HOW refreshing to hear Boris Johnson finally grasp the arguments for a nation taking responsibility for its own choices. On February 10, he stated in relation to the situation in Ukraine: “We believe all people, no matter where they are born, have a right to live safely and choose who governs them and to decide what organisations they aspire to have membership of, or indeed what bodies they want to cease being members of, and we will not compromise on that principle.”
It’s never been apparent that Johnson understands the concept of principles, but I sincerely hope he remembers these remarks when he next has to contemplate Scotland’s wish to break free from a larger state trying to bully it into remaining part of an old regime.
Unfortunately, his generosity on such freedom of choice is likely to only extend to his foreign policy in Eastern Europe where it is easy to be a defender of rights that won’t have implications for him personally. Back home, when presented with his own words in a Scottish context, he will no doubt default to bluster, denial and eventually backtracking.
Regardless of how Johnson tries to reimagine it, the words came out of his mouth, and it is clear that now Johnson has stated the case for independence, he must be held to these words at every opportunity.
Mags Pickett
Glasgow
THE UK mainstream media coverage over Ukraine in the past few weeks has been stunning, really impressive; if one was studying media studies, then there are rich propaganda pickings o=f disinformation, obfuscation, censorship and war-mongering that you can choose from. The BBC, in particular, has completely discarded any notion of impartiality; it has truly exposed itself as a state-funded brainwashing institution, yet still maintaining the illusion that it is a trustworthy and relevant source.
Here are some examples that so-called journalists, politicians and commentators refuse to either discuss or fudge.
The historical context: Russia have an extremely painful memory of being invaded twice from the west, through Ukraine, in the first half of the 20th century – millions killed from fascist forces, never discussed.
Nato is a military alliance headed up by the US expanding on to Russia’s border. This is a direct security threat to Russia. Understanding Russia’s position shouldn’t 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, the broken promises not to expand east. Nato troops and military hardware are moving towards Russia. Putin is not interested in invading Ukraine, he wants a neutral Ukraine acting as a buffer, which is understandable – again, off-limits for discussion.
The US is trying to take Ukraine away from Russia’s orbit – a red line for Russia! The Monroe Doctrine defines that no country has any 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 manoeuvres on the Canadian/Mexican border? Not surprisingly, never discussed!
The US-led political coup in Ukraine in 2013/14 saw the democratically elected president removed and neo-Nazis linked to the Svoboda party get a toe-hold in government. The scenes and the context from the Maiden have been sent down the memory hole. This event precipitated the annexation of Crimea – a defensive, albeit illegal, move from Russia. The hypocrisy is breathtaking; when western leaders were commemorating, in 2015, 70 years having defeated fascism, they were bringing to power fascists in Ukraine, on Russia’s border. What role does the Azov Battalion have today as Nato-backed forces amass on the Donbas border? This is not only never discussed, it’s taboo.
Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at 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? This is a mute question because it’s taboo, not up for discussion. I wonder why?
JC
Fife
IT was with great interest I read the article by Lord Dunlop in The Herald (Feb 15), where he expresses his opinion that the UK Government has a better plan for Scotland’s future than the SNP. He states: “Who are the real change-makers?”
The last thing the good lord and his ilk want is change and for Scotland to become independent.
After all, if Scotland became independent, the Scottish people would no longer be required to doff 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 in remaining in the Lords.
Some Scots may wonder if the £320-a-day to attend the Lords, plus expenses, may just have influenced lords Dunlop, Foulkes and Robertson’s judgement.
Sorry, I forgot, they are all men of integrity ... ?!
Cap duly doffed.
I Archibald
Edinburgh
I TOTALLY agree with the MSP Emma Roddick’s view that the title Earl of Inverness, and all other silly titles, should be scrapped (Fresh calls made for Andrew’s title to be removed, Feb 15).
However, as this medieval nonsense will persist, I would suggest that, in this era of levelling up, every Scottish community should have their own “titled” person – such as the Earl of Cowdenbeath or the Duke of Pumpherston.
We are all Jock Tamson’s bairns ... or are we?
N M Shaw
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel