Neil Oliver on the Ukrainian Issue

[The Red Pill]

[Niemand]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

[Robin Hood]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I have watched practically every piece he has done during Covid. Neil Oliver is the best thing to come out of Scotland since trousers.
If I was a Scot I would regard him as a national treasure.

[Niemand]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I have watched practically every piece he has done during Covid. Neil Oliver is the best thing to come out of Scotland since trousers.
If I was a Scot I would regard him as a national treasure.

He was the darling of BBC Scotland for years, pushing the establishment version of history... often to the point of extreme inaccuracy, i.e. omitting major sources or getting basic historical facts wrong. (Technically he's an archaeologist rather than an historian but that's another matter.) He also came out with a lot of idiotic and abusive statements during the referendum debate which even embarassed people on his own side.

Now we're supposed to believe he turned over to the anti-establishment side and joined GB News etc. I tend to put Andrew Neil and Russell Brand in a similar category... all establishment figures who suddenly get promoted as anti-establishment.

[NeveR]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I was just looking at his stuff - he was ok on COVID. Fwiw.

[Niemand]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I was just looking at his stuff - he was ok on COVID. Fwiw.

I know people can change their stance, but not convinced by him or Brand TBH. Gut instinct. They both seem to be going for the shabby Jesus look these days. I always ask myself why certain channels are getting promoted while others talking about the same subject get theirs pulled immediately.

[The Red Pill]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I was just looking at his stuff - he was ok on COVID. Fwiw.

I know people can change their stance, but not convinced by him or Brand TBH. Gut instinct. They both seem to be going for the shabby Jesus look these days. I always ask myself why certain channels are getting promoted while others talking about the same subject get theirs pulled immediately.

You could be right, he might be trying to build credibility and then pivot down the road. But currently he IS saying the right things.

On the other hand...people do evolve. I thought the Bush family were outstanding people when 41 was in office...

I was Red-Pilled in 2001. You can never go back once you see the puppet strings.

[Robin Hood]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I have watched practically every piece he has done during Covid. Neil Oliver is the best thing to come out of Scotland since trousers.
If I was a Scot I would regard him as a national treasure.

He was the darling of BBC Scotland for years, pushing the establishment version of history... often to the point of extreme inaccuracy, i.e. omitting major sources or getting basic historical facts wrong. (Technically he's an archaeologist rather than an historian but that's another matter.) He also came out with a lot of idiotic and abusive statements during the referendum debate which even embarassed people on his own side.

Now we're supposed to believe he turned over to the anti-establishment side and joined GB News etc. I tend to put Andrew Neil and Russell Brand in a similar category... all establishment figures who suddenly get promoted as anti-establishment.

I thought his position on the independence debate was refreshing and he made a lot of sense. He looked beyond the ridiculous economic arguments being traded back and forth and brought a different perspective. I like him very much.
He crossed the road in front of me in Edinburgh once, but he looked very serious so I didn't bother trying to engage him in conversation or get an autograph.

He's been absolutely on the money with the Covid stuff, and a great comfort to a lot of people. He gets thousands of letters every week from people thanking him for helping them get through this time.
This latest contribution re. the Ukraine situation etc is probably the best commentary anywhere on the subject so far.

[Niemand]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I was just looking at his stuff - he was ok on COVID. Fwiw.

I know people can change their stance, but not convinced by him or Brand TBH. Gut instinct. They both seem to be going for the shabby Jesus look these days. I always ask myself why certain channels are getting promoted while others talking about the same subject get theirs pulled immediately.

You could be right, he might be trying to build credibility and then pivot down the road. But currently he IS saying the right things.

On the other hand...people do evolve. I thought the Bush family were outstanding people when 41 was in office...

I was Red-Pilled in 2001. You can never go back once you see the puppet strings.

I know there are people who do have red pill moments. I believe the England footballer Matt le Tissier is one. The rock "god" Eric Clapton is another. You rarely hear from Clapton now, and Matt le Tissier seems to be blacklisted from even talking about soccer (strange given he's one of the more articulate retired footballers and they're in short supply.)

