemical weapons to publicly gas over 1,400 Gazan civilians, including 400 children, chosen at random, would you favor doing so? I guess not. Perhaps you even feel insulted at the suggestion that you might. But this raises a basic question: if you would not favor gassing Palestinan civilians, how do you justify your support for blowing them to bits?

The controversial issue is not Israel trying to destroy Hamas tunnels. Nor is it the attempt to destroy rockets, as if the Israelis can claim that they reasonably suspected the 46-48,000 U.N.-estimated buildings they either partially or totally destroyed contained rockets. Nor is it rightfully condemning Hamas for rocketing civilian targets as well. As even long-term apologists for Israeli violence like the New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier acknowledge, the issue is massive Israeli bombing and shelling of the civilian infrastructure in Gaza, which is wholly disproportionate to combatting tunnels and/or rockets.

This raises the basic question: as a human being, where do you draw the line? How do you justify your support for mass misery inflicted on hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? The bombing and shelling campaign, whatever its stated intent, has not only murdered 1,400 civilians and maimed thousands more, but destroyed hospitals, schools, businesses, and Gaza’s only power station, plunging 1.8 million Gazans into darkness and depriving them even of drinking water, created over 400,000 refugees, and traumatized a U.N.-estimated 373,000 children. Your own integrity requires that you at least acknowledge the facts rather than, as so many of Israel’s supporters do, accept at face-value Israeli claims that it sought to avoid civilian destruction.

I answered such questions for myself 45 years ago, when I discovered that civilians were well over 90% of the victims of U.S. leaders’ mass bombing of northern Laos. I concluded then that there is never any moral or legal justification for mass bombing or shelling of civilians. Period.

The World Can’t Wait website has just posted a PowerPoint presentation on the years-long bombing of northern Laos, perhaps the worst unknown crime of the 20th century. It combines an analysis of automated war, the writings of the rice farmers who suffered most and were heard from least, and my personal story in discovering and trying to expose it to the world. A Lao mother summed up the nature of mass bombing of civilians for all time: “There was danger as the sound of airplanes led me to be terribly, terribly afraid of dying. When looking at the faces of my children who were losing the so very precious happiness of childhood I would grow in­creasingly miserable. In reality, whatever happens, it is the innocent who suffer.”

The question of protecting civilians in wartime far transcends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: it is a basic measurement of the progress of human civilization. Not only Israel’s humanity, but yours is at stake in your support for Israel’s recent attacks on Gaza.

There are two basic questions regarding warfare: 1) whether a given war is considered legitimate, e.g. whether it is “aggressive war”; and 2) how civilians are treated once a war is launched. These are two distinct questions—even if you consider a given war legitimate there is no moral or legal justification for waging it in a way that mainly murders and maims civilians.

The evolution of international law on this question, beginning with the 1907 Hague Convention, has been slow and painful. But it is today unequivocal: waging war in a way that results primarily in civilian deaths and damage is a punishable war crime. Article 85 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states categorically that “the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol… launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.”

That is a precise description of Israeli bombing and shelling in Gaza.

Israel claims it is justified in maiming and murdering civilians because Hamas is using them as “human shields.” But there is always a military and political rationale for bombing civilians. In Laos, Deputy CIA Director James Lilley explained that though North Vietnamese soldiers were not in the villages, they would hide there if the U.S. didn’t bomb civilians. Prime Minister Nethanyahu offers a similar rationale for mass civilian murder today.

Other rationales include hoping that mass murder of civilians will turn the population against their leaders, as when former Israeli General Amos Yadlin stated in the N.Y. Times that Israel must bomb partly so that “Gaza’s people (are) given the chance to elect new leaders.” As the U.S. Senate Refugee Subcommittee concluded after visiting Laos, the bombing’s purpose was to hurt the enemy by destroying its “social and economic infrastructure.” This was also General Curtis Lemay’s basic rationale for burning alive over 100,000 Japanese civilians in the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945, an act for which Lemay acknowledged at the time, and his assistant Robert McNamara later also admitted, was a war crime. (See Note 1 below.)

It is precisely because there is always a rationale for bombing civilians that the progress of human civilization is largely measured by the extent to which civilians are protected in times of war from indiscriminate bombing and shelling, and that those who violate these rules are prosecuted for crimes of war. Protecting civilians against indiscriminate murder is not only a question of war. It is a measure of your own humanity.

