Peter Dow's political defence -v- "criminal tweets" charge

[Peter Dow]

My Trial has been rescheduled to the 23rd February 2016.

I got a phone call from lawyer yesterday who told me that my trial is not going ahead on 4th November and a new date has been set for 23rd February next year.

Peter, I like what I've seen of you and hope that the verdict goes your way, both because I don't think that there's any genuine concern about you being a danger to anyone and also because there has been way too many hysterical over-reactions to this sort of thing.  Good luck on the 4th.

Thanks.

I quite like Peter, he's principled, I know he comes across as a bit of a crank sometimes, but he stands up for what he believes. 

Thanks.

I was disappointed that Peter stopped tweeting about a month before the indie ref. I was enjoying his tweets.

 

I was gagged more than 7 weeks before the indy-ref.

Question is, why did the Scottish police suddenly find Dow so offensive just then, when I've seen much more wacko stuff from him at other times? It couldn't be that that the political masters wanted their supporting wacko's silenced around then, could it?

I think "a true Scottish original unlike any before me" is fairer than "wacko".

Note that republicans support an independent Scottish republic in preference to a Scottish kingdom.

This makes Scottish republicans opponents, not "supporters" of the SNP / YES-Scotland royalist, conservative version of Scotland as an independent kingdom.

I'm not a member of the SNP and would not want to be unless the leadership was republican and didn't suck up to the Queen at every opportunity, as Salmond and Sturgeon seem to do.

Try to understand that a Scottish republican opponent of royalist Salmond / Sturgeon is not the same thing as a "wacho supporter" of Salmond / Sturgeon.

Certainly there was the potential for Scottish royalists and republicans to campaign together for a YES vote in the independence referendum - 

• both Scottish republicans and royalists alike supporting a "YES" vote
• but royalists not supporting republicanism
• and republicans not supporting royalism.

But when the royalist-led Scottish government encouraged or allowed its police and law officers to arrest and prosecute Scottish republicans like me, that rigged the indy-ref campaign to be a predominantly royalist campaign.

Salmond and his police state lost the indy-ref and Sturgeon is wrong to retain Salmond's police state, as is.

I recommend that First Minister Sturgeon should replace the Scottish government's law officers - Lord Advocate Mulholland, Solicitor General Thomson and Chief Constable House with officials who truly respect freedom of expression and open political debate and uphold human rights law and who would never impose the Stasi / Gestapo style police state we seem to have now.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Peter Dow

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

The Crown Prosecution Service backed down on this purported case of malicious communication;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bahar-mustafa-student-officer-accused-of-posting-controversial-tweet-has-charges-dropped-a6719361.html

 

Legal precedent?

 

[eFestivals]

 

I was gagged more than 7 weeks before the indy-ref.

apologies for my bad maths. I knew it was July you'd stopped tweeting.

 

I think "a true Scottish original unlike any before me" is fairer than "wacko".

Note that republicans support an independent Scottish republic in preference to a Scottish kingdom.

This makes Scottish republicans opponents, not "supporters" of the SNP / YES-Scotland royalist, conservative version of Scotland as an independent kingdom.

I'm not a member of the SNP and would not want to be unless the leadership was republican and didn't suck up to the Queen at every opportunity, as Salmond and Sturgeon seem to do.

Try to understand that a Scottish republican opponent of royalist Salmond / Sturgeon is not the same thing as a "wacho supporter" of Salmond / Sturgeon.

Certainly there was the potential for Scottish royalists and republicans to campaign together for a YES vote in the independence referendum - 

• both Scottish republicans and royalists alike supporting a "YES" vote
• but royalists not supporting republicanism
• and republicans not supporting royalism.

But when the royalist-led Scottish government encouraged or allowed its police and law officers to arrest and prosecute Scottish republicans like me, that rigged the indy-ref campaign to be a predominantly royalist campaign.

Salmond and his police state lost the indy-ref and Sturgeon is wrong to retain Salmond's police state, as is.