If you were living here ten years ago, you couldn't get away from Neil Oliver. He was all over the TV here, went round book festivals, schools, you name it. The BBC loved him. He was their spokesman in Scotland. He had hair out of a L'Oreal advert, and academic historians like Tom Devine could barely conceal their envy of his media presence. He would turn up on Questiontime, the BBC's flagship political debate show, and castigate critics of the government.

Then suddenly, he's out talking about Covid, and now he's on about Ukraine. There is little or no dip in his media profile, but he's biting the hand which used to feed him. There are other red flags, like regularly getting recommended on YouTube, not becoming cancelled or "unpersoned" etc. The nice shing hair is gone, the Mad Max look in.

There are a convenient supply of these people. Piers Morgan is another - I like some of his TV appearances, he rightly rips into woke idiots (you can see some of these on YouTube), but there are some places Morgan won't go, like vaccine passports, jab side effects or the big protests. Oliver does talk about some of these things, but he reeks of controlled opposition to me, unlike Le Tissier, Clapton, Piers Corbyn and a host of ex-celebs who have been deplatformed.

I thought his position on the independence debate was refreshing and he made a lot of sense. He looked beyond the ridiculous economic arguments being traded back and forth and brought a different perspective. I like him very much.
He crossed the road in front of me in Edinburgh once, but he looked very serious so I didn't bother trying to engage him in conversation or get an autograph.

He's been absolutely on the money with the Covid stuff, and a great comfort to a lot of people. He gets thousands of letters every week from people thanking him for helping them get through this time.
This latest contribution re. the Ukraine situation etc is probably the best commentary anywhere on the subject so far.

I bumped into David ?Olasuga the other day. I actually spoke to him briefly. Obviously doing a show on slavery in Scotland....

Oliver was never off the TV north of the border at one point. When the independence referendum came along, he was roped in as a spokesman. You would have seen a filtered version down there, but most of what he was comjng out with was what a host of other people were saying. There was a lot of the debate whicb never made it on TV - too long for here. (The one mainstream unionist who was strikingly original was Rory Stewart - he had positive ideas instead of Project Fear as per Oliver. Project Fear was reused by both sides in the Brexit debate and now resurrected for Covid.)

[madvin]

I don't trust this guy. He was a complete shill for the British establishment less than ten years ago.

I was just looking at his stuff - he was ok on COVID. Fwiw.

Maybe "ok" on the scam but not on the money by any means.

[Robin Hood]

I was just looking at his stuff - he was ok on COVID. Fwiw.

I know people can change their stance, but not convinced by him or Brand TBH. Gut instinct. They both seem to be going for the shabby Jesus look these days. I always ask myself why certain channels are getting promoted while others talking about the same subject get theirs pulled immediately.

You could be right, he might be trying to build credibility and then pivot down the road. But currently he IS saying the right things.

On the other hand...people do evolve. I thought the Bush family were outstanding people when 41 was in office...

I was Red-Pilled in 2001. You can never go back once you see the puppet strings.

I know there are people who do have red pill moments. I believe the England footballer Matt le Tissier is one. The rock "god" Eric Clapton is another. You rarely hear from Clapton now, and Matt le Tissier seems to be blacklisted from even talking about soccer (strange given he's one of the more articulate retired footballers and they're in short supply.)

If you were living here ten years ago, you couldn't get away from Neil Oliver. He was all over the TV here, went round book festivals, schools, you name it. The BBC loved him. He was their spokesman in Scotland. He had hair out of a L'Oreal advert, and academic historians like Tom Devine could barely conceal their envy of his media presence. He would turn up on Questiontime, the BBC's flagship political debate show, and castigate critics of the government.

Then suddenly, he's out talking about Covid, and now he's on about Ukraine. There is little or no dip in his media profile, but he's biting the hand which used to feed him. There are other red flags, like regularly getting recommended on YouTube, not becoming cancelled or "unpersoned" etc. The nice shing hair is gone, the Mad Max look in.

