Scottish independence: Boris Johnson must not be allowed to forget these words

HOW refreshing it is to hear Boris Johnson finally grasp the case for a nation taking responsibility for its own choices. On February 10, he said of the situation in Ukraine: “We believe that all peoples, regardless of where they are born, have the right to live in security and to choose who governs them and to decide at what organizations they aspire to become members of, or even of which bodies they want to cease to be members, and we will not compromise on this principle.

It has never been clear that Johnson understands the concept of principles, but I sincerely hope he remembers these remarks the next time he has to consider Scotland’s wish for freedom from a more state. vast trying to intimidate him into staying in an old regime.

Unfortunately, his generosity on such freedom of choice will likely only extend to his foreign policy in Eastern Europe where it is easy to be a rights advocate that will have no implications for him personally. Back home, when presented in his own words in a Scottish context, he’s sure to be blustering, denying and possibly backtracking.

Regardless of how Johnson tries to reinvent it, the words have come out of his mouth, and it’s clear that now that Johnson has declared the case for independence, he must be held to those words at every opportunity.
Mags Picket

UK media coverage of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been astonishing, truly impressive; if one studied media studies, then there are rich selections of propaganda of misinformation, obfuscation, censorship and warmongering to choose from. The BBC, in particular, has completely discarded any notion of impartiality; it has genuinely exposed itself as a state-funded brainwashing institution, while maintaining the illusion that it is a reliable and relevant source.

Here are some examples that so-called journalists, politicians and commentators refuse to discuss or deceive.

The historical context: Russia has an extremely painful memory of being invaded twice from the west, through Ukraine, in the first half of the 20th century – millions of deaths by fascist forces, never discussed.

NATO is a US-led military alliance that extends to the Russian border. This is a direct threat to Russian security. Understanding Russia’s position should not be difficult given its painful past! NATO has a violent, aggressive and mendacious past since the end of the Cold War – Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, broken promises not to expand eastward. NATO troops and military equipment are heading for Russia. Putin is not interested in invading Ukraine, he wants a neutral Ukraine acting as a buffer, which is understandable – again, off limits to discussion.

The United States is trying to push Ukraine out of the Russian orbit – a red line for Russia! The Monroe Doctrine defines that no country has a say in America’s “own backyard” (Central/South America). Consider the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. So why should Russia accept a military threat on its border? Would America accept Russian military maneuvers on the Canada-Mexico border? Unsurprisingly, never discussed!

The US-led political coup in Ukraine in 2013/14 saw the democratically elected president deposed and neo-Nazis linked to the Svoboda party gain a foothold in government. The Maiden’s scenes and background were sent down the memory hole. This event precipitated the annexation of Crimea – a defensive, albeit illegal, move by Russia. The hypocrisy is breathtaking; as Western leaders commemorated, in 2015, the 70th anniversary of the defeat of fascism, they brought fascists to power in Ukraine, on the Russian border. What role does the Azov Battalion play today as NATO-backed forces gather on the Donbass border? It’s not only never discussed, it’s taboo.

Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, said: “Aggression is the ultimate war crime because it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Who are the real aggressors? It’s a mute question because it’s taboo, not to be discussed. I wonder why?

It was with great interest that I read Lord Dunlop’s article in The Herald (February 15), where he expressed his opinion that the British government has a better plan for Scotland’s future than the SNP. He says, “Who are the real agents of change?

The last thing the good lord and his ilk want is change and independence for Scotland.

After all, if Scotland became independent, the Scots would no longer be required to remove their caps in the presence of the good lords Foulkes, Robertson et al.

Scotland would have no unelected lords to rule over us.

Lord Dunlop in his article should have declared his personal interest in Scotland remaining in the Union and remaining in the Lords.

Some Scots may wonder whether the £320 a day to attend Lords, plus expenses, may have swayed the judgment of Lords Dunlop, Foulkes and Robertson.

Sorry, I forgot, they are all men of integrity…?!

Cap duly removed.
Me Archibald

I TOTALLY agree with MSP Emma Roddick’s view that the title Earl of Inverness, and all other silly titles, should be removed (New calls have been made for Andrew’s title to be removed , February 15).

However, as this medieval nonsense will persist, I would suggest that in this age of leveling, every Scottish community should have its own ‘titled’ person – like the Earl of Cowdenbeath or the Duke of Pumpherston.

We’re all Jock Tamson’s bairns…or are we?
N M Shaw

Comments are closed.