A poll of MPs across all parties on the question of England’s place in the UK by the Institute for Public Policy Research has revealed some startling results which highlight the seismic changes that could await Scotland if the Tories win power at Westminster.
The key statistics are as follows:
72% of Tory MPs believe England has lost out as a result of devolution. (23% for Labour MPs)
75% of Tory MPs believe in English votes for English laws (4% for Labour MPs)
0% of Tory MPs believe in devolved regional Government in England (64% for Labour MPs)
34% of Tory MPs believe in more powers for Local Government (41% for Labour MPs)
91% of Tory MPs believe that Scottish MPs should not vote on English matters (less than 23% for Labour MPs)
74% of Tory MPs believe that current funding levels across the regions is unfair (50% for Labour MPs)
55% of Tory MPs believe Scotland & Wales should be given tax-raising powers (30% for Labour MPs)
19% of Tory MPs believe God Save the Queen should be replaced with an English anthem when English teams are competing (25% for Labour MPs)
There was no party breakdown available but 58% of MPs believe that Scotland will never be independent.
Keeping in mind the statistics below, it is clear how precarious the current union arrangement is and how sceptical one should be of the last statistic (above) on independence:
Less than 1% of Tories come from Scotland (set to remain in line after the next election)
~14% of Labour MPs come from Scotland (set to increase significantly after the next election)
David Cameron may thrash around, not sure whether to shrug off Scotland, treat the SNP Government with 'respect' and/or rule out any constitutional change in his first term but it won’t be long before he is trying to stand smilingly on a large marble with the swell of resentment inside his own party the reason for his discomfiture. This will inevitably lead to him having to do something and full fiscal autonomy, as a minimum, is surely that something.
It's the striking difference between the views of Labour MPs and Tory MPs that really surprises me. This election isn't a few politicians shuffling off the green benches but a wholesale clear out. Those heading in are generally on the side of the 91% of Tories not wanting Scots to vote on English matters and 75% believing in English votes for English laws. That's huge and, if implemented, perhaps signifies the tipping point where the Nationalist momentum is irreversible.
As many have no doubt suspected all along and despite well delivered (if not well received) talk of referendums, perhaps Scotland's constitutional fate lies in England's hands.
SNP Tax
5 minutes ago
68 comments:
If the Tories return as many seats as the SNP, do you think the 'respect' agenda will still be on the table?
Yes, England is the dimension that Unionists in Scotland consistently underestimate. I suspect they are rather frightened of it and would thus prefer to forget about it. I think probably they know that the Union isn't much favoured amongst the majority of the general populace and establishment in England. But it is a key dimension.
I've always maintained that independence will come about as a result of Unionist intransigence rather than a great SNP/Nationalist advance. Nothing I see happening in politics these days dampens down that opinion.
What those results do show is the enormous gulf within the Conservative Party between the evangelical Unionism of the Scottish Branch to the complete disinterest of the non-Scottish party.
Whilst the Tory leadership mouths platitudes towards Scotland, it all stunningly reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's attitude towards Scotland and the Scots when she became leader. She initially made overtures to Scotland which lasted for a while. But after a few years in power, it was pretty clear that the Scots were not "her people".
With the current leadership, I suspect history is repeating itself.
Interesting times.
What are these "Unionists" of which I hear talk?
Is this poll based on all MPs, or just English/Welsh MPs?
Anon, I think the respect agenda would still be on the cards for Cameron and to be fair to him I think he's genuine in intention when he makes that promise. I just don't think it'll go as planned as circumstances and events and, yes, SNP exacerbation of the situation, will make it much trickier in practice.
And hey, there'll still be an SNP Government he'll have to contend with whatever the breakdown of seats is north of the border.
I'm too short in the tooth to say myself CoI but the aspect of Cameron repeating the mistakes of Thatcher is fascinating. Mouth-watering some would even say ;)
Alec, yeah, I was unable to link to the report due to my phone's limitations but it's at www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports.
118 MPs were sampled across the UK (which I thought was a bit light tbh but is apparently "in line with similar surveys which seek to reflect the views of MPs")
As for 'unionists', it's my lazy term for Lab, Con and LD. Probably a bad habit but for as long as I'm a 'Nat' I won't lose too much sleep over it I guess ;)
One hundred and 18 sounds like 1/5, which could be a reasonable sample.
Yes, you're a Nat, but the independence narrative *is* controlled by one party and the personality-cult of its leader. Non-SNP parties have competing interests and policies, and some members (e.g. Shuggy?) ain't even opposed to independence.
A couple of yesbuts:
1. Both sets of MPs are behaving like politicians and looking at party advantage.
2. People in England are overwhelmingly uninterested in this. There is not a sense of Englishness that is being overwhelmed by celtic voters. There is still a strong sense of Britishness which means that people don't feel alienated by the results of a UK election.
I know you can easily dig around and find a newspaper columnist willing to rabble-rouse about this. But they are pissing into the wind.
I fully agree Alec which is why I accept using "unionist" is lazy and even inaccurate.
I compared and contrasted with my being a 'Nat' as I'm personally 50/50 on independence, probably even still leaning towards favouring the UK. But I accept the Nat tag as I'm an SNP member.
I think the bullish demands you see on English blogs like Cif to "send the uppity Jocks back where they came from and see how they survive without our handouts" are not particularly representative.
Most English bloggers even the ones that are very hostile to Scots are unionists. ( When did that one become pejorative by the way? If you want to maintain the union with England, you're a unionist but some Labour types seem to think it's now a term of abuse!)
I'd love to think there was a groundswell of opinion in England that wanted Scotland to become independent, even if it was because in their ignorance, they thought it would save them money.
I think the reality is though that when push comes to shove they'll cling onto what they have come to regard as their northern province or possession as assidiously as they ever have.
All constitutional change in the UK, has, as Salmond observed been "driven by SNP petrol".
The perfectly charming idea that Labour or the Tories would have bothered with constitutional change at all without the SNP threat, incredibly still has some currency.
When picking from what appears to be a constitutional goody bag, these people would do well to remember who put the sweets in there.
Unionist is a term of abuse because (a) of Ulster connotations and (b) implies some love or regard for the union. I think most people are couldntgiveafuckists who have never been convinced by arguments for independence. There are very few actual unionists.
Jeff
It is interesting that these high percentages of Tory MPs are opposed to Scottish MPs voting on English matters, but see no contradiction in English MPs voting on Scottish matters, the Barnet formula for instance.
