What is the SNP?

[John Little]

Wow, we in the SNP are used to scaremongering tactics, lies, deceit, in order to get us to vote against Independence but your post is the biggest load of unproven twaddle I have ever come across......Do you have any links or proof of what you are saying is the truth?

C3..........(shakes head in disbelief)!!

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co...sage-rich.html

Disbelief gets nowhere.

Investigation satisfies disbelief often.


BTW - it was the comments underneath that I found quite interesting.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ma...landsradicals/

Interesting read.

[Jerrico]

This is the remarkable story about the SNP pre WW2 connection to Adolf Hitler Nazi regime, SNP party member’s also had dealing with Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was in many ways as big a Nazi villain as Hitler himself, and to understand his influence on the Middle East is to understand the ongoing genocidal program against the Jews of Israel. Al-Husseini was a bridge figure in terms of transporting the Nazi genocide in Europe into the post-war Middle East. As the leader of Arab Palestine during the British Mandate period, Al-Husseini introduced violence against moderate Arabs as well as against Jews etc. Al-Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine in 1937 and subsequently went on the Nazi payroll as a Nazi agent. Also some Pre WW2 SNP members/traitors to Scotland was also on the Nazi payroll.

[John Little]

Ah the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Thank you - I did not realise the link.

It's interesting in illustrating how the SNP has evolved and changed its shirt over the years. Nowadays they purport to be a left of centre party committed to a Scottish Social Democracy - except that their position on any given issue cannot seem to be guaranteed from year to year.

The Muslim thing is not surprising - Mr Salmond needs to court all voters resident in Scotland. They don't have to be Scots in origin- "New Scots" will do just as well just as long as they vote to break up the UK.

So in the end say 3 million people may vote for Scottish Independence and 57 million will stand agog and powerless as Scotland heads off for Salmondopia.

That's Democracy ain't it?

We need a UK written constitution and a new set-up as Rob Murray laid out.

[fred]

SNP party member’s also had dealing with Haj Amin al-Husseini...

Yes but that SNP was the Syrian National Party not the Scottish one.

[Corrie 3]

Yes but that SNP was the Syrian National Party not the Scottish one.

Well, this thread has deteriorated somewhat......Nazi's, Muslim's, Jew's and Arabs ...whatever next? Come on John, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now and that is not like you at all. Scoff all you like at the SNP but until someone gives me a realistic alternative then they will still get my vote!
(Dont tell me, Alex is sending out e-mails to Martians welcoming them to Scotland just to get their vote)!!!! lol.....

C3..............

[John Little]

I think you are missing the point.

I find the history of the SNP interesting because I'm an historian. It's what I do and I have always found the past fascinating - thanks to the Miller Academy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/ju...server.uknews1


It's also interesting because it highlights just how much the SNP position has changed over the years. An interest in History is not 'scraping the barrel' though after Fred's post I would be interested in seeing Jerrico's sources.

The SNP are not a realistic alternative. They offer you a vision.

Maybe. If all goes well

And they stop shifting their position and compromising their principles.

Mr Salmond needs votes.

If there are Martians in Scotland he will be canvassing their votes and doing some electoral bribing- if he's got any sense.

[fred]

Well, this thread has deteriorated somewhat......Nazi's, Muslim's, Jew's and Arabs ...whatever next?

Oh it gets worse, Alex Salmond was also an oil economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland.

I think the point is clear, throughout history and throughout the world there have always been psychopaths who will use man's natural tribal instinct to manipulate them and feed their thirst for wealth and power. Politicians would use the Union Flag to shrink wrap people's brains then send them off to kill people who never did anything to us in places they never heard of then use it as a shroud on their coffins when they came back for the benefit of BP and British Aerospace. People in the Muslim world do the same with the Koran, Hitler did it in Germany.

Now it's about time people wised up, tribal instincts served us well when we were hunter gatherers but we aren't hunter gatherers any more, evolution just hasn't had time to catch up with man's progress. We should be moving forwards to a world without borders not backwards to the 17th century, evolution not devolution.

[theone]

We should be moving forwards to a world without borders not backwards to the 17th century, evolution not devolution.