I recommend that First Minister Sturgeon should replace the Scottish government's law officers - Lord Advocate Mulholland, Solicitor General Thomson and Chief Constable House with officials who truly respect freedom of expression and open political debate and uphold human rights law and who would never impose the Stasi / Gestapo style police state we seem to have now.

yes, I realise that the SNP fudged the monarchy question for electoral benefit, but I would have thought you'd have realised that there's a greater chance of getting that independent republic via a gradual approach than there is from no constitutional movement at all.

But I think 'wacko' sums you up in most people's minds more-so than "a true Scottish original unlike any before me".

You're claiming yourself as special. You're not. No one is.

You're also playing out the no true Scotsman fallacy, the very soul of nutty ethnic nationalism - funnily enough, one of the stronger reasons why Scotland self-determined to be British.

[eFestivals]

The Crown Prosecution Service backed down on this purported case of malicious communication;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bahar-mustafa-student-officer-accused-of-posting-controversial-tweet-has-charges-dropped-a6719361.html

 

Legal precedent?

 

nope. Different legal system.

[Peter Dow]

apologies for my bad maths. I knew it was July you'd stopped tweeting.

Apology accepted though it was unnecessary. As a former maths teacher, I never sought an apology from any of my students. It is a pleasure to post somewhere with a gracious forum moderator because forum moderators don't have to apologise for anything in their own forum. Thank you.

yes, I realise that the SNP fudged the monarchy question for electoral benefit,

I can't fault the SNP's electoral strategy, not after that thumping landslide they won at the UK general election.

What I fault is not the SNP's electoral strategy, which won, but the SNP's referendum strategy, which lost.

but I would have thought you'd have realised that there's a greater chance of getting that independent republic via a gradual approach than there is from no constitutional movement at all.

Scottish republicans never supported an approach of "no constitutional movement at all", never advocated a "NO" vote, when given any fleeting opportunity, we advocated a "YES" vote.

Scottish republicans however were prevented from fully presenting our additional republican case for voting "YES". Many were kept off TV. I at least was also kept off social media.

That prevention was not due to any SNP "fudge" but by Salmond's Scotland-in-the-UK police state.

It wasn't the case that Scottish republicans got offered "Vote YES"-fudge by the SNP and we turned our noses up at it.

Rather it was Scottish republicans did not get offered "Vote YES" TV appearances and I at least got no chance to refuse  "NO"-handcuffs, "NO"-police cells and "NO"-bail conditions and was not allow to campaign for "YES" even on social media.

So we have ended up with a "NO" result and no constitutional change because of First Minister Salmond's stewardship of the kingdom's police state which kept Scottish republicans out of the campaign, side-lined and ignored.

Blame Salmond for the "NO" result. Scottish republicans could have won it for "YES" but Salmond's police state stopped us winning it.

But I think 'wacko' sums you up in most people's minds more-so than "a true Scottish original unlike any before me".

You're claiming yourself as special. You're not. No one is.

I am what I am. I am my own special creation.

The Queen is not as special as the royalists claim certainly. She is most notable because, as head of state, the monarch is the primary obstruction in the way of the people electing presidents to be heads of republican nation states.

You're also playing out the no true Scotsman fallacy,

No, I'm not. I oppose the royalists Salmond and Sturgeon because they are royalists and I am a republican. I have never claimed that Salmond and Sturgeon were "not truly" Scottish.

the very soul of nutty ethnic nationalism

As a life-long anti-racist campaigner, I oppose "ethnic" nationalism fiercely and consider your slur to be insulting to me and offensive. I'd really much rather you apologise for insulting me by implying that my politics is in any way "ethnically based" than apologising for your earlier mathematical error.

It is for you to admit or not admit your mathematical errors. However it is for me and me alone to define my politics. You have no right to tell others what my politics is. I define my politics - not you - so don't dare, even on your own forum, to accuse me of "ethnic" politics, OK?

I am neither "nutty" nor do I have any time for "ethnic nationalism".

What seems to be the case if you have your unfounded prejudices about me which you insist on sticking to, despite the facts about my record in politics.

funnily enough, one of the stronger reasons why Scotland self-determined to be British.