Civilian Impact of Israel’s 2014 Attack on Gaza

CIVILIAN DEAD AND WOUNDED: A U.N.-estimated 1396 Palestinian civilians killed including 222 women and 418 children, thousands more wounded. (Source: Information Management Unit in the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, from “Month-long War in Gaza Has Left a Humanitarian and Environmental Crisis,” Washington Post. August 6, 2014)

CHILDREN: “Pernille Ironside, who runs the UNICEF field office in Gaza, said the agency estimates that roughly 373,000 Palestinian children have had some kind of direct traumatic experience as a result of the attack and will require immediate psycho-social support … (She) added that she’s seen ‘children coming out of these shelters with scabies, lice, all kinds of communicable diseases.’” (Source: “Amid Gaza’s Ruins, Impact on Children Most ‘Severe’: UN Official”, Common Dreams, August 6, 2014)

ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE: “175 of Gaza’s most successful industrial plants had also taken devastating hits, plunging an already despairing economy into a deeper abyss” (Source: “Conflict Leaves Industry in Ashes and Gaza Reeling From Economic Toll”, NY Times, August 6, 2014)

MOSQUES, FARMING, INDUSTRY: “As many as 80 mosques have been damaged or destroyed. Many farming areas and industrial zones, filled with the small manufacturing plants and factories that anchored Gaza’s economy, are now wastelands.” (Source: “Month-long War in Gaza Has Left a Humanitarian and Environmental Crisis,” Washington Post. August 6, 2014)

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE: Oxfam said: “We’re working in an environment with a completely destroyed water infrastructure that prevents people in Gaza from cooking, flushing toilets or washing [their] hands.” (Source: “Gaza’s Survivors Now Face A Battle For Water, Shelter And Power,” The Independent, August 5, 2014)
400,000 REFUGEES, 46-48,000 HOMES: “Frode Mauring, the UN Development Programme’s special representative said that with 16-18,000 homes totally destroyed and another 30,000 partially damaged, and 400,000 internally displaced people, ‘the current situation for Gaza is devastating.’” (Source: “Gaza’s Survivors Now Face A Battle For Water, Shelter And Power”, The Independent, August 5, 2014)

ELECTRICITY: “Mr Mauring said that the bombing of Gaza’s only power station and the collapse at least six of the 10 power lines from Israel, had ‘huge development and humanitarian consequences’ (Source: “Gaza’s Survivors Now Face A Battle For Water, Shelter And Power,” The Independent, August 5, 2014)

SCHOOLS, REFUGEE CENTERS: “United Nations officials accused Israel of violating international law after artillery shells slammed into a school overflowing with evacuees Wednesday … The building was the sixth U.N. school in the Gaza Strip to be rocked by explosions during the conflict. (Source: “U.N. Says Israel Violated International Law, After Shells Hit School In Gaza”, Washington Post, July 30, 2014)

HOSPITALS: “Israeli forces fired a tank shell at a hospital in Gaza on Monday … It was the third hospital Israel’s military has struck since launching a ground offensive in Gaza last week.” (Source: “Another Gaza Hospital Hit by Israeli Strike,” NBC News, July 21, 2014)

HOSPITALS, HEALTH WORKERS: “There has been mounting evidence that the Israel Defense Forces launched apparently deliberate attacks against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza … Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International (said) ‘the Israeli army has targeted health facilities or professionals. Such attacks are absolutely prohibited by international law and would amount to war crimes.’” (Source: “Mounting Evidence Of Deliberate Attacks On Gaza Health Workers By Israeli Army,” Amnesty International, August 7, 2014)


1. Robert McNamara, from the Errol Morris film Fog of War: “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?”

Fred Branfman’s writing has been published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Harper’s, and many other publications. He is the author of Voices From the Plain of Jars, a

Abbas at UN: World Must Hold Israel to Account for “War of Genocide” – Reblogged from Common Dreams.

Home World U.S. Canada Climate War & Peace Economy Rights Solutions
People’s Climate March Crisis in Iraq Continues Ukraine People Powered Change
Abbas at UN: World Must Hold Israel to Account for “War of Genocide”

Published on
Friday, September 26, 2014
byCommon Dreams
Abbas at UN: World Must Hold Israel to Account for “War of Genocide”
Leader of Palestinian Authority tells General Assembly that recent assault on Gaza was a “war crime” and new paths towards peace must now be considered
byJon Queally, staff writer

President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations on Friday, September 26, 2014. (Image: Screenshot / Public domain)
A day after the Palestinian Authority and Hamas announced a “comprehensive” agreement to implement a unity government to rule the Gaza Strip, PA President Mahmoud Abbas delivered an impassioned speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on Friday as he accused Israel of waging a “war of genocide” against the Palestinian people during more than 50 days of bombing and military attacks in July and August that left thousands dead, thousands more wounded, and life-supporting infrastructure obliterated in Gaza.