Double standards maybe.
Dubbieside,
How much UK money gets spent on Scotland is hardly a strictly Scottish matter.
Unless I'm missing something.
According to the British Social Attitudes 26th report, released January 2010, 61% agree that Scottish MPs should not be able to vote on English legislation.
Having spent the last ten years persuading the public that English Votes on English Laws is the solution, the Tories have now backed down and propose bannng Scottish MPs only from the Committee and Report stages of English legislation.
Because Scottish (and Welsh and NI-ish) MPs will continue to vote on English laws at Second and Third Readings, the Conservative's new policy should not properly be called 'English Votes on English Laws' because it does not prevent non-English MPs from voting on English legislation and potentially having a decisive influence on that legislation. The outcome of the Tuition Fees and Foundation Hospital votes - in which non-English MPs had a decisive say - would not have been altered had the Conservative's new proposal been in effect.
Cameron is on dodgy ground. I expect he's backed down from the original Tory proposal because Focus on Scotland plough millions into Tory coffers.
Jeff
Fair enough. How about the siting of Trident as a better example?
"What are these "Unionists" of which I hear talk?"
Look in the mirror friend.
See that grumpy old man, wearing a bowler hat and exotic 'scarf' that's staring back, that's one of them.
>> Look in the mirror friend.
How old are you?
>> See that grumpy old man, wearing a bowler hat and exotic 'scarf' that's staring back, that's one of them.
I have no idea what that means.
Alec,
I think he's talking about Labour's friends in the Orange Lodge. You know, the one's who have allegedly threatened to set up a loyalist paramilitary force, if Scotland ever becomes independent.
No, Sohaib, he was addressing me. Which "friends" are these, anyway? Your choice of word and mention of Labour-as-a-whole suggests a quasi-formal relationship.
Do where is it? And when, in sectarian Scotland, did Labour become allied with Loyalism and not the Irish Catholic bloc vote?
Or are you making this up?
The questions in this poll was sent out to 100% of mp's but only 114 could be arsed to answer the survey. it shows the complete contempt many mp's have for people
They doubtless receive a lot of such correspondences, Tally. Twenty per cent is a perfectly adequate response for such surveys.
Alec
>>And when, in sectarian Scotland, did Labour become allied with Loyalism and not the Irish Catholic bloc vote?<<
Just lately...........hadn't you noticed.
http://tinyurl.com/ydr6smc
Oh and I thought it was the Catholic Scottish vote Labour were targetting, hence Murph's latest faux pax. Since when was it a crime for Catholics to vote for the party that best suited their interests anyhow? Most Catholics under 40 would vote SNP I'd reckon thus negating your pejorative labels alec.
How cringeworthy would it be to see England forcing independence on Scotland. I mean how would 'Brittania's pet Jock's' cope?*intentionaly pejorative*
>> Just lately...........hadn't you noticed.
Indeed I had, as I discussed at the time:
http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/orange-order-too-sectarian-for-the-snp/
Tony, along with Sohaib and Lodge Creeper, you really ain't doing a good job on dispelling the notion that online SNP-supporters ain't totalitarian and ill-read. For starters, any exchange which begins with suggesting I'm a Labour-loyalist has set itself up for an instant fall.
Ian Wilson approached all non-SNP parties, so why the pre-occupation with Labour? More importantly, for your central attempt to link Scottish Labour with the Orange Order, he can say the moon is made of cheese for the difference it would make unless he received support.
My view of Wilson is that he represents a socially conservative Ulster Presbyterian view, as well as a communalism which we really can do without - so, after being accused of being anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic, I expect to be accused of being anti-Presbyterian. Yet, I'd be interested to know what evidence you have to link him to Loyalist murder-gangs.
As you say - whilst confusedly trying to link 'em to the Orange Order - Murphy and Labour had the presumption that the RCC would be well-disposed towards Labour: this went out the window with the repeal of Clause 2A.
Honestly, totalitarianism - like nostalgia - ain't what it used to be.
Hello Alec
>>Tony, along with Sohaib and Lodge Creeper, you really ain't doing a good job on dispelling the notion that online SNP-supporters ain't totalitarian and ill-read...<<
I don't know who these guys are.............and eh thanks for the compliments. The weans would agree with the totalitarian bit but the bookshelfs would bulgingly disagree with the ill-read bit. Anyhow;
>>..For starters, any exchange which begins with suggesting I'm a Labour-loyalist has set itself up for an instant fall.<<
Sorry but am I supposed to be associated with these suggestions, or are ye away on a tangent?
>>Ian Wilson approached all non-SNP parties, so why the pre-occupation with Labour?<<
Well Alec if you had read the link I provided you would have noticed that Labour's Michael MacMahon welcomes the support of the triumphalist supremacist OO. I'd be interested if any other partyeven the Tories) has done likewise. Less there be any doubt here is a quote from the article;
"Michael MacMahon, the Labour MSP for Hamilton North and Bellshill, and a Catholic, said that he welcomed the support. He said: "I have a good relationship with the Orange Order. They understand the importance of the Union and they understand the threat.""
You really should have read the link I sent you before you responded Alec.
>>My view of Wilson... I'd be interested to know what evidence you have to link him to Loyalist murder-gangs.<<
Tangent time again alec? Or swally time? Have you heard the grand master(bater) has links with death squads, because I haven't?
>>..As you say - whilst confusedly trying to link 'em to the Orange Order...<<
No confusion Alec, apart from you that is.
>>Honestly, totalitarianism - like nostalgia - ain't what it used to be.<<
Aye *shrugs shooders* Nae bother!
I'm, och I don't know, a bit cheesed off that we appear to still be giving credence to the power and extent of Catholic / Protestant priesthoods over the folk they would see as 'their' electorate.
I'd have thought neither theocracy had much of a sway with any of their adherents.
And neither do I think - the adherents that is - are particularly numerous.
This is a fairly heathen land, these days.
Lie after lie after smear... someone people just ain't normal.
>> The weans would agree with the totalitarian bit but the bookshelfs would bulgingly disagree with the ill-read bit.
Clearly not if you think one Scotsman's article which doesn't even say what you're suggesting proves anything. Once again, where is the evidence that Scottish Labour and the Orange Order have turned on a sixpence?
>> Well Alec if you had read the link I provided you would have noticed that Labour's Michael MacMahon welcomes the support of the triumphalist supremacist OO.