There are a convenient supply of these people. Piers Morgan is another - I like some of his TV appearances, he rightly rips into woke idiots (you can see some of these on YouTube), but there are some places Morgan won't go, like vaccine passports, jab side effects or the big protests. Oliver does talk about some of these things, but he reeks of controlled opposition to me, unlike Le Tissier, Clapton, Piers Corbyn and a host of ex-celebs who have been deplatformed.

I thought his position on the independence debate was refreshing and he made a lot of sense. He looked beyond the ridiculous economic arguments being traded back and forth and brought a different perspective. I like him very much.
He crossed the road in front of me in Edinburgh once, but he looked very serious so I didn't bother trying to engage him in conversation or get an autograph.

He's been absolutely on the money with the Covid stuff, and a great comfort to a lot of people. He gets thousands of letters every week from people thanking him for helping them get through this time.
This latest contribution re. the Ukraine situation etc is probably the best commentary anywhere on the subject so far.

I bumped into David ?Olasuga the other day. I actually spoke to him briefly. Obviously doing a show on slavery in Scotland....

Oliver was never off the TV north of the border at one point. When the independence referendum came along, he was roped in as a spokesman. You would have seen a filtered version down there, but most of what he was comjng out with was what a host of other people were saying. There was a lot of the debate whicb never made it on TV - too long for here. (The one mainstream unionist who was strikingly original was Rory Stewart - he had positive ideas instead of Project Fear as per Oliver. Project Fear was reused by both sides in the Brexit debate and now resurrected for Covid.)

Who is David Olasuga?

Niemand, I suspect you dislike Neil Oliver because he championed the opposite side of the independence debate from the one you favoured. I also suspect that, irrespective of his present and future media profile and positions, he will forever be disliked by some because their side lost the referrendum.

[Niemand]

I know people can change their stance, but not convinced by him or Brand TBH. Gut instinct. They both seem to be going for the shabby Jesus look these days. I always ask myself why certain channels are getting promoted while others talking about the same subject get theirs pulled immediately.

You could be right, he might be trying to build credibility and then pivot down the road. But currently he IS saying the right things.

On the other hand...people do evolve. I thought the Bush family were outstanding people when 41 was in office...

I was Red-Pilled in 2001. You can never go back once you see the puppet strings.

I know there are people who do have red pill moments. I believe the England footballer Matt le Tissier is one. The rock "god" Eric Clapton is another. You rarely hear from Clapton now, and Matt le Tissier seems to be blacklisted from even talking about soccer (strange given he's one of the more articulate retired footballers and they're in short supply.)

If you were living here ten years ago, you couldn't get away from Neil Oliver. He was all over the TV here, went round book festivals, schools, you name it. The BBC loved him. He was their spokesman in Scotland. He had hair out of a L'Oreal advert, and academic historians like Tom Devine could barely conceal their envy of his media presence. He would turn up on Questiontime, the BBC's flagship political debate show, and castigate critics of the government.

Then suddenly, he's out talking about Covid, and now he's on about Ukraine. There is little or no dip in his media profile, but he's biting the hand which used to feed him. There are other red flags, like regularly getting recommended on YouTube, not becoming cancelled or "unpersoned" etc. The nice shing hair is gone, the Mad Max look in.

There are a convenient supply of these people. Piers Morgan is another - I like some of his TV appearances, he rightly rips into woke idiots (you can see some of these on YouTube), but there are some places Morgan won't go, like vaccine passports, jab side effects or the big protests. Oliver does talk about some of these things, but he reeks of controlled opposition to me, unlike Le Tissier, Clapton, Piers Corbyn and a host of ex-celebs who have been deplatformed.

I thought his position on the independence debate was refreshing and he made a lot of sense. He looked beyond the ridiculous economic arguments being traded back and forth and brought a different perspective. I like him very much.
He crossed the road in front of me in Edinburgh once, but he looked very serious so I didn't bother trying to engage him in conversation or get an autograph.