Abbas pleaded with world leaders and the international community to do their part in bringing an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and set out a new timetable for a full withdrawal of IDF forces from the West Bank and a permanent lifting of the seige in Gaza. In essence, Abbas took the opportunity to say that the official and so-called “peace process” that began with the Oslo Accords in 1993 has proven an utter failure and that new avenues to a just solution would now be put forward.

“In this year, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly as the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Israel has chosen to make it a year of a new war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people,” Abbas told those gathered in the main hall of the General Assembly.

Citing the more than 2,000 people—which the UN estimates a large majority were children, women, and non-combatant adult males—who were killed during Israel’s assault, Abbas said he and the Palestinian people “will not forget and we will not forgive, and we will not allow war criminals to escape punishment.”

Abbas recognized that he had given similar speeches at the UN before, but that Israel’s most recent attack has drastically altered dynamics.

He said:

The difference today is that the scale of this genocidal crime is larger, and that the list of martyrs, especially children, is longer, as well as lists of the wounded and disabled, and that dozens of families have been completely decimated.

The difference today is that approximately half a million people were displaced from their homes, and that the number of homes, schools, hospitals, public buildings, residential buildings, mosques, factories and even cemeteries destroyed is unprecedented. And, the difference today is that the devastation caused by this recent aggression is unmatched in modern times, as confirmed by a witness, the honorable Commissioner-General of UNRWA.

This last war against Gaza was a series of absolute war crimes carried out before the eyes and ears of the entire world, moment by moment, in a manner that makes it inconceivable that anyone today can claim that they did not realize the magnitude and horror of the crime. And, it is inconceivable that some are unable to characterize this situation in real terms and that they suffice with simply declaring their support for Israel’s right to self-defense without regard for the fate of the thousands of victims of our people, ignoring a simple fact that we remind them of today: that the life of a Palestinian is as precious as the life of any other human being.

We must also assume that no one will wonder anymore why extremism is rising and why the culture of peace is losing ground and why the efforts to achieve it are collapsing.

While affirming the right of Palestinians to both defend themselves and resist the occupation, Abbas said that the Palestinian people would never betray their “humanity” or “commitment to international law” as they push even harder to achieve official statehood and freedom from Israeli subjugation. Abbas also lamented recent breakdowns in peace negotiations, arguing that despite “unimaginable self-restraint” showed by the Palestinian side, Israeli leaders were once again notable for not missing “the opportunity to undermine a chance for peace.”

The speech continued:

Israel refuses to end its occupation of the State of Palestine since 1967, but rather seeks its continuation and entrenchment, and rejects the Palestinian state and refuses to find a just solution to the plight of the Palestine refugees.

The future proposed by the Israeli government for the Palestinian people is at best isolated ghettos for Palestinians on fragmented lands, without borders and without sovereignty over its airspace, water and natural resources, which will be under the subjugation of the racist settlers and army of occupation, and at worst will be a most abhorrent form of Apartheid. Israel has confirmed during the negotiations that it rejects making peace with its victims, the Palestinian people.

Calling for a new approach, Abbas confirmed in his speech that the Palestinian leadership, alongside Arab partners and other backers, are working on a resolution that will be introduced to the United Nations. The resolution would put the prospects of a negotiated settlement back in the hands of the international community and mark the end of the U.S.-brokered negotiations that have failed repeatedly.

“The adoption of this resolution,” Abbas told world leaders, “will affirm what you strived to realize in this year is the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, who will continue their struggle and steadfastness and will rise brave and strong from the rubble and destruction.”

As the Guardian reports Friday in the wake of Abbas’ speech:

According to diplomatic sources, the proposed resolution has caused a rift with the US, which had been working for some months on another resolution with the Israelis, Jordanians and Qataris aimed at bolstering the Gaza ceasefire with an exchange of Palestinian security guarantees with some loosening of Israel’s economic stranglehold.

Even though the US holds the presidency of the security council, diplomats said the Abbas resolution would most probably find support from the nine council members necessary to pass. Only the UK, Australia and Lithuania would be expected to abstain, forcing Washington to use its veto.

However, the US has signalled it would have no compunction to use that veto power.

Although Abbas insisted that Palestine was committed to achieving “a just peace through a negotiated solution”, the moves underlined the deep frustration among Palestinians over US proprietorship of the peace process amid a new desire to internationalise efforts to secure a two-state solution.