One MSP!!! Please, try harder. The SNP's Kenneth Gunn is a homophobic ignoramus... does this mean anything?
>> Tangent time again alec? Or swally time? Have you heard the grand master(bater) has links with death squads, because I haven't?
Try reading upwards a bit to Lodge Creeper's very own remark.
Also, Tony, I haven't suggested that the Orange Order is triumphalist and supremacist.... stop projecting.
Interesting Analysis but just speculation all the same!
A hung parliament scenario might make for more interesting specualtion. I think the backlash in England will much larger if that occurs!
As the English are not going to vote for Brown or Labour!
IainM
Alec
>>Lie after lie after smear... someone people just ain't normal.<<
Please show me where I have lied. smear? perhaps........only if you consider veritas as smear. In the case of labour you clearly do. And frig it since you brought it up. Define normal!
There is nothing I can really reply to in what is a meandering baseless reposte. You asked for evidence, I provided it. Now it seems that that evidence is not good enough. Move goalposts much Alec?
>>Also, Tony, I haven't suggested that the Orange Order is triumphalist and supremacist.... stop projecting.<<
Again no-one said you did, that would be me who described them as such. I'm beginning to notice that you have comprehension problems Alec.
Furthermore Alec;
>>Clearly not if you think one Scotsman's article which doesn't even say what you're suggesting proves anything. Once again, where is the evidence that Scottish Labour and the Orange Order have turned on a sixpence?<<
Unless you have came across a denunciation, even a distancing from labour over MacMahon's comments then there clearly is no defence. How a party of the left(sic) could ever welcome the support of such an organisation vicariously through an elected representative is beyond my ken.
I'm sure you have all the answers though eh?
>> Please show me where I have lied.
Where, in response to my asking for details of Labour allying with the Orange Order, you linked to a Scotsman article which reported only that Wilson had said something and some MSP had said something. Without details of a party-wide policy this was what is known colloquially as gobby-twattery.
The smear bit is where you attempted to link Labour to the Orange Order despite the above.
>> I provided evidence.
That's another lie. You provided evidence only that MacMahon expressed support. Yeah, so? Who's he?
>>Again no-one said you did, that would be me who described them as such.
I did not come down with the last haggis boat you know. You are but a porter in the psikhushkas I've emerged from - every tactic you're employing I've seen a hundred times before.
You didn't describe the Orange Order as such for the sheer hell of it (unless your remarks are a slop bucket of unrelated burblings). You sarcastically described the it as supremacist and triumphalist when linking it to formal support from Labour, which I am disputing... of course you were projecting it onto me.
Been in Internet debating long?
>> How a party of the left(sic) could ever welcome the support of such an organisation vicariously through an elected representative is beyond my ken.
Now you're suggesting MacMahon is a Labour spokesman! He no more speaks for Labour than Gunn does for the SNP.
As I said, totalitarianism really has itself go.
So, just to recap, Tony, unless you can provide evidence of a de facto alliance between Labour and the Orange Order, I will be equally justified in calling the SNP a party which believes gays are sad and pathetic people (see Gunn).
Alec
Thanks for the laugh. I actually thought you had been on the swally yesterday such was your loose grip of the topic and constantly attributing snippets and labels to which I did not have ownership.
You are obviously a clingy sort. The kind who for the most tenuous of reasons(pride I suspect) is determined to carry on defending Labour and the OO even in the face of the evidence provided.
>>That's another lie. You provided evidence only that MacMahon expressed support. Yeah, so? Who's he?<<
Mr McMahon is the labour shadow cabinet minister for local government..............that's who!
The fact that you have repeatedly called me a liar because you dispute the weight of my evidence. That clearly mo Chara is a subjective issue between you and those who medicate you. Irony of ironies, you have attributed several things to me here that I have no knowledge of. They are lies ma man, clear as day but I just put it down at the time to your obvious confusion. However should you wish to continue with the 'liar' label then we should place it where it is most suited.
>>..I've emerged from - every tactic you're employing I've seen a hundred times before.<<
ROFL! Pride is a wonderful thing isn't it?
>>Been in Internet debating long?<<
I think I'll stick around Alec as I have a lot to learn............from you?!?! ;¬)
>>Now you're suggesting MacMahon is a Labour spokesman! He no more speaks for Labour than Gunn does for the SNP.<<
Hilarious Alec! You are a prize that keeps on giving :¬) By this time you will inevitably be confused again. To restate, McMahon is a Labour front-bench spokesman. For local government no less. So when local councils are trying to rid our streets of the orange menace he will be cosying upto them.
Also Alec
The OO seem to employ a trait, often taken up by their (perhaps unknowing) helpers in the meedja that it is best to keep the spotlight wide by claiming that they have issues but what about the other side. I would dispute that there is indeed an other side, but I digress.
You also attempt to widen the spotlight to a lowly SNP counciller Gunn. Who as many fundamentalist Protestants are wont to do, express idiotic feelings about homosexuality. However unlike Labour the SNP jumped on this guy from a high height and he was forced into a humbling apology;
"I understand the offence my statements have caused and apologise for that."
Is there euivilence between a lowly country councillor and a front-bench government spokesman? And is there euivilence between Labours responce to that of the SNP?
You do understand the legal concept of vicarious liability, don't you Alec?
Good grief, Tony, I know Scots can be big headed at times - and that it's perfectly reasonable to see Executive ministers as having more statutory authority than English council chiefs (or even quango bosses) - but a "shadow minister" suggests the authority of Westminster. Shadow Scottish ministers really are nobodies.
"I have a good relationship with the Orange Order. They understand the importance of the Union and they understand the threat."
But let's look at what MacMahon actually said. Any responsible MSP wouldn't wish to take entrenched organizations head-on, but I ask once again - more out of hope than expectation - where is the evidence that Scottish Labour is setting up a formal partnership? Beyond two sentances in a single newspaper article.
The Internet is awash with pages which can 'prove' anything a totalitarian smurf wishes. That link, on its own, is worthless.
One other point, my original question was regarding Loyalism, and the association with RedHand Loonie murder-gangs which Sohaib's weirdly paranoaic remark alleged. *You* started talking about the Orange Order specifically.
So, not only do you have to now demonstrate a formal link between Labour and the Orange Order,you also have to show that Ian Wilson is linked to sectarian death-squads.