Exactly. Togetherness, not separatism.

Together we are stronger. The whole is stronger than the sum of its parts etc etc.

The SNP seem to agree, at least on NATO. At least on the EU. At least with trade deals with China. They only seem to think being on our own is a good idea when it gets rid of England. Strange...................

Why limit their separatist ideals to Scotland and it's borders from a few hundred years ago? Why not take it further, and split the land up to its old clan lines? TRUE self governance for the people?

[David Banks]

. . . because I'm an historian. It's what I do and I have always found the past fascinating - thanks to the Miller Academy.

. . . and I find that you being a historian is fascinating.

Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?

I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say.

[theone]

. . . and I find that you being a historian is fascinating.

Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?

I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say.

I'd rather look to the future than dwell on the past, but your post does raise a question of if our "history" should play a part in the independance debate.

Lets go a few years later than the Darien Scheme and Act of Union. Let's go to Culloden. A battle in 1745 which saw supporters of a Catholic regime fighting supporters of Protestantism.

Nowadays, you'd be excused from thinking this was a battle between Scotland and England. Propaganda.

But the end would have been the same, Separation of Scotland from the UK.



Now, like back in 1745, if the people of Caithness and Sutherland, the Mackays, Gunns, Sinclairs and Sutherlands were to "fight against" the separists, as they did then, would we now be allowed to stay in the UK, or would we be forced into an independant Scotland?

I think we all know the anser. No.

How can a border agreed hundreds of years ago be considered a envalope of togetherness 300 years later? Nonsense.

[John Little]

. . . and I find that you being a historian is fascinating.

Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?

I would be genuinely interested in what you have to say.

Ah David man- you have tempted me sorely and as ye sow, so shall ye reap. I was thinking a lot around that very question a few weeks ago and wrote down my own version of events- so find it underneath.

History is smoke and mirrors and finding a synthesis of what actually happened is difficult. All you can do is find an acceptable version of truth which fits in with your own ideas and available evidence. Which version is accepted generally is down to Propaganda and what it is convenient to believe. Any version may be flawed and all are subject to alteration at a moment's notice.

Subject to that, the underneath is my understanding - but as The One has pointed out, and Fred as well, it's not all that relevant to today, save as a propaganda device to garner support.

[John Little]

The Union between England and Scotland came about for a variety of reasons, some being more important than others.

The first reason is that the Stuarts had always desired a union between Scotland and England from the time of James I and VI. The proposal was made then – by the Scots- but the English did not want it, seeing Scotland as a poor nation, and they had no desire to be tied to it. Throughout the C17th century this desire remained an aim of the Stuart dynasty. James VI of Scotland had always had to contend with a Scottish Parliament which was jealous of its liberties and which circumscribed his power. Yet in himself he believed himself to be King by divine right and that he should have absolute power in the same way as other European monarchs. This thought he passed to his son and Charles’ upholding of it led to the civil wars.

It was the Civil wars which created the conditions for Union, more than any other reason. It is estimated that 10% of the population of Great Britain died in the Civil wars, and when they were over there was fear and dread at the thought that they might return. The period following the Restoration of Charles II to the English throne in 1660 (he was already crowned King of Scots in 1650) saw unrest and uprisings of what Samuel Pepys called “fanatiques’ (republicans) in England and Covenanters in Scotland. When the Catholic James II became King in 1685 he had to face a rebellion from the Protestant Duke of Monmouth which included Scotsmen among its number, notably the famous Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, fighting, not for Scotland but for Protestanism. Clearly, even after the Restoration there were people in Britain who did not regard the question of government as settled. In Scotland particularly James Graham of Claverhouse (Bonnie Dundee) was an active military commander, particularly in the South West, ruthlessly putting down the armed insurrection of Covenanters who were against the monarchy and who were equally ruthless.

When William and Mary took over England, their negotiations did not include Scotland or its Parliament. Mary clearly regarded the throne of Scotland as hers by right of blood and succession as a Stuart; however it would have been wiser to consult the Scots. Considering the existence of James II and of his son, later styled James III, as well as Covenanters they had to face rebellions from both Jacobites and Covenanters. Nonetheless they were accepted as King and Queen of Scotland jointly by a Convention of the Estates of Scotland, and their writ ruled, if somewhat uneasily and marred by the atrocity of Glencoe. The problem was that they were childless. Mary died in 1694, and, by virtue of the fact that both she and William reigned, he continued as King of both countries.