Since no-one was advocating "ethnic" politics, not me, not the SNP, not YES-Scotland, NOBODY, such fringe-politics played no part whatsoever in why so many Britons, those with a British national identity, living in Scotland voted "NO".

Rather it was because the mainstream SNP / YES-Scotland campaign made no specific pitch for the British voter in Scotland, many of whom may well have friends and family living in the rest of Britain and who would vote the way they believed what is best for British friends and family.

I do have a pitch for the British voter to vote YES for Scottish independence.

My pitch would have been one of the stronger reasons why my approach would have won the independence referendum for YES while Salmond lost it because Salmond turned off British voters, he never explained what was in it for all Britons from Scottish independence. Mostly the SNP has focused on independence changes where if Scotland gets it, England loses it - such as distribution of oil tax revenues from the North Sea.

I am also British, proud to be so, and don't consider my support for an independent Scottish republic to be anything other than doing my patriotic duty to my fellow British nationals, who would benefit from a British republic and / or Britain governed as home nation republics - a Scottish republic, an English republic, a Welsh republic and an Irish republic or two.

I consider what does Scotland and Britain more harm than anything else in politics is the monarchy and the kingdom - that's why my pitch to the British voter in Scotland would explain why all of Britain would benefit from the weakening of the monarchy if Scotland was to become a republic.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

no, you ended up getting a no result because Salmond is a fuckwit who wanted to con the Scottish public with bullshit.

What's really shocking about that was how much that bullshit was lapped up at the time, and even more shocking is that even after the oil price crash that bullshit is still being believed by many.

I've no issue with an independent Scotland if that's what Scotland wants. I have big issues with that being brought about on a lie which will fracture any chance of that independent Scotland being a success for Scottish society.

You're VERY DEFINITELY playing out the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. You just referred to yourself as "true Scottish", a claim that those who think differently to you cannot be Scottish.

Good politics comes only from good ideas, and not from vacuous claims of righteousness.

Edited November 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

My pitch would have been one of the stronger reasons why my approach would have won the independence referendum for YES while Salmond lost it because Salmond turned off British voters, he never explained what was in it for all Britons from Scottish independence. Mostly the SNP has focused in thing where if Scotland gets it, England loses it - such as distribution of oil tax revenues from the North Sea.

I am also British, proud to be so, and don't consider my support for an independent Scottish republic to be anything other than doing my patriotic duty to my fellow British nationals, who would benefit from a British republic and / or Britain governed as home nation republics - a Scottish republic, an English republic, a Welsh republic and an Irish republic or two.

I consider what does Scotland and Britain more harm than anything else in politics is the monarchy and the kingdom - that's why my pitch to the British voter in Scotland would explain why all of Britain would benefit from the weakening of the monarchy if Scotland was to become a republic.

So currency, the EU, and Scotland's inability to fund itself at current levels played no part in why Salmond lost?

Again, you prove yourself a wacko.

People in Scotland didn't believe the heavy price they'd pay for independence made independence worthwhile. It's all about the money!

[Peter Dow]

You're VERY DEFINITELY playing out the 'no true Sotsman' fallacy. You just referred to yourself as "true Scottish".

You are misleading yourself with a selective quote.

What I wrote was "a true Scottish original unlike any before me".

That means "a true original, who is Scottish and unlike any before me".

It is my originality which is true, not my Scottishness.

Here is a video about "a true American original, unlike any before her".

She's no more American than any other American, but she is truly original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al54xCSB8SE

Edited November 4, 2015 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

PS: if the SNP focused on getting the oil revenues, it's very stranged that they completely forgot to ask for them within the Smith Commission.

Anyone might think they want Westminster to have those revenues to enable them to keep up the false grievance of them being stolen from Scotland.

Because that's the truth of things. Without false grievance independence has little traction.

[philipsteak]

 

Here is a video about "a true American original, unlike any before her".

She's no more American than any other American, but she is truly original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al54xCSB8SE

In an ever changing and unsure world, it's nice to know there are some things you can depend on.

[Peter Dow]

So currency, the EU, and Scotland's inability to fund itself at current levels played no part in why Salmond lost?