Right before McMahon's abridged statement, one of those typically-anonymous SNP spokesmen said everyone was entitled to a say. Are you now going to suggest that the SNP welcomes the Orange Order into the public debate?
Or are you, and I personally think this is far more likely, going to further cement the notion on online Nat supporters being complete and utter fucking nutters?
Crocodile tears, more upset at his own rustication.
Gunn is not a mere councillor, but a party constituency convenor. It also took the leadership long enough to say something. As you're keen on single Scotsman pieces, their immediate response was:
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/SNP-attacked-for-failing-to.5528279.jp
An SNP spokeswoman said: "Mr Gunn's religious beliefs are a personal matter. The comments do not reflect a party position, nor was he speaking in a political capacity."
Who knows what would have happened if a formal complaint hadn't been made about the old bigot?
Is there euivilence between a lowly country councillor and a front-bench government spokesman? And is there euivilence between Labours responce to that of the SNP?
A response you're going to link to party statements and documents regarding. Any moment.
You do understand the legal concept of vicarious liability, don't you Alec?
Are you suggesting that Ian Wilson and the Orange Order are engaged in illegal acts, including sectarian death-squads?
Hello Alec
You repeatedly demand and I repeatedly provide;
>>where is the evidence that Scottish Labour is setting up a formal partnership?<<
I refer you to your original pejorative comments;
"so where is it? And when, in sectarian Scotland, did Labour become allied with Loyalism and not the Irish Catholic bloc vote?"
Attempting to move the goalposts at every turn is getting boring and shows only your increasingly petulant desperation Alec.
>>but a "shadow minister" suggests the authority of Westminster. Shadow Scottish ministers really are nobodies.<<
Aye well it suits your narrative to be so subjective here, but hardly relevant since your pedantry is getting ridiculous. That is a keeper though.
>>So, not only do you have to now demonstrate a formal link between Labour and the Orange Order,you also have to show that Ian Wilson is linked to sectarian death-squads.<<
So not content with ever so unsubtly moving the goalposts, you are now demanding to change the game. I bet you used to take your ball and go hame when ye were a wean Alec.
Should you wish me to provide links with the OO and Unionist/Loyalist death squads, no problem. However It is not my usual practice to prove something that was not my contention in the first place. ie your repeated defamation that Wilson is somehow linked to deathsquads.
Your contention, you prove it!
>>Are you suggesting that Ian Wilson and the Orange Order are engaged in illegal acts, including sectarian death-squads?<<
If it is your belief that the OO are responsible for said death squads, or control them in any way then I urge you to contact Strathclyde Police forthwith or the PSNI.
Oh and as far as comparing Gunn and McMahon. Carry on I am enjoying the amateurish contorsions :¬)
Had any luck finding a labour spokesperson voicing revulsion at shadow government front bench spokesman McMahon's welcoming the triumphalist Catholic hating Orange Order yet?
Keep trying ;¬)
>> Whould you wish me to provide links with the OO and Unionist/Loyalist death squads, no problem.
What Unionist death-squads? Stick with demonstrating the institutional link with the Red Hand Loonie ones. And Ian Wilson's culpability.
Go on.
However It is not my usual practice to prove something that was not my contention in the first place.
And it never was my contention that you deep fry live kittens. You responded to my request for evidence linking Labour and support for the murderous sectarian hatred of Loyalism... if it "was not [your] contention", then you've been spouting a load of chocolate salty balls.
Aye well it suits your narrative to be so subjective here, but hardly relevant since your pedantry is getting ridiculous.
No, it's a statement of fact (expect Andrew Bod to pop up accusing me of taunting proud Scots by observing that Scotland is not a separate country).
So not content with ever so unsubtly moving the goalposts, you are now demanding to change the game
Again, no. It was the whole trust of my interjection before you started linked to a single Scotsman article and two quoted sentences from someone.
There are much more senior SNP figures than Gunn who think homosexuals should be 'cured'.
If it is your belief that the OO are responsible for said death squads, or control them in any way then I urge you to contact Strathclyde Police forthwith or the PSNI.
~*splutter*~
Comrade Nurse, the scary doctor's on the ward again!
Even my remark doesn't say *I* believe that. You, however, seemed to think that my asking for evidence of association with sectarian death-squads was answered by linking to the Orange Order.
Had any luck finding a labour spokesperson voicing revulsion at shadow government front bench spokesman McMahon's welcoming the triumphalist Catholic hating Orange Order yet?
Has anyone complained about? And Chris Grayling hasn't said anything of the sort.
[a] McMahon is not a front-bench Government spokesman, with the authority this implies. He's somebody in the Liliputian Parliament, and his comments carry as much weight as Gunn's do in presenting Selkirk as a nasty place to be for gays;
[b] McMahon's remarks concerning Wilson's overtures were not a request for a formal partnership any more than that SNP spokesman was welcoming the Orange Order into the public debate;
[c] Sohaib alleged that Labour's 'friends' include sectarian death-squads. In offering a rebuttal to my suggestion that this was nonsense, Tony linked to something about the Orange Order.
Tony is now attempted to present *me* as believing the Orange Order and Wilson are linked to sectarian death-squads. He's gone out on a limb, and is attempting to scramble back as it sags, whilst hoping no-one's notice.
Yes, I've noticed.
In trying to cut through your repeated petulance I am of the impression that you wish me to provide evidence linking the OO and Unionist death squads. I've told you that is no problem, in my naivety I thought this was implied throughout.
However many times that you demand I link Wilson to death squads this is something I will not do. For the last time it has never been my contention, nor do I believe it. It is your contention so put up or shut up!
Labour are cosying upto OO Loyalism, both you and I don't like it but for very different reasons Alec. What are your reasons for defending the indefencible so embarrasingly unvaliantly here anyhow?
Alec
[a] :¬)
[b] *chuckles*
[c] I'm sure Sohaib has more sense than I do to get involved in what is for you Alec a perpetually winning battle.
It's been fun Alec having you run rings around me so. It has came to my attention that during your erstwhile defence of Labour and/or the OO you have offered no condemnation of the lowly labour front-bench spokesman McMahon's comments.
Is it because he is(in your mind anyhow) of no significance? If so how high up the pole would comments like this have to come from for you to consider them seriously or condemn. If condemn you would that is?
Whould you wish me to provide links with the OO and Unionist/Loyalist death squads, no problem.
However many times that you demand I link Wilson to death squads this is something I will not do.