He's been absolutely on the money with the Covid stuff, and a great comfort to a lot of people. He gets thousands of letters every week from people thanking him for helping them get through this time.
This latest contribution re. the Ukraine situation etc is probably the best commentary anywhere on the subject so far.

I bumped into David ?Olasuga the other day. I actually spoke to him briefly. Obviously doing a show on slavery in Scotland....

Oliver was never off the TV north of the border at one point. When the independence referendum came along, he was roped in as a spokesman. You would have seen a filtered version down there, but most of what he was comjng out with was what a host of other people were saying. There was a lot of the debate whicb never made it on TV - too long for here. (The one mainstream unionist who was strikingly original was Rory Stewart - he had positive ideas instead of Project Fear as per Oliver. Project Fear was reused by both sides in the Brexit debate and now resurrected for Covid.)

Who is David Olasuga?

David Olasuga is a half-Nigerian guy who does history documentaries on the BBC. On the kind of subjects you'd expect. He's pretty distinctive looking or at least his hair is. I was walking along the street and there he was.

Niemand, I suspect you dislike Neil Oliver because he championed the opposite side of the independence debate from the one you favoured. I also suspect that, irrespective of his present and future media profile and positions, he will forever be disliked by some because their side lost the referrendum.

(Apologies for how long this is)

I have tried to separate him from that. Now Oliver is weighing in on Ukraine. Where was he on Iraq back twenty years ago or Afghanistan ? Did he ever say anything at the time?

My main issue is how someone so deep in the British media establishment suddenly turns tail. He's no Kilroy Silk type, or David Icke, who made their way out "organically" albeit in very different ways. I think folk like David Icke or Matt le Tissier are sincere, but something just doesn't sit right about Neil Oliver or Russell Brand for me.

I disliked Neil Oliver long before that. For reasons similar to John Barrowman. He was very overexposed on BBC Scotland, yet his Scottish history material had nothing new or fresh to offer. I just really thought about him as a hack, who came across as very full of himself, and always seemed to be flicking his nice shiny hair around. (Much like Barrowman!)

When it came to the anti-independence campaign, there were some who came out of it better than others. I have some respect for Rory Stewart, for example, because he did *positive* campaigning for the union, and came up with original ideas. Charles Kennedy retained some dignity as well. Neil Oliver on the other hand, was actually extremely nasty and abusive to some people who ran into him (as was George Galloway). In fact, it's the fact Neil Oliver was such a pitbull for the establishment view that makes me highly sceptical if he's ever turned against it.

Project Fear - which Oliver was at the heart of - was actually a turn off for many people in Scotland. The "No" campaign tried a focus on more positive campaigning late in the day, and I believe that won them more genuine support. However, some people, like David Cameron, thought Project Fear was great and resurrected it for the anti-Brexit campaign, where it failed. It turned out a lot of English and Welsh people don't care for being patronised any more than Scots did, or being told the sky would fall in if they voted to leave the EU.

The Scottish independence campaign was more of a David and Goliath struggle and took place at the grassroots level, on internet forums, on the street and in the pub. The entire mass media was thoroughly anti-independence. (There is a parallel here with the "antivaxxer"/anti-mandate debate except it's even harder to get info out.) The BBC, which Oliver worked for at the time, was intrinsically biased because it knew that it would lose a substantial chunk of the licence fee if independence happened. I think he knew he'd be out of a job too if he came out for the other side.

Anyway, my take on the referendum is...

What really happened is that the establishment thought there was little or no appetite for independence in Scotland, partly because they related it to the SNP vote. They thought support would be under a 1/4. When they realised the support was much higher, and existed in other voting blocs, they went into panic mode, had to resort to intimidating the elderly and started making false promises (the so called "Vow" backed by the Lib-Lab-Tory leaders, none of which has ever been implemented). At the very end, they dragged out the Ulster loyalist types, who were probably their nuclear option. A lot of people think that the vote was interfered with like elections elsewhere... I'm not so sure, but "45%" does seem a very convenient number, given its historical resonance here - maybe a bit of a Whitehall injoke. ("The 45" being a widely known nickname for the second major Jacobite campaign.)