Currency is an issue. The EU is an issue.

"Scotland's inability to fund itself at current levels" is a "Better Together" claim which I would dispute. The issue is "the economy" and what holds back the Scottish economy more than anything else is the Scotland-in-the-UK police state, under Salmond and now Sturgeon, wrecking the economy by doing such things as seizing scientists irreplaceable research and development data held on their computers and memory devices when the police raid the person for making political comments on social media.

In many other ways, the police state wrecks Scottish society and economy, as I have explained in my website at http://scot.tk

The Scottish economy needs a president who will turf incompetent ministers and officials out of office who are allowing the police state to run amok wrecking the economy.

But again, since Salmond was, and Sturgeon is, the main culprit in the wrong-doing and economy-wrecking of the police state, the SNP leaders are never going to point the finger of blame at the police and prosecution which they have responsibility for.

So Salmond continued the wrecking of the economy as previous Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative governments of Scotland have done, but that is not a good reason for believing that an independent Scotland could not fund itself at present or even much higher levels - it is only a good reason for believing that Scotland under Salmond could not do so.

However, the referendum question was not about voting for Salmond but voting for an independent Scotland so the best vote for the Scottish economy was "YES".

 

People in Scotland didn't believe the heavy price they'd pay for independence made independence worthwhile. It's all about the money!

The price we pay for Queen Elizabeth as head of state of a police state which wrecks the economy is too high but Scottish independence offers Scots a way out, so long as it is a Scottish republic and not a Scottish kingdom.

National identity was the clear determining factor in how people voted, more than any other.

Unfortunately, the following graph contains two issues, concentrate on the "IDENTITY" pie charts on the right, ignore the "religion" pie-charts on the left.

How the electorate voted (by religion and identity) - [Blue = YES] [Green = NO]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-figures-revealed-majority-5408163

The research indicates that a voter's identity was the determining rose-tinted glass through which he or she looked at all the issues.

Salmond, the SNP and YES-Scotland failed to pitch Scottish independence to British-identity voters.

My point is that Salmond's campaign failed because it failed to win over those with a British identity, failed to give them good sound British reasons for voting YES.

Only Scottish republicans, who understand what wreckage the royalist SNP government and the UK police state is doing to Scottish society and economy, have the republican understanding and political analysis to be able to win over British-identity voters to vote YES.

The fact that republicans like me were kept out of the debate on TV is precisely why all those British-Scots voted NO and why Salmond's police state lost the independence referendum.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2015 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

Currency is an issue. The EU is an issue.

"Scotland's inability to fund itself at current levels" is a "Better Together" claim which I would dispute.

 

No, it's a Scottish Govt claim - and a claim made within a Scotland-favoured methodology, too.

Have you not heard of GERS?

Or are you going to claim that those nasty Westminster types crept in during the middle of the night and changed the numbers in the Scottish Govt's work?

 

[Peter Dow]

No, it's a Scottish Govt claim - and a claim made within a Scotland-favoured methodology, too.

Have you not heard of GERS?

Or are you going to claim that those nasty Westminster types crept in during the middle of the night and changed the numbers in the Scottish Govt's work?

I am not disputing that the Scottish economy has been and is being wrecked by the kingdom's police state and the numbers for the Scottish fiscal deficit are not good.

The claim from "Better Together" was after that a "YES" result there would have to be a similarly weak Scottish economy - the numbers couldn't be changed - which is untrue.

Both "Better Together" and "YES-Scotland" as royalist campaigns, didn't understand that the kingdom's police state is wrecking the Scottish economy and if we stop the police state wrecking the economy then the economy can do much better.

If an independent Scotland became a republic and if the elected president as head of state took decisive action to dismiss from office all those incompetent ministers, police chiefs and prosecutors who are wrecking the economy then the economy would be allowed to grow strongly and so the numbers for the fiscal deficit would be smaller and easily manageable.

To put it in music festival terms - if the police raid a music festival and confiscate all the musical instruments and amplification equipment, the speakers and so on - then it is no surprise that the performance of the bands at the festival is not as good after the police raid.