Wilson is the Grand Master of the Orange Lodge. If you have evidence linking the latter to sectarian death-squads, you have details of his personal responsibility.
So, go on.
once again, where is the evidence that Labour is cosying up to the Orange Order and/or militant Loyalism? I'm prepared to believe things they wouldn't believe in Salt Lake City...if shown the evidence.
Given my position against communalism in politics - and more than ready criticism of the national Labour Party's tolerance of it - I would have no difficulty in criticising this.
But, all you have shown is a tribal antipathy to one political party and excuses for that in another.
For the last time it has never been my contention, nor do I believe it.
I was referring to just that when you interjected. Why would you have 'proven' alleged links between Labour and militant Loyalism by linking to the Orange Order and Ian Wilson if you didn't believe it?
(Unless, that is, you have royally screwed-up.)
[a] Yes, those screaming queens in Selkirk. What's the bother about one councillor?
[a i] If McMahon's remarks are to be taken as gospel truth (with no returns), then the SNP is going to demand we eat smaller portions 'cos Shona Robinson says so (although, not at Chez Robinson if Alan Cochrane is right);
[b] Yes, try and laugh it away. Based on what you have [not] provided, it's just as reasonable an assertion;
[c] Given that you are, eventually, agreeing that the Orange Order is not in cahoots with sectarian death-squads, you can only agree that Sohaib was wrong. You didn't think it through too closely, did you?
It has came to my attention that during your erstwhile defence of Labour and/or the OO
I am not and never have been a member of the Labour party. Being a political tribalist, Tony, you have taken disputing one specific allegation against Labour to be the same uncritical support you offer for the SNP.
Even then, the above remark fails in accusing me of defending the Orange Order. I cannot be an ardent Labourite and Orange Order supporter whilst seeking to refute any links between Labour and the Orange Order, can I?
*shona robison.
Alec
>>(Unless, that is, you have royally screwed-up.)<<
Lol! you have screwed up repeatedly here but have not had the grace to admit it. Just carry on regardless and all that jazz.
You are making a crucial error in trying vainly to have put Ian Wilson in the dock as co-conspirator with unionist deathsquads legal or otherwise that terrorised nationalists/Catholics in Ireland mainly on behalf and behest of the British government for nigh on 70 years.
Ian Wilson is not the OO, he is the grand dragon master(bater) of it's Scottish chapter affiliate whatever.
For your comparison to work we would have to accredit Ian Grey for british crimes in kenya. Or Donald himself for human rights abuses in Iraq.
Sure there may inevitably be the most tenuous of links way, way along the line. However to try to defame Ian Wilson for crimes he had no control over is just plain wrong. What is your problem with this guy anyhow?
Strangely we are still waiting on an explanation as to your troubling defence of the OO and Labour over collusion. And of course condemnation of McMahon's comments.
Are we to assume this ommision is on purpose?
Ok Alec here is a taster of what you asked for.
http://tinyurl.com/ck9tw
Loyalist gunmen attack police in support of re-routed OO march.
http://lois.itgo.com/political/lvf.htm
Loyalist LVF and King Rat allied with Unionist politicians and OO help force OO march down Garvaghy road.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/pdmarch/egan11.htm
OO play a pivotal role along with Unionist paramilitaries in attacking peaceful civil rights marchers at burntollet bridge.
There are plenty more Alec should you still need to be persuaded with the OO role in Unionist death squads. The fact that Labour welcome such people is a disgrace and indefencible.
You are making a crucial error in trying vainly to have put Ian Wilson in the dock as co-conspirator with unionist deathsquads legal or otherwise,
Just how thick are you? I've disputed from the beginning. You, however, linked to Wilson andthe Orange Order as a rebuttal to my remarks - the only person to have implicitly linked them is you (unless, as I said, you've balls'd up).
[...] that terrorised nationalists/Catholics in Ireland mainly on behalf and behest of the British government for nigh on 70 years.
Great Britain was glad to get shot of Ireland, and returned in 1969 to *defend* the Roman Catholic civilians. Ulster Scots, in my experience, consider them that before being British. Plus, as a result of the Troubles, they represented the single-most murdered ethnic/religion group in Western Europe since 1945.
But, by all means, continue to peddle the Irish Republican blarney of a conflict between Britain and Ireland.
For your comparison to work we would have to accredit Ian Grey for british crimes in kenya.
Not really. In fact, not at all. Gray never was in Kenya during the Emergency, whilst Wilson represents an organization which has direct links with North Irish organizations which were operating during the Troubles.
*My* family has more responsibility for "British crimes in Kenya" (TM.) as they were there at the time. Just as you've elided mention of Ulster Scot misery during the Troubles, you have with the fact that by far the greatest number of dead in Kenya were at the hands of other Kenyan.
The notion than Barry Obama's father, for instance, was tortured by the British clouds the fact he was Luo, and more likely to be part of the Native Home Guard. My aunts knew teenage girls who'd been hacked to death at Lari.
But, again, by all means reduce this to a dichotomy between "the British" and a submission, morally-vacant population.
Or Donald himself for human rights abuses in Iraq.
Further to the above, Donald Who? Donald Duck, the GP from Mallaig?
Sohaib,you know the rules - frantic Googling does not an argument make.
It would be pretty difficult to deny the existence of street-violence and general thuggery in Northern Ireland, but it is beholden on you to demonstrate the threat of it being naturalized in Scotland.
There's a much stronger link between the SNP founders or early promoters and support for the then IRA, not to mention national socialism.
There are plenty more Alec should you still need to be persuaded with the OO role in Unionist death squads.
What is a Unionist death-squad? I'd hazard a guess that David Trimble has lost more friends to Provo death squads (Edgar Graham) than he's been involved with murders.
The fact that Labour welcome such people is a disgrace and indefencible.
Once again, where are they welcoming them? I mean, it's not as if they're inviting Hamas commanders or supporters of the murder of Israeli children to the Scottish Parliament, is it? Or promoting the vile "Eye on Gay Muslims" on their personal blogs.
~*dragged from keyboard by dark-swirling forces of overpowering intensity*~
Alec
I am not going to indulge your Wilson obsession any more. The case against Labour and the OO is proven to contest otherwise is delusional.