William was regarded as the champion of Protestant Europe but was astute as a statesman; although he was involved in wars against France all his life and the limitation of French power was central to his aims, he did not wish to be at war against France and Spain at the same time- for the simple reason that he would lose. When some wealthy Scots set up a company to trade with Africa and the Indies, he was in favour at first, until it was pointed out that this infringed the East India Company’s Charter, so he withdrew his support.

These Scots decided that instead of going ahead with the company, they would instead plant a colony at Darien, on the isthmus of Panama. This was bound to be seen by Spain as an infringement of her rights as laid down in the old Treaty of Tordesillas where Spain and Portugal had divided the area between them – an arrangement sanctioned by the Pope. The Spanish had forces and a fleet based in the area, and the whole affair was predestined to failure.

William found that although he was King of Scotland, he could not stop this assertion of Scottish policy. The project went ahead, and, predictably, was soon in trouble. William did not help – which caused great anger in Scotland, which persists to this day- but he had never wanted it in the first place. It is hard to see what he could have done to rescue this scheme without bringing on a general war, which must, inevitably have ended in disaster for England and Holland and possible invasions in Ireland and Scotland.

It was apparent that the King may rule Scotland, but he could not control it. As he was childless, the question of the succession was a vexed one too. The Covenanters had been crushed, but Jacobites simmered in Scotland and posed a danger to England if there was foreign intervention. William did not have to solve these problems as his horse tripped over a molehill in 1702 as he was riding – he was thrown and killed.

Anne Stuart ruled in her own right and there was no real dispute about her right to do so. She was a genuine Stuart and her husband, Prince George of Denmark, a quiet and unassuming man, did as he was told and did not reign. Unfortunately all her 11 children died before attaining majority. The succession remained un-assured and with James III living in Paris, a return to invasion and Civil War threatened.

A proposal in the Scottish Parliament to have troops removed from Scotland and be replaced by a militia where all citizens were armed, alarmed the Queen and the English Parliament. Assertions by some in the Scottish Parliament that Scotland was not bound to accept the same monarch as England if Anne died childless led to fears of Scotland with a Catholic King in alliance with France. The British forces on the continent were winning great victories, but if the French attacked from the North then England was under threat from two sides. A tighter control of Scotland was necessary to the Stuart monarch and her parliament, and in the face of foreign threat or war, a federal arrangement would not answer, which is why Anne favoured an incorporating union of the two countries.

She also wished to ensure a Protestant succession so nominated Sophia of Hanover as her heir – a grand-daughter of James I. Sophia died, very old, 2 months before she would have become Queen, so the succession devolved to her eldest son George. Very diluted indeed but with Stuart in him.

If James III had not been Catholic…

[fred]

Is there anything from the union of the crowns, the Darien Scheme or the 1707 Acts of Union which would throw some light on the current discussion. Were these events free of misrepresentations by both sides of the arguments?

The situation in 1707 wasn't all that different to things today.

Take the banking crisis. The rich and powerful elite took a gamble with money they didn't have hoping to make themselves even richer and more powerful. The bankers then went to the government demanding tax payers money to bail them out and the government gave it them on the promise they would lend it back to us, which they did not do. Instead they gave themselves 12% pay rises and huge bonuses claiming they had to do it or they would all leave the country and go live somewhere that would.

It was the Salmonds, Sauters and Goodwins of the early 1700s that sold out the people of Scotland to feed their thirst for wealth and power and it is the same people trying to do it again.

[weezer 316]

I have just about managed to bite my toungue!

Corrie, go and live in Stroma. Please. Your inane ramblings about being shafted at every turn by torries/westminster who you lump together in some massive cabal, and then in a piece of superme irony complain they are doing the same vis a vis Scotsmen is not only tiresome and inacurate but obscures any real debate over the independence vote. I have asked you, and many others unpteen times what exactly divides us bar an accent and a fondness for irn bru and this is all you come up with.