Fiddled or not fiddled, the "No" vote didn't do as well as they'd hoped and got past by the skin of their teeth. Even according to the official figures, the majority of Scottish residents didn't actually vote for the Union - the unionists just got the plurality. The combined number of Yes/indy voters and those who didn't vote at all is actually higher percentage of the population than the total "No" vote. I think that's pretty significant, although I'm not pretending those non-voters supported independence by any means - most probably didn't care or had other reasons. The 1979 vote on devolution was knocked back, not because Yes got a plurality, but because it didn't win the votes of most of the population.

Having said that, I was asking people for months and even years before the referendum why there was no intention of having any neutral observers to monitor the whole process. I had SNP politicians tell me to my face that the British Civil Service would willingly allow the UK to dissolve itself. I told them it was very naive to believe that. Now we have an SNP government which seems more interested in transgender issues and male privilege than independence and issues that affect most people here, and has alienated much of their own party. Oh and whose leader used phrases like "good global citizens" back in 2018.

[Robin Hood]

The referendum got very little coverage in England. If was mentioned on the news but that was about it.
The reason the independence movement lost is summed up in two words - "Alex" and "Salmond".
He just wasn't credible. A total joke. If I was a Scot I would have regarded him as a total national embarrassment. And when the UK government said monetary union was out of the question, it was obvious Salmond and the SNP had never considered that possibility. They were stumped.
The referendum result was not kn doubt from that moment.

[Niemand]

The referendum got very little coverage in England. If was mentioned on the news but that was about it.
The reason the independence movement lost is summed up in two words - "Alex" and "Salmond".
He just wasn't credible. A total joke. If I was a Scot I would have regarded him as a total national embarrassment. And when the UK government said monetary union was out of the question, it was obvious Salmond and the SNP had never considered that possibility. They were stumped.
The referendum result was not kn doubt from that moment.

There was a lot more to it than him. That's just the media, it focusses on individuals over messages. I preferred Salmond to Sturgeon, but my attitude towards independence is to do with neither of them. I did encounter some people who couldn't stand Alex Salmond, and voted "no", but I met numerous others who didn't like him and voted "yes". There was actually remarkably little personality politics on the ground at all - certainly not in the debates I saw in church halls or colleges, or even in the pub.

The media coverage of the gave a very different impression compared to what I was seeing on the ground. That gap has only widened since then. In fact, I tend to find the BBC has almost no reflection of reality in these times at all - not just politically, but the struggles of ordinary people in the last couple of years.

Like I say, despite 300+ years of union, and a constant barrage of propaganda against it, the British elite couldn't even get the majority of Scottish residents to vote for the union in the end... the 1979 vote on a Scottish Assembly got a "Yes" vote, but was chucked out because not enough of the population voted for it. In 2014, the "No" vote won, but did not get the votes of most of the population.

Personally I'd like to see the world broken down into smaller units. Whether it's corrupt monster corporations, or governments. Instead we have the WEF, Bilderbergs, CFR, Trilateral Commission and other parasites pushing for power to go upwards instead which is what has caused many of our issues worldwide.

What exactly was Neil Oliver's "Road to Damascus" moment? When did he go from being spokesman for the status quo to opposing it? At least with David Icke, I can see his trajectory. Matt le Tissier knows football, so sees what the shots do. I get that too. Russell Brand, I'm suspicious of him, but even with him, I suppose he's posed as being "alternative" for years. He's not exactly a Katie Hopkins type either.

[Robin Hood]

The referendum got very little coverage in England. If was mentioned on the news but that was about it.
The reason the independence movement lost is summed up in two words - "Alex" and "Salmond".
He just wasn't credible. A total joke. If I was a Scot I would have regarded him as a total national embarrassment. And when the UK government said monetary union was out of the question, it was obvious Salmond and the SNP had never considered that possibility. They were stumped.
The referendum result was not kn doubt from that moment.