>>Great Britain was glad to get shot of Ireland, and returned in 1969 to *defend* the Roman Catholic civilians.<<
Like Alan McGregor you omit uncomfortable facts. Britain was so 'glad' to get rid of Ireland that she sent in hundreds of thousands of auxilliaries and the dreaded black'n'tans to help the British army fight the Irish in their quest for independence for 3 years. They murdered, burned, raped and pillaged at will. ECHR if it existed then could not have coped with the backlog.
The fact that the Brits were forced to return in 1969 to save Nationalists and Catholics from Unionist pogroms often involving the police was due to the legacy of setting up a two-tier in-built majority protestant state in the north of Ireland.
>>What is a Unionist death-squad?<<
David Ervine the late PUP leader sums up the respectable face of Unionism well.
"He was also highly critical of some senior unionist politicians. This was partly because of what he saw as their incendiary rhetoric and partly because, he said, he had personally witnessed them secretly conspiring with the UVF while publicly condemning such groups. "I sat there with them - I could tell you the colour of their wallpaper," he would say."
http://tinyurl.com/yl7wg3t
You mentioned Trimble he who should have been wearing a mask to recieve his nobel peace prize. Well he was a member of the quasi-fascist paramilitary group vanguard and has consorted with death squad members forever;
"David Trimble became involved with the Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party in the early 1970s and ran unsuccessfully for the party in the 1973 Assembly election for North Down, taking only 446 votes and last place.[4] In 1974 he acted as legal adviser to the Ulster Workers' Council during the paramilitary-controlled Ulster Workers' Strike, during which loyalist paramilitaries intimidated thousands of utility workers. He was elected to the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention in 1975 as a Vanguard Progressive Unionist Party member for South Belfast and for a time he served as the party's joint-deputy leader, along with the Ulster Defence Association's Glenn Barr."
Now we come to present joint FM Pete the Punt Robinson. Labelled Pete the Punt because he was humiliatingly forced to pay a fine to an Irish court after a paramilitary group he led 'invaded' the Irish Republic and terrorised locals and assualted several guards.
This link is a must see;
http://tinyurl.com/yjnuo39
I am not going to indulge your Wilson obsession any more.
Absolute bullshit. You brought him into the discussion. Watching you try to deny that you made the semantic link between him with the Orange Order in Scotland and militant Loyalism with death squads is like that scene in Saving Private Ryan where a paratrooper is trying to stuff his intestines back into his abdomen.
The case against Labour and the OO is proven to contest otherwise is delusional.
So prove it. One secondary source which doesn't even state a formal link is not proof.
That I'm calling the militant Loyalists "Red Hand Loonies" should indicate my view of them.
Like Alan McGregor you omit uncomfortable facts.
And like a narcissist who can't just win an argument but must drive his opponent into the ground, you don't have a point. You repeated the Republican line that the 20th involvement of the British state with Ireland has been one of interrupted collusion with Loyalist murder-gangs: I responded to that and only that.
I wouldn't call the Catholic Irish "fenians" or "paddies", so you can damn well stop calling the Ulster Scots and British by the racist term "Brit".
And you accuse me of running away with small threads!
Britain was so 'glad' to get rid of Ireland that she sent in hundreds of thousands of auxilliaries and the dreaded black'n'tans [...]
What's this about Ben and Jerry's ice-cream? The RIC was disbanded *90* years ago, you fool, and Tudor left under a cloud... the important facts you omit are the senior political and civic figures in Great Britain who were united in their disgust.
They murdered, burned, raped and pillaged at will. ECHR if it existed then could not have coped with the backlog.
And if my grandfather had tits he'd be my grandmother. The EHCR was in existence when the enemies of "the Brits" (the Provos) were outdoing the RIC's record for murder and intimidation of Catholic civilians (only being pipped to the top post by the combined efforts of the various Red Hand Loony groups, but not the security forces).
This link is a must see;
Why on earth would I wish to defend Peter Robinson? Are you a political tribalist who imagines everyone else takes a similarly declarative and denunciatory view?
I simply don't believe you know anything more about Trimble than what you've seen on a quick Google and Wiki. Have you read McEoin's biography of the man, for instance?
That I defend an individual from a specific charge does not mean that I support their politics uncritically. Yet, where is the evidence that Trimble was involved with death-squads?
The fact that the Brits were forced to return in 1969 to save Nationalists and Catholics from Unionist pogroms often involving the police was due to the legacy of setting up a two-tier in-built majority protestant state in the north of Ireland.
That's not what you said. Besides, if any outside nation was responsible for setting the ground to the religious conflict in NI, it was Scotland... but that wouldn't fit with your narrative of our being a naturally non-racist country with all the ill-will from "the Brits" (just as it was those who were responsible for the state-endorsed violence in East Africa, and not any Scots in the colonial service or military).
Besides, if any outside nation was responsible for setting the ground to the religious conflict in NI, it was Scotland...
- When Scotland does it, it's Scotland's fault.
When the Brits do it, its Scotland's fault.
..but that wouldn't fit with your narrative of our being a naturally non-racist country with all the ill-will from "the Brits"
- Presumably it fits into your narrative then, that Scots are racists and totalitarian, who have only the Brits to thank for keeping their natural totalitarian xenophobia in check.
The same Brits who are responsible for such sterling work in Ireland, and beyond, over the centuries to the present day.
Presumably your blog is an example of Brit-inspired and guided toleration and multiculturism rather than an example of Scottish intolerance and totalitarianism.
Tooth-picks, tooth-picks, I'm being attacked with tooth-picks!
When Scotland does it, it's Scotland's fault. When the Brits do it, its Scotland's fault.
You just ain't trying, are you? You're just here to add credence to the notion that blog threads are filled with jabbering monomaniacs straight out of a Georgian bedlam, or are yawning chasms of psychotic madness which even The Master could not imagine.
I am not flagellating myself over what Scots may have done in the past (or requiring others to flagellate themselves over what I've decreed another tribal group has done).
I ain't saying what happened in the past was right or wrong. I just am saying it Was.
Heard of historical analysis, Joe?
Presumably it fits into your narrative then, that Scots are racists and totalitarian, [...]
You don't know what totalitarian means, I suspect. It's not dictatorship or political repression... it's the twisting of words and language to mean whatever the speaker wants them to me.
A corollary is that if someone suggests that the group you've decided is the perfect victim (in this case, Scots and non-Protestant Irish) has racists amongst it, then the entire group is sullied.
Orwell had your number, 118.
who have only the Brits to thank for keeping their natural totalitarian xenophobia in check.
