Craig Murray, fired former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, is a relentless promoter of Scotch Nationalism. He wants to see Scotland ripped from the United Kingdom despite the fact that the Scots voted against independence in the the 2014 referendum.
But, in reality, Murray does not want independence for Scotland. Quite the contrary: he wants the incorporation of Scotland within the EU, but separate from Britain. In other words, instead of being 10% of the British nation, Murray wants the Scots to be one percent of the people of the emerging European superstate.
 |
| Inside Glasgow's Central Mosque: or the new face of Scotland (so to speak). |
Murray's Scotch nationalism is thus entirely fake, and is indeed the antithesis of nationalism. Murray is for the destruction not only of the British nation, but the Scotch nation where he welcomes mass immigration of Asians, Africans and Middle-Easterners who make up an ever growing proportion of the population, not only in the major urban centers of Edinburgh (where immigrants already exceeds 15% of the population) and Glasgow, but even in remote island communities, where the settlers complain that there are only tiresome old people waiting to die, rather than hoped for virgins waiting to be raped.
None of this need have been mentioned here, but having taking the trouble to comment on Murray's latest piece about Scotch independence and seen those comments immediately deleted from his blog, it seemed worth noting what a phony Craig Murray really is, both as a nationalist and a liberal (he was a Liberal Party member until becoming a Scotch Nat.).
Here is one of several of my comments on Murray's blog that were deleted almost instantly:
My comment on the fact that my comment that Craig Murray's Scotch nationalism is merely a device for undermining British Nationalism has already [i.e., within five minutes] been deleted.Postscript: Amazingly, in the few minutes before my first comment on Murray's blog about Murray's anti-nationalist nationalism was deleted, 28 people clicked on the link I'd included in my comment relating to the consequences of mass immigration: My Britain Is Fuck All Now. But I guess that such a post would be intolerable to an anti-nationalist nationalist.
What a phony liberal Craig Murray must be.
Totally intolerant of open discussion.
Genocide, the British don’t want you to know about – They systematically starved to death over 60 millions of Eastern Indians!!!
ReplyDeletehttps://fbreporter.org/2015/07/07/genocide-the-british-dont-want-you-to-know-about-they-systematically-starved-to-death-over-60-millions-of-eastern-indians/
...(just sharing, interesting)!
The false message you wish to convey is that the British deserve to die.
DeleteHowever, the common people of England had no part in the rule of India or anywhere else and they have been targeted for genocide by the same elite class that once ruled India (where famines were a regular occurrence whoever ruled the country).
In fact famines continued in India long after independence, not due to a lack of food but to a lack of money in the hands of much of the population to buy food. This fact was pointed out by Amartya Sen, the Indian economics Nobel Prize winner, and prompted the Government of India to deal with famines by providing the starving with money, rather than by ineffectual laws against grain export, or the restriction of grain shipments between regions within India.
And as this was a post about Scotch Nationalism, it is relevant to note in response to your comment the role of the Scots in the rule of the British Empire, an Empire the Scots entered into voluntarily after their own imperial ambitions, the Darien Project, collapsed in total failure.
DeleteAs History Today relates:
The British Empire was never wholly English, of course, or even predominantly so. Scotland had its own colonial enterprises before the Act of Union (1707), and afterwards arguably contributed more to their joint imperial project than its southern neighbour. Of course you don’t find the Scots celebrating this much now, as imperialism is no longer generally considered to have been A Good Thing and the idea that they were colonial victims seems a better card to play for a people striving (some of them) for national independence. Today’s academic Scottish historians, however, know that ‘it is far too simplistic to consider the British Celtic fringe (and Scotland in particular) as somehow in a quasi-colonial relationship with the central and dominant English power. Read more.