There was a lot more to it than him. That's just the media, it focusses on individuals over messages. I preferred Salmond to Sturgeon, but my attitude towards independence is to do with neither of them. I did encounter some people who couldn't stand Alex Salmond, and voted "no", but I met numerous others who didn't like him and voted "yes". There was actually remarkably little personality politics on the ground at all - certainly not in the debates I saw in church halls or colleges, or even in the pub.

The media coverage of the gave a very different impression compared to what I was seeing on the ground. That gap has only widened since then. In fact, I tend to find the BBC has almost no reflection of reality in these times at all - not just politically, but the struggles of ordinary people in the last couple of years.

Like I say, despite 300+ years of union, and a constant barrage of propaganda against it, the British elite couldn't even get the majority of Scottish residents to vote for the union in the end... the 1979 vote on a Scottish Assembly got a "Yes" vote, but was chucked out because not enough of the population voted for it. In 2014, the "No" vote won, but did not get the votes of most of the population.

Personally I'd like to see the world broken down into smaller units. Whether it's corrupt monster corporations, or governments. Instead we have the WEF, Bilderbergs, CFR, Trilateral Commission and other parasites pushing for power to go upwards instead which is what has caused many of our issues worldwide.

What exactly was Neil Oliver's "Road to Damascus" moment? When did he go from being spokesman for the status quo to opposing it? At least with David Icke, I can see his trajectory. Matt le Tissier knows football, so sees what the shots do. I get that too. Russell Brand, I'm suspicious of him, but even with him, I suppose he's posed as being "alternative" for years. He's not exactly a Katie Hopkins type either.

I don't understand what you mean when you say the majority of Scotland didn't vote no. 55% is a majority.
If you are including those who didn't vote, there is a far greater chance that they were more content with the status quo than not; that is just a fact of human nature. Even with the reduction in the voting age (which came across as a desperate attempt to get a yes vote based on emotion rather than argument) the independence movement failed.
The assembly vote in 1979 required a two thirds majority, that's Labour for you!
I was in Scotland on my mission at the time and can't remember there being any real campaign. Nobody seemed particularly bothered. Labour made amends 20 years later when they required a simple majority for devolution.

Personally I would like to see a new constitutional settlement. This would include independence for England. If not then possibly some kind of federal arrangement. Many English view Scotland as a bit of a sink site in terms of finance. I don't, but it's certainly the case that public spending in Scotland is subsidised by the English taxpayer. There is some resentment about that, especially with Sturgeon strutting around the way she does.

But it makes sense to have a unified approach to things like defence and the environment, and a central bank, but everything else can be done at the national level.

Anyway, a few nukes and none of this will matter.

[Niemand]

The referendum got very little coverage in England. If was mentioned on the news but that was about it.
The reason the independence movement lost is summed up in two words - "Alex" and "Salmond".
He just wasn't credible. A total joke. If I was a Scot I would have regarded him as a total national embarrassment. And when the UK government said monetary union was out of the question, it was obvious Salmond and the SNP had never considered that possibility. They were stumped.
The referendum result was not kn doubt from that moment.

There was a lot more to it than him. That's just the media, it focusses on individuals over messages. I preferred Salmond to Sturgeon, but my attitude towards independence is to do with neither of them. I did encounter some people who couldn't stand Alex Salmond, and voted "no", but I met numerous others who didn't like him and voted "yes". There was actually remarkably little personality politics on the ground at all - certainly not in the debates I saw in church halls or colleges, or even in the pub.

The media coverage of the gave a very different impression compared to what I was seeing on the ground. That gap has only widened since then. In fact, I tend to find the BBC has almost no reflection of reality in these times at all - not just politically, but the struggles of ordinary people in the last couple of years.

Like I say, despite 300+ years of union, and a constant barrage of propaganda against it, the British elite couldn't even get the majority of Scottish residents to vote for the union in the end... the 1979 vote on a Scottish Assembly got a "Yes" vote, but was chucked out because not enough of the population voted for it. In 2014, the "No" vote won, but did not get the votes of most of the population.