The same Brits who are responsible for such sterling work in Ireland, and beyond, over the centuries to the present day.
Speaking of Ireland, how's your colleague at the PSC, John Wight? Is he still calling Gerry Adams a wimp for not continuing the armed Struggle?
I am not flagellating myself over what Scots may have done in the past (or requiring others to flagellate themselves over what I've decreed another tribal group has done).
- Good for you.
For a minute there I thought you were blaming the crimes of the British Empire on Scotland.
As long as we're both agreed on British imperialism, that's what matters.
I ain't saying what happened in the past was right or wrong. I just am saying it Was.
Heard of historical analysis, Joe?
- Stating facts of history, or any other fact, isn't analysis.
Alec
>>[on Wilson]Absolute bullshit. You brought him into the discussion. Watching you try to deny that you made the semantic link between him with the Orange Order in Scotland and militant Loyalism with death squads...<<
I have proven the link between the OO and Unionist death squads, their memberships often overlap with that of mainstream politicians like yir pal Sir Trimble of the mask. My omerta continues over your obsession with Wilson.
>>And like a narcissist who can't just win an argument but must drive his opponent into the ground, you don't have a point.<<
In the name of God Alec! I for one hope we haven't bored people for too long here. However you are the one who was claiming victory earlier and you knew my tactics etc. when you were getting hit all over the ring. Gie's peace with your self congratulatory abuse!
>>...the racist term "Brit".<<
Gie's peace!
>>What's this about Ben and Jerry's ice-cream? The RIC was disbanded *90* years ago, you fool, and Tudor left under a cloud... the important facts you omit are the senior political and civic figures in Great Britain who were united in their disgust.<<
*Red Alert* Once more you atrribute comments to me that I have not made. ihave not mentioned the RIC.........got it! Because as this thread tells us you will continue to do so. As for Tudor, wrong period Mo Chara. And the last sentence baffles me, elaborate please.
>>The EHCR was in existence when the enemies of "the Brits" (the Provos) were outdoing the RIC's record for murder and intimidation of Catholic civilians (only being pipped to the top post by the combined efforts of the various Red Hand Loony groups, but not the security forces).
RIC again?!?! Periods mixed up or do you mean RUC? They and the British army and various other legal(B specials, UDR) and illegal militia's(alphabet soup murder gangs) murdered the overwhelming majority of people. Also the British army itself was guilty of murdering the most non-combatants. Check out the Cain website and British agent Brian nlson's testimony on collusion and shoot to kill.
The British were taken to Strasbourg in 1979 by the Irish government over a breach of Article 3 ECHR. They did not contest the charge and were guilty of allowing torture, degrading and inhumane treatment to be perpetrated against Irish people. Frank Kitson's manual is alive and well now wherever US and British forces operate throughout the world.
>>Yet, where is the evidence that Trimble was involved with death-squads?<<
Are you serious? He was a leader of Vanguard. A quasi-fascist armed militant group who have never disbanded. He freely mixed with various leaders of Unionist death squads right upto Drumcree. Oh and didn't Ervine testify that he knew the colour of mainstream unionists wallpaper. Sad to say but mainstream Unionists consistantly wound up militants to go and deal with any uppity Taigs or to create a political crisis. Loyalists often refer to these people leading them up the hill and pointing them down. Classic stuff!
>>if any outside nation was responsible for setting the ground to the religious conflict in NI, it was Scotland... but that wouldn't fit with your narrative of our being a naturally non-racist country with all the ill-will from "the Brits"<<
And from where have you discerned my views on this Alec? Your posts are a litany of madey up false attribution.
>>A corollary is that if someone suggests that the group you've decided is the perfect victim (in this case, Scots and non-Protestant Irish) has racists amongst it, then the entire group is sullied.<<
I would recommend you read Susan McKay's 'Northern Protestants' I came across it in my local library. And as someone well used to Orange bigotry it shocked even me. Let's just say that even the most middle-class Ulster protestant has been conditioned on dehumanising Irish nationalists. In a way it makes sense why their mainly working class guys found it do easy to kill innocent Catholics in cold blood.
>>Heard of historical analysis, Joe?<<
Lecturing someone else on this Alec?
Surely you jest!
Tony, in my experience, forever widening the parameters of the debate is an attempt to win through deceit.
So, I will ask once again for evidence that:
[*] Scottish Labour has a formal relationship with the OOiS;
[*] An impending rampage by sectarian murder-squads looms over Scotland;
[*] I am supporting militant Loyalism and denial of civil rights in NI for RCs or self-determination across the island for any group (not necessarily the same as Republicanism and the P-IRA).
And from where have you discerned my views on this Alec?
Right from your description of Murphy as "Britannia's pet jock" (and admitting this was a deliberate insult) and casual use of the term "Brits".
Hell Alec
>>Tony, in my experience, forever widening the parameters of the debate is an attempt to win through deceit.<<
Hilarious Alec, friggin hilarious! Considering that you have demanded that I jump through even smaller hoops and subtly but crucially changed the original subject matter due to the fact that I was inconveniently able to conjour up evidence to support me at every turn.
>>So, I will ask once again for evidence that:
[*] Scottish Labour has a formal relationship with the OOiS;<<
Two changes here, being "formal" and "in Scotland" Me providing evidence that a shadow government front bench spokesman "welcomed" the support of the OO. Of course you have repeatedly failed to condemn either the support or the OO, much like labours lack of condemnation of McMahons Kapo type welcome.
>>[*] An impending rampage by sectarian murder-squads looms over Scotland;<<
This bit hasn't been changed Alec, I'll give you that! Nope you have managed to fabricate this all by yourself.
>>[*] I am supporting militant Loyalism and denial of civil rights in NI for RCs or self-determination across the island for any group (not necessarily the same as Republicanism and the P-IRA)<<
Excuse my French, but utter utter muddled shite!
Also you have managed to decipher from me calling Scots Unionists "Brittania'a pet Jocks" and British soldiers Brits. That I somehow believe that Scotland has no burden to bear over imperialism in Ireland.
Well at least you are consistant in your faulty extrapolation, allied to just making things up.
Two changes here, being "formal" and "in Scotland" [...]
No, they've been there from the beginning.
Me providing evidence that a shadow government front bench spokesman "welcomed" the support of the OO.
Why do you keep referring to the Westminster system? Those superannunated region councillors can stick as many feathers in their hats as they wish, but they never will be a Government or on a par with shadow ministers.
