I’m a bit outraged at The Herald’s headline this morning - as apparently Scotland is “on the frontline” if there’s a conflict with Russia. Faslane, Lossiemouth the first to be hit. Convenient timing, eh? Geneva goes our way, and suddenly Westminster wants us all picturing mushroom clouds over the Clyde. I have thoughts… 1. Geography doesn’t change with flags. Those bases are strategic because of where they are, not because of which parliament they answer to. Independent or not, they matter to NATO. 2. NATO membership doesn’t disappear with independence. An attack on Scotland would be an attack on all NATO members. Collective defence still applies. 3. “Scotland first, England safe” is fantasy. If Russia ever struck the UK, they wouldn’t politely stop at the border. London, Portsmouth, Devonport, Brize Norton… all are high-value targets too. The whole island is in it together. 4. Nuclear deterrent works both ways. Everyone knows that hitting Faslane would trigger a NATO response. That’s why these “you’d be first” scare stories are political theatre, not military reality. 5. While this one’s purely speculative - why are we being encouraged to keep Trident in our waters, if that makes us a target?? Funny that… it almost feels like a set up, a contingency plan… is Westminster in cahoots with Putin? Should we gain our independence, Russia is all of a sudden taking an interest? Randomly? I doubt it. I think the truth is more like: Westminster isn’t worried about Russia. They’re worried about us. Because if Scotland stands tall on the world stage, their last line of defence is fear. We’ve outgrown their bogeyman stories. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19XnDeRcti/?mibextid=wwXIfr

We spend a lot of time talking about history, politics, and Westminster but at the end of the day, independence is about people. Us. So let’s flip it around today: 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 When you think of an independent Scotland, what’s the first thing that comes to mind for you? Is it pride? Justice? Jobs? A fairer future for your family? Something else entirely? There’s no wrong answer here, I’d love to hear everyone’s take. Drop your one-liner, or your whole essay if you fancy, and if someone says something that resonates with you, let them know. This isn’t just about debating the past. It’s about shaping the vision of what we want tomorrow to look like.

for having me!

Unionists will tell you “we’re one people now” and call it normal. But it isn’t normal - it’s marketing. Westminster has spent centuries running what I like to call “The Great British Marketing Scheme”, designed to make you forget Scotland ever stood on its own two feet. Here’s how they do it: 1. Great British Food Our salmon and whisky are world famous. But under Westminster campaigns, they’re sold abroad as “Great British Salmon” and “Great British Whisky”. The Union Jack gets stamped over Scottish lochs and distilleries so the world thinks it’s England’s brand. 2. The “GREAT” Britain Campaign Launched in 2011, it’s the biggest UK marketing push ever. Edinburgh castles, Highland games, whisky, golf, bagpipes - all packaged as “Britain”. Scotland isn’t shown as a country, just a colourful region of Brand UK. 3. Team GB In football and rugby, Scotland fields its own teams. But in the Olympics? We’re forced into Team GB. The Saltire vanishes while Union flags fill the cameras. Generations are trained to think “British” first, Scottish second. 4. British History Schoolbooks talk about the “British Enlightenment” and the “shared island story”. Our thinkers, our battles, our literature, even our independence struggles rewritten as a subchapter of British history. 5. Flags on Your Shopping Post-Brexit, Union Jacks appeared on everything from strawberries to sausages. Even Scottish-grown food gets a London label. That’s not patriotism, it’s propaganda you eat for breakfast. 💡 The point? This isn’t about pride or unity. It’s about erasure. A slow Gleichschaltung - making Scottish identity feel small, and “British” feel natural. Independence isn’t just about money or politics. It’s about breaking the marketing circuit that’s told us for 300 years we’re only a region, never a nation.

On the 31st of January 1919, George Square in Glasgow became the stage for one of the most shocking betrayals of Scotland’s working people. An event that’s been buried under “British history” for over a century: the Battle of George Square. Tens of thousands of workers - men who had just returned from war, women who had kept industry alive during it, and the poor who were expected to swallow “business as usual” in the aftermath, gathered to demand something simple: a 40-hour working week. Not a revolution. Not the overthrow of the state. A fair week’s work to spread the jobs around and stop mass unemployment. Glasgow answered the call, with some 60,000 to 100,000 people filled George Square. They were loud, they were proud, but they were not armed. This was democracy on the street. And what was Westminster’s response? Fear. Pure fear. The establishment was so terrified of Scots finding their voice that they labelled it the start of a Bolshevik uprising. The police waded into the crowd with batons. Violence exploded. And when the workers held their ground, Westminster escalated in a way that should chill every Scot to the bone: They sent in the army. Tanks. Machine guns. Troops on the streets of Glasgow. Within 24 hours, 12,000 English troops were sent to Glasgow. Six tanks and machine-gun units were stationed at key points. They deliberately didn’t use Scottish troops (many were war veterans sympathetic to the strikers). Hundreds were injured, contemporary reports suggest dozens of serious head wounds from police batons. Exact numbers were never properly recorded (which in itself is telling). This wasn’t Berlin. This wasn’t Petrograd. This was Scotland. Ordinary Scots, fresh from the battlefields of France, now facing down the weapons of their own state for daring to demand fair work and dignity. No revolution ever came. The strike was broken. The tanks rolled away. But the message lingered: when Scots challenge the British establishment, Westminster does not negotiate. It suppresses.