Secondly, I would define nationlism as someone who makes a particular point of identifying themselves with a nation group and makes arguments on the strenght of that association. For example Hitler was convinced Germany couldnt survive if they lost the war, he almost had over identification with Germany. Alex isnt quite as bad but his argument, like most nationlists throughout time, relies on the "I am one of you" argument and "they" are not, therefore what i want is in your interests, as opposed to dealing with facts. That to me defines nationalism. Of course its nonsense but it fools people.


Thirdly, there is an argument to be made for independence. But the SNP ain't making it because the minutiae of policy aint their strongest card and they know it. There still exists deep resentment towards the tories over Maggie Thatcher 25 years ago and thats the strongest card they can play.

[rob murray]

The SNP were formed in 1934 and were gradually gaining popularity when WWII broke out. In the early years of the war they believed, as did many others, that Germany would win and were hoping to do a deal with Hitler to form a puppet government for an Independent Scotland. Their leader, Douglas Young was imprisoned for attempting to subvert the British war effort and Arthur Donaldson, who went on to be leader in 1960, was arrested in 1941 after subversive literature and weapons were found at his home. He was running an organisation which helped Scots avoid conscription.

Due to Germany losing the war they were somewhat unpopular after that and didn't manage to get an MP into Westminster for long until after they found oil in the North Sea and greed reared it's ugly head.

After oil was found their popularity grew in leaps and bounds but after failing to get devolution in 1979 a group of them decided to take direct action. The plan was to ally the SNP with the Socialist parties then organise a campaign of mass civil disobedience, use the power of the unions. After it was leaked to the press that they had been invited to Ireland by the IRA the members of this group were expelled from the party but sequentially allowed back in and one of them, Alex Salmond, is now their leader.

I don't think any of them, Nationalist or Unionist, gives a hoot about the people of Scotland or Britain, Independence is all about a shift of power between one part of the ruling elite to another and it galls me that they are using the crimes committed by the ruling elite of history against the common people as a weapon in their propaganda war.

Brilliant, where did you get the stuff on pre war / war involvement on SNP, this is dynamite, I knew that ex British blackshirt fascists, prisoners of war in WW2 were recruited into the Waffen SS, as featured on a TV documentary, but if the mainstream parties want to hit Salmon for 6, they should fund a similar documentary...Roots of The SNP / dubious links etc...Dont know about your take on late 70's as the tartan tories as they voted against callaghan thus helping pass a vote of no confidence in the then Labour government..leading to Thatch.

[John Little]

Interesting letter in today's Guardian from a gentleman in Inverness which I take the liberty to put here.

"So Pussy Riot get two years for singing a song disapproved by the authorities in a church. In Scotland recently the SNP regime passed a law allowing for five years imprisonment for singing a song disapproved by the authorities at a football match. So two years is really lenient."


Is this true?

[fred]

Dont know about your take on late 70's as the tartan tories as they voted against callaghan thus helping pass a vote of no confidence in the then Labour government..leading to Thatch.

The SNP did yes, I was talking about the 79 Group.

[gleeber]

So true Fred, well done for high lighting the true side of Eck.

Fred; I agree with you - root and branch.

Thank you.

Welcome back Fred.
your not back half an hour and you have already associated the SNP with the Nazis, Alex Salmond with the banking crash, called the world leaders psychopaths and to crown that your old mates Golach and John Little are crawling half way up your backside in appreciation of your efforts.
You couldna make it up.

[fred]

Welcome back Fred.
your not back half an hour and you have already associated the SNP with the Nazis, Alex Salmond with the banking crash, called the world leaders psychopaths and to crown that your old mates Golach and John Little are crawling half way up your backside in appreciation of your efforts.
You couldna make it up.

It was the Darien Scheme I was associating with the banking crash, do you not see the similarities, the "parcel of rogues in a nation" are no different now than they were then.

http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/al...s-abn-disaster

[John Little]

What is the measure of a man?

How do you know him if not by his words?

Agreeing with Fred's words is permitted by the rules of the boards.

I even agree with Golach.