Once again, if this alliance were as tangible as you insist, you should be able to find summat more than two sentences in a newspaper which tomorrow you'll be called part of the anti-SNP conspiracy.
(Of course, given the SNP's direct involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood friendly SIF, you're on very thin ice here.)
Of course you have repeatedly failed to condemn either the support or the OO,
Of course I haven't been gushing with approval, read what I wrote. You sneered that if I had evidence of the OOiS' involvement with terrorist activities, I should inform the Police.
So, what is there to condemn about them now?
much like labours lack of condemnation
Has anyone complained?
of McMahons Kapo type welcome.
A disgusted remark from a disgusting person. For observers, Tony is suggesting that McMahon is acting as a death-camp guard over other Roman Catholics whilst insisting that the OOiS has no involvement in terrorist activities, whilst suggesting they do have involvement in terrorist activities.
Demagoguery. Filthy, unprincipled demagoguery.
This bit hasn't been changed Alec, I'll give you that! Nope you have managed to fabricate this all by yourself.
Again, just how thick are you? This pissing competition started when I called Sohaib on providing evidence for this impending rampage which he explicitly stated was being planned.
You responded with pretty much the only primary source on the web (given by how frequently it's proffered by nutters like you and him) which mentioned Scottish Labour and the OOiS in the same breath.
So, either you were linking the two or, and again I think this is far more likely, you couldn't find your arse with both hands in a darkened room.
To recap, the pickle you're in is to provide evidence that:
[*] Ian Wilson, the OOiS and wider OO is inexorably linked to sectarian murder-squads;
[*] Scottish Labour is doing the dirty with the OOiS;
[*] McMahon is a traitor and complicit in the torture and murder or fellow Roman Catholics.
Wonderful Alec, the English have eccentrics. In Scotland we are blessed wi dugs that don't let go of bones.
>>And when, in sectarian Scotland, did Labour become allied with Loyalism and not the Irish Catholic bloc vote?<<
Here is your original quote Alec. Nothing about formal ties or the OO in Scotland. I'm sure this won't stop you making more stuff up though.
Of course at the time you were quick to wash over the pejorative comments regarding your fellow Scots, dismissing them as Irish Catholic, and mentioning them as sectarian, of course the opposite of loyalism by their very nature. Are Catholics anti-Protestant just by being Catholics? Bizzare!
You state that you do not see anything wrong with the OO as an organisation Alec, is that correct?
>>[*] Ian Wilson, the OOiS and wider OO is inexorably linked to sectarian murder-squads;<<
You should take any evidence you have of this to the appropriate authorities forthwith!
>>[*] Scottish Labour is doing the dirty with the OOiS;<<
Whit?!?! Has Ashley Cole photies of this?
>>[*] McMahon is a traitor and complicit in the torture and murder or fellow Roman Catholics.<<
Strong stuff you are accusing him of there Alec, here was me just thinking he was an opportunistic bugger who would hapilly collude with a bunch of anti-Catholic triumphalist bigots to help preserve the union. Considering he professes to be a Catholic, I think I would rather trust John Terry to escort my missus home safe.
>>Demagoguery. Filthy, unprincipled demagoguery.<<
Aye jist ask Wayne Bridge!
Wonderful Alec, the English have eccentrics. In Scotland we are blessed wi dugs that don't let go of bones.
Whereas your farts smell of lavender and are not making remark after remark to hide the fact that you completely misread my initial question to Sohaib. Either that or are rewriting the rules when you couldn't back it up - totalitarians are wont to do that.
Strong stuff you are accusing him of there Alec,
Again, unmitigated bullshit. I am making the accusation that *you* are accusing McMahon of that... but, yet again with the post modern hypocrisy, you attempt to turn it back on me.
You called him a kapo. You were accusing him of betraying his fellow RCs.
You are one of those very boring and very predictable individual who uses the language of those who oppose the British state, by fair means or foul: in this case, the Provos and Irish Republicanism.
Okie, fair enough that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that Ulster Protestants were, proportionately, the most murdered ethnic group in Western Europe since 1945. Dey wur purt of thur ehnurmee, and eet wuz uh sheeturatyon urtsyders durnt uhnderstaynd.
That's quite normal for fundamentally violent individuals. What's abnormal, given your professed sympathy for Irish RCers, is that you don't acknowledge the clerical-fascist influences in militant Republicanism, and the Provos
outstriped both the security forces and any individual Red Hand Loony murder-squad as killers of RC civilians.
Because it's all a game to you.
This is fun Alec.
>>You are one of those very boring and very predictable individual who uses the language of those who oppose the British state, by fair means or foul: in this case, the Provos and Irish Republicanism.<<
Hmmm I give fair comment on the role of British oppression in Ireland and because of this I must be a provo. Fair's fair then that must make you an apologist for state murder and imperialism.
>>..you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that Ulster Protestants were, proportionately, the most murdered ethnic group in Western Europe since 1945.<<
I don't read the Calton media website Alec, what next ethnic cleansing along the artificial borders and concentration camps in the hills of Donegal? The Irish truly are the most devious people, getting away with all that genocide.
>>Dey wur purt of thur ehnurmee, and eet wuz uh sheeturatyon urtsyders durnt uhnderstaynd.<<
Actually this is more comprehensive than your usual fair.
>>..given your professed sympathy for Irish RCers..<<
Who and what are Irish RCers? If you allow me to guess I'd say you were indulging along the lines of your earlier anti-Catholic remarks. Scratch the surface eh Alec?
>>is that you don't acknowledge the clerical-fascist influences in militant Republicanism..<<
Sure all those silly Paddy bastards, led by the nose by their priests. I'm afraid the age of imperialism is over Alec. Many Paddies got edumacated and were able to speak up and even lead revolutionary movements.
>>..the Provos
outstriped both the security forces and any individual Red Hand Loony murder-squad as killers of RC civilians.<<
I see you have been wiling away your time reading Cain, well at least I have achieved something. Actually the Ra did kill more Catholics but many were combatants in the conflict. I'm afraid the accolade for killing the most non-combatants will forever remain with HM amed forces who employed various agents mainly in Unionist murder gangs. These people were involved in state sponsored murders.
Did you check out Brian Nelson's testimony? What about brigadier Frank Kitsons manual?
Jings, I got to the end of that and clean forgot what the original post was about, something to with England I believe?
Post a Comment