Abbas returned in the end to “historical injustices” perpetrated against the people of Palestine and said that peace within the borders of a new state and throughout the Middle East region remains the goal of Palestinians.

“There is an occupation that must end now,” Abbas concluded. “There is a people that must be freed immediately. The hour of independence of the State of Palestine has arrived.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Share This Article

Wow! CC supports 600 tenants to appeal the bedroom tax – cc all ha’s

Actions speak louder than hollow words.
Excellent news!

Talk Fracking

When I raised questions about fracking at my parish council a year ago they laughed at me. They aren’t laughing now.

A high-skill, low-wage recovery

I like the comment that British universities are doing a great job in churning out graduates and keeping wages low.

Flip Chart Fairy Tales

“Labour economics used to be easy,” lamented David Blanchflower in Monday’s Independent. He continued:

All you had to do was watch the unemployment rate and that told you most of everything. As it went up things were bad and pay weakened. When the unemployment rate fell that meant the economy was getting better and that meant pay rises. Low unemployment meant big pay rises. High unemployment meant smaller rises. Simple.

But, over the past few years, falling unemployment hasn’t led to higher wages in the UK or the US. If anything, wages have continued to fall as employment has picked up.

The picture is even stranger when you look at skills. Employers have been talking about skills shortages for some time now. Earlier this week, the UK Commission for Education and Skills (UKCES) published a paper saying that Britain is already facing a skills challenge and that the country will need 2…

View original post 792 more words

Labour and ‘Strengthening’ the Social Security Contributory Principle

Worth studying!

The ramblings of a former DWP Civil Servant ...

I have been meaning to write this post for some time. When Rachel Reeves talked earlier this year about extending the period for qualifying for Contribution Jobseeker’s Allowance, many (mostly genuinely concerned) knees jerked and the Daily Mail went into raptures. Every time this happens, I become more and more convinced that most of those reacting to such proposals know little or nothing about the reality of today’s Social Security system.

For the record, these are the current conditions for qualifying (see 1060 onwards) for Contribution Based Jobseeker’s Allowance:

To satisfy the first contribution condition the claimant must have paid Class 1 contributions in respect of one (“the base year”) of the last two complete tax years before the beginning of the relevant benefit year and Class 1 contributions must have been paid before the week that the claimant claims JSA and the claimant must have had relevant earnings…

View original post 1,125 more words

The nasty coalition move to make English human rights subservient to business profits

A nasty, cynical move to make English human rights subservient to business profits. The Deregulation Bill now in the Lords.

Westminster Confidential

Are you black or gay and feel your firm discriminates against you? Are you disabled and find a company stops your right of access? Are you woman and you don’t get equal pay with a man?

Naturally you might expect the government’s independent champion  the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to be on your side and prosecute firms who repeatedly failed you.

But a pernicious piece of legislation now going the House of Lords plans to put all this at risk by putting a nasty spanner in the works to hobble the very body that is supposed to stand up for your rights.

The Deregulation Bill– promoted as liberating business from silly bureaucratic rules – includes what sounds like a rather arcane provision saying that all regulators for the first time must consider the impact on economic growth before they launch criminal or civil proceedings ( see clauses 83/84)…

View original post 505 more words

Wipe your eyes. On your feet.

Good luck!!!!

How the UK’s Establishment Stamped on Scottish Independence by John Hopkins – Reblogged from Common Dreams.

How the UK’s Establishment Stamped on Scottish Independence
byJohn Hopkins

The reason Scotland did not win its independence is that the UK’s establishment saw to it that the country did not even get an independent vote. (Photo: flickr / cc / cam)
Just a month ago the UK’s London-based political parties looked positively disinterested in Scotland’s independence referendum, being comfortable voters would reject the idea. In fact back in 2012 David Cameron had the option of Devo-Max (maximised Scottish self-control within the UK) exempted from the ballot paper – presumably in the belief that Scots would be too scared to choose full independence, meaning he could completely avoid handing more power to the already-devolved Scottish government.

Initially, the independence referendum was a straight battle for hearts and minds, between the leading Better Together unionist campaign and the trailing Yes independence campaign, spearheaded by the Scottish National Party (SNP) – the current Scottish government. However, as polling day approached, a surge of enthusiasm for independence indicated London’s complacent attitude was ill-founded. Momentum was suddenly with the Yes camp and, if left unchecked, was making Scotland’s break from the UK a distinct possibility. London’s political class panicked.