Economies and music festivals only thrive and prosper if someone can keep the police from raiding and wrecking the main event.

Scotland as an independent country could become a wealthy and prosperous Scottish republic if the elected president stopped the police state from wrecking the Scottish economy.

[eFestivals]

I am not disputing that the Scottish economy has been and is being wrecked by the kingdom's police state and the numbers for the Scottish fiscal deficit are not good.

But it hasn't. The Scottish economy is vibrant, about the equal of the UK-wide economy, and pretty average for the more-developed world.

Unless Scotland is full of super-special people - and it isn't - it's not going to suddenly bloom if freed from Westminster. It will only bloom beyond it's current productivity via harder work or a lucky break.

(for the lucky break thing, just think about what fantastic effect Nokia's rise had on Finland, and how it's slumping again now Nokia is dead)

Scotland's issue is not having a poor economy, it's about high public expenditure - expenditure which will have to be severely reigned in if independent, to avoid Scotland being the next Greece.

 

The claim from "Better Together" was after that a "YES" result there would have to be a similarly weak Scottish economy - the numbers couldn't be changed - which is untrue.

Of course it can be changed, but unless Scotland has perfect economists - and no one does - the change might well be down instead of up. Most likely tho is much the same, because it has all much the same resources and much the same people no matter what its constitutional status.

If wishing the economy to be better worked, we'd all be millionaires.

High hopes do not pay the bills.

[gary1979666]

I am not disputing that the Scottish economy has been and is being wrecked by the kingdom's police state and the numbers for the Scottish fiscal deficit are not good.

The claim from "Better Together" was after that a "YES" result there would have to be a similarly weak Scottish economy - the numbers couldn't be changed - which is untrue.

Both "Better Together" and "YES-Scotland" as royalist campaigns, didn't understand that the kingdom's police state is wrecking the Scottish economy and if we stop the police state wrecking the economy then the economy can do much better.

If an independent Scotland became a republic and if the elected president as head of state took decisive action to dismiss from office all those incompetent ministers, police chiefs and prosecutors who are wrecking the economy then the economy would be allowed to grow strongly and so the numbers for the fiscal deficit would be smaller and easily manageable.

To put it in music festival terms - if the police raid a music festival and confiscate all the musical instruments and amplification equipment, the speakers and so on - then it is no surprise that the performance of the bands at the festival is not as good after the police raid.

Economies and music festivals only thrive and prosper if someone can keep the police from raiding and wrecking the main event.

Scotland as an independent country could become a wealthy and prosperous Scottish republic if the elected president stopped the police state from wrecking the Scottish economy.

 

Doesn't that assume that a president is coming from a different pool of politicians?  There's no evidence that a president would do anything different to a prime minister of Scotland.  It's fair to say a different party might do something different, but don't think the type of govt would change it that dramatically.

 

[eFestivals]

Doesn't that assume that a president is coming from a different pool of politicians?  There's no evidence that a president would do anything different to a prime minister of Scotland.  It's fair to say a different party might do something different, but don't think the type of govt would change it that dramatically.

 

but ... but ... but .... as soon as Scotland becomes indy it will suddenly change the people into exceptional people who can only act perfectly towards anything, so Scotland will suddenly out-perform the rest of the world, just as Salmond promised. It will achieve growth rates never achieved in the (not in a slump) developed world, and therefore Scotland is guaranteed to be £3000 per year per person richer. Guaranteed. That's how exceptional the Scots are.

[Peter Dow]

But it hasn't. The Scottish economy is vibrant, about the equal of the UK-wide economy, and pretty average for the more-developed world.

No, republics such as the USA perform about 33% better than the UK in terms of GDP. That's not all down to greater land area and natural resources because even republics like Singapore with few natural resources perform better per capita.

Unless Scotland is full of super-special people - and it isn't - it's not going to suddenly bloom if freed from Westminster. It will only bloom beyond it's current productivity via harder work or a lucky break.

(for the lucky break thing, just think about what fantastic effect Nokia's rise had on Finland, and how it's slumping again now Nokia is dead)

You insist on misunderstanding the issues by talking in SNP royalist terms about the problem they allege being "Westminster" and the SNP's proposed solution being "freed from Westminster".