Personally I'd like to see the world broken down into smaller units. Whether it's corrupt monster corporations, or governments. Instead we have the WEF, Bilderbergs, CFR, Trilateral Commission and other parasites pushing for power to go upwards instead which is what has caused many of our issues worldwide.

What exactly was Neil Oliver's "Road to Damascus" moment? When did he go from being spokesman for the status quo to opposing it? At least with David Icke, I can see his trajectory. Matt le Tissier knows football, so sees what the shots do. I get that too. Russell Brand, I'm suspicious of him, but even with him, I suppose he's posed as being "alternative" for years. He's not exactly a Katie Hopkins type either.

I don't understand what you mean when you say the majority of Scotland didn't vote no. 55% is a majority.

Majority of those who voted (if we consider the result not to be interfered with), but not the majority of adults in Scotland. The 1979 referendum delivered a "yes" vote for an assembly but was shot down, because the majority of people hadn't voted for it. It wouldn't make much of a difference in 2014 if someone brought this up, but it's worth pointing out.

Sometimes governments can throw a vast amount of money at something, and get remarkably little in return. Look at the non-stop Covid propaganda for example, it does have a lot of people taken in, but it should have near unanimous support, but there are a growing number who question it all... and many people support one thing but not another. (I know people who support the shots but not the passport scheme and so on)

I was in Scotland on my mission at the time and can't remember there being any real campaign. Nobody seemed particularly bothered. Labour made amends 20 years later when they required a simple majority for devolution.

I can't remember my parents ever talking about it, and I was too young to care or understand. I do know many Labour supporters opposed it.

Personally I would like to see a new constitutional settlement. This would include independence for England. If not then possibly some kind of federal arrangement. Many English view Scotland as a bit of a sink site in terms of finance. I don't, but it's certainly the case that public spending in Scotland is subsidised by the English taxpayer. There is some resentment about that, especially with Sturgeon strutting around the way she does.

I think the problem is that the UK has been run as a kind of city state for years. London and its hinterland suck in all the money, and most of the infrastructure gets built to support it. HS2 & the Channel Tunnel have both been effectively Londoncentric projects. Yet if you look at official figures, one would be under the impression it isn't heavily subsidised. You can see the same mentality in the BBC, the Guardian (despite Manc roots) etc.

If there was one place in the UK that got devolution and didn't deserve it, it was London. If Scotland and England ever get independence, there should be internal devolution. Certainly for parts of northern England in some combination, and for Cornwall and parts of the West Country. And certainly within Scotland, for all the places and island groups largely ignored in the Central Belt. The big problem is overcentralisation, along with the fact that I don't the fact that the Industrial working class was basically abandoned. There are former mining and steel etc towns a short drive from where we live which I think have never recovered, and it's unfair on the people living in them.

There are a whole host of things going on in the background with Scotland which are almost never discussed. For example, Scotland's marine territory is huge, much bigger than the land area - I think it works out at about the same size as England's, and the sea bed is going to be an even bigger resource in the future for mining and other purposes.

Sturgeon needs to go. I think she gets represented as continually talking about independence but the opposite is true. She is currently pissing off most of the country and SNP membership by redefining gender, issuing sex surveys to kids for them to get free bus passes and other things none of us need. It's all globalist politics. A friend of mine was telling me how half of his local SNP branch have quit over these issues, including the convenor's wife. She's annoyed a lot of women with trying to alter gender law, and a lot of men with anti-male rhetoric. It's not good, and not what people are voting for. FWIW some other parties are supporting similar policies.

But it makes sense to have a unified approach to things like defence and the environment, and a central bank, but everything else can be done at the national level.

Anyway, a few nukes and none of this will matter.

Correct! Nuke Belfast or Tyneside, and Scotland will be affected. I think the Covid situation has also demo'd how deep the roots of globalist control go. Right into schools, colleges, local councils and GP surgeries. It's pretty sickening.