What followed belied any idea that democracy operates within UK politics. The compromised BBC, the business world, military chiefs, a host of celebrities, and of course the Westminster political elite, acted out a broadside assault on the consciousness of the Scottish voters. From Bill Clinton to Paul McCartney famous but non-Scottish people all began weighing in over the voices of actual Scots. How and why they all suddenly flooded the UK media can only be imagined, but these outsiders mostly urged the No vote – almost in direct proportion to how closely they were aligned to the UK’s establishment. Meanwhile political anti-independence tactics were getting downright nasty.

People should of course feel free to express their opinions, but should outside opinions drown out voter opinions, just because they emanate from establishment and media-friendly figures? Imagine the uproar were Tony Blair or David Bowie to wade into a US election trying to sway voters one way or another. But poor little Scotland, with just 5.3 million people, was somehow deemed as needing all this outside help to make the right decision.

The lack of respect for a balanced democratic process in which a nation has its own internal discussion lies with many and is culturally ingrained – from the household names and celebrities who expect the media to headline their comments, to the media outlets themselves that dutifully comply. The resultant distortion that formed the UK media’s non-stop diet of anti-independence voices was central to the defeat of the Yes campaign, with most voices actually coming from outside Scotland.

The UK media handled the referendum as if it was a UK rather than a Scottish affair. And of course it was a UK affair. So the interesting question arises as to why the whole of the UK was not voting. Suppose the rest of the UK had a vote and requested Scotland to leave the union. Would it not then be democratic that Scotland was effectively pushed into independence? Should any nation be forced to govern a people they don’t want to govern? Such questions are universally suppressed as the political mind has no concept of too much power. In any case, the Westminster political elite could never risk such a UK-wide vote, knowing that its exposure of internal UK divides would have increased support for Scottish independence. Instead, the entire UK establishment just brought its full influence to bear on a supposedly Scotland-only vote, thereby creating a travesty of democracy.

In the game of numbers, the establishment knew exactly what it had to do. Given that more than 90% of the UK lives outside Scotland and that the UK establishment is by definition pro-union, all that was required was for the powers that be to make a big enough noise through the media to drown out Scotland’s own voice. This approach was augmented by a sudden last-minute and hypocritical pledge from all three Westminster party leaders in which they effectively changed the No vote into the Devo-Max option that Cameron had previously taken off the ballot paper. As SNP leader Alex Salmond put it, “We know the Westminster establishment will throw everything – the kitchen sink and probably most of the living room – at the Scottish people over the next week.”

Meanwhile, Scotland simply didn’t have enough big names to compete in the UK media frenzy. So the fact that many of Scotland’s own biggest personalities backed independence and were willing to do something about it didn’t matter for media outlets more interested in bigger names and audience figures, than in balanced reporting based on critical thinking.

Have no doubt – the Scottish independence project was wholly different from Europe’s rising tide of xenophobic right-wing nationalism – the SNP being significantly more open to immigration and multicultural values than Westminster. Other forward-thinking SNP ideas stamped on by the UK establishment include a rejection of the collusion between big money and Westminster’s politics, a rejection of Scotland being a subservient nuclear-armed pawn to the UK’s position within NATO, and a pro-ecology scrapping of Cameron’s Frack For Britain project. More positively, the SNP is committed to prioritising the basics like quality education and health for all – as opposed to economic profit and creeping privatisation of key social infrastructure. The UK’s conservative elite had plenty of the wrong reasons to panic.

In short, the reason Scotland did not win its independence is that the UK’s establishment saw to it that the country did not even get an independent vote.

It is notable that Glasgow, Dundee and other less wealthy parts voted for independence, whereas Scotland’s more prosperous areas voted against it. Given that Scotland is generally far poorer than England’s dominant South-East, extrapolation of this voting tendency only further emphasises how the UK establishment influence coloured the result. But already the UK media is busy burying that truth as Scotland’s decision.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

John Hopkins is a Scottish-born freelance writer currently living in France. Email him at johnhopkins [at]


Spread far and wide!


On Wednesday at around,  I received a phone call from a woman informing me she was coming to assess me at home that day at – It turned out she was from Capita.

I refused, explaining I’d had no notice of the appointment and I wasn’t prepared, after her attempts to persuade me to go along with the visit failed, I immediately phoned Capita. The woman I spoke with there stated a letter about this appointment had been sent on September 6 – I’m still waiting.

The assessment has been rearranged for October and a letter is on its way, but…as the only mail I’ve received from Capita took 2 weeks+ to arrive – I’m not holding my breathe.

I immediately posted this up in Facebook and have received several comments saying others had had similar experiences, below is one example

“i had nurse just turn up at my door wanting to do…

View original post 183 more words