I am not a royalist who blames "Westminster". I am a republican who blames the police state and I blame the head of state, the Queen, for the police state.

Here's an idea for you. Try reading what I actually wrote instead of just quoting it without reading it.

I say that problem with the Scottish and British economy is - and I will use big letters so that you can't miss it - the problem is THE POLICE STATE.

Salmond and Sturgeon don't say that, don't believe that. So that is why I oppose them.

The problem is the police raiding houses and business premises, seizing economic means of production, arresting and jailing key economic personnel, terrorizing key economic personnel out of the economy, sometimes out of the country all together.

I can work as hard as I like as a research scientist but if the police insist on raiding my house and seizing my computer with all the results of my scientific research on it, that police action has severely wrecked what I can do for the economy.

Scotland's issue is not having a poor economy, it's about high public expenditure - expenditure which will have to be severely reigned in if independent, to avoid Scotland being the next Greece.

The Scottish economy is relatively poor, it should be at least 33% more productive by the best world standards.

There is an issue with spending any money at all on wrecker police, wrecker prosecutors, wrecker courts and wrecker prisons - money being spent which is spent on silencing political opposition and in so doing severely damages the economy.

Such public expenditure should not only be "severely reigned in" but be cut to zero. Such wrecker-employees of the state should be dismissed from public employment altogether.

We'd serve our economy better by spending social security on foolish persons doing nothing than spending more employing such foolish persons as police officers who wreck the economy such is their incompetence.

We only need such police, prosecutors, courts and prisons are as required to keep people safe. We need to stop all expenditure on economy-wrecking state employees.

Of course it can be changed, but unless Scotland has perfect economists - and no one does - the change might well be down instead of up. Most likely tho is much the same, because it has all much the same resources and much the same people no matter what its constitutional status.

If wishing the economy to be better worked, we'd all be millionaires.

High hopes do not pay the bills.

One doesn't have to be a "perfect economist" to understand that seizing a person's equipment wrecks what they are doing for the economy - whether that equipment seized is a music festival's equipment or a scientist's equipment.

You insist on refusing to address the issue of police running amok destroying people's lives. It's not some obscure economic mystery - it is the police smashing your door down and taking everything you need to do your job. Why can't you get your head around that?

Edited November 4, 2015 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

No, republics such as the USA perform about 33% better than the UK in terms of GDP.

GDP is turn-over, not profit. It actually means very little to the rewards (pay) people receive.

But talk about an idiot statement, anyway - cos that's what it is. Somalia is also a republic, why doesn't that count?

A nation's wealth has nothing, zero, zilch, to do with a country's constitutional status, and everything to do with its historical position and the surplus it may or may not create from the hard work of its people.

Becoming a republic doesn't magically shower a country with money.

>    Here's an idea for you. Try reading what I actually wrote instead of just quoting it without reading it.

I read it, and I understand it better than you do.

What you say reveals you as a wacko fruitcake for whom facts mean nothing and where making up idiot ideas free of facts trumps all sense.

You reveal it by believing that republics automatically mean more money.

[eFestivals]

> The problem is the police raiding houses and business premises, seizing economic means of production, arresting and jailing key economic personnel, terrorizing key economic personnel out of the economy, sometimes out of the country all together.

Peter, you should take up comedy.

Or perhaps it's only in Scotland that your mystical police state operates in, cos this businessman has been free of police raids at the various points he's been in business (for over 20 years of the last 30 years).

 

[Peter Dow]

Doesn't that assume that a president is coming from a different pool of politicians?  

Yes it does. The royalist pool of politicians we know so well are of little use to us.

The preamble to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

Considering that the UK's police state doesn't protect human rights then the pool of royalist politicians who see no evil, no constitutional outrage, no compulsion to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against the tyranny and oppression of the UK police state, cannot provide from their pool any candidate for president who measures up to the task.

 

There's no evidence that a president would do anything different to a prime minister of Scotland.  It's fair to say a different party might do something different, but don't think the type of govt would change it that dramatically.

A president with powers of an elected head of state and a constitution to uphold would be obligated to do more, something far different and change things dramatically, much more than could be expected from a prime minister without head of state powers.

But having a democratic republic in name only does not guarantee good government, fair policing and respect for human rights, this is true. It is certainly possible that a bad president can get elected and we have seen that happen throughout the world.

However, other republicans who, even though not elected president themselves would seek to ensure that the president did his or her duties to uphold the constitution and defend human rights - otherwise those other republicans would seek to impeach and remove the current bad president and have new elections for a new president.

Even if impeachment failed to remove a bad president from office, good republicans would still have the option to seek to establish a new state, rebel against the old Scottish republic which had been badly corrupted by, say, a rotten President Salmond or President Sturgeon, who had egged on the police state as it terrorised people and wrecked the economy.

Scottish republicans faced with the terror of a President Salmond or President Sturgeon running a terror republic may attempt to secede parts of Scotland territorially - establish regional republics - a Republic of Fife, a Republic of Grampian and so on.

Scottish republicans could establish another parallel republican state for the same territory - the "Free Republic of Scotland" as opposed to the old corrupt "Scottish Republic" under President Salmond.

There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, prime ministers who accept that everything must be done within the kingdom under the one monarch and, on the other hand, republican politics which never accepts tyranny and oppression under any head of state, monarch or president.

Republicans always know a way out of a bad state of affairs. Royalists always turn a blind eye to a bad state of affairs. That's the difference and that's the new pool of politicians we need.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Peter Dow

[LJS]

The obvious answer is...President Dow.

[eFestivals]

The obvious answer is...President Dow.

As he's one of your lot, maybe you can see yourself voting for him...?

[eFestivals]

The obvious answer is...President Dow.

which reminded me of this....

Edited November 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

which reminded me of this....

nice song.

[russycarps]

No, republics such as the USA perform about 33% better than the UK in terms of GDP. That's not all down to greater land area and natural resources because even republics like Singapore with few natural resources perform better per capita.

You insist on misunderstanding the issues by talking in SNP royalist terms about the problem they allege being "Westminster" and the SNP's proposed solution being "freed from Westminster".

I am not a royalist who blames "Westminster". I am a republican who blames the police state and I blame the head of state, the Queen, for the police state.

Here's an idea for you. Try reading what I actually wrote instead of just quoting it without reading it.

I say that problem with the Scottish and British economy is - and I will use big letters so that you can't miss it - the problem is THE POLICE STATE.

Salmond and Sturgeon don't say that, don't believe that. So that is why I oppose them.

The problem is the police raiding houses and business premises, seizing economic means of production, arresting and jailing key economic personnel, terrorizing key economic personnel out of the economy, sometimes out of the country all together.

I can work as hard as I like as a research scientist but if the police insist on raiding my house and seizing my computer with all the results of my scientific research on it, that police action has severely wrecked what I can do for the economy.

The Scottish economy is relatively poor, it should be at least 33% more productive by the best world standards.

There is an issue with spending any money at all on wrecker police, wrecker prosecutors, wrecker courts and wrecker prisons - money being spent which is spent on silencing political opposition and in so doing severely damages the economy.

Such public expenditure should not only be "severely reigned in" but be cut to zero. Such wrecker-employees of the state should be dismissed from public employment altogether.

We'd serve our economy better by spending social security on foolish persons doing nothing than spending more employing such foolish persons as police officers who wreck the economy such is their incompetence.

We only need such police, prosecutors, courts and prisons are as required to keep people safe. We need to stop all expenditure on economy-wrecking state employees.

One doesn't have to be a "perfect economist" to understand that seizing a person's equipment wrecks what they are doing for the economy - whether that equipment seized is a music festival's equipment or a scientist's equipment.

You insist on refusing to address the issue of police running amok destroying people's lives. It's not some obscure economic mystery - it is the police smashing your door down and taking everything you need to do your job. Why can't you get your head around that?

so scotland's GDP would be 33% higher if police stopped raiding scientists and stealing their computers?

Are you alchemists?