"Realm of Scotland" - bogus??

[Rolfe]

A poster on the Herald web site has several times pointed to the site "Realm of Scotland", and specifically to something called the "Scotland-UN Committee" which gives an account of alleged high-level diplomacy at EU level, putting forward the democratic case for Scottish self-determination within the context of EU laws on the internal democracy of member states.

This tale is entirely unfamiliar to me, and as far as I can tell has had no publicity in mainstream press. Googling "Scotland-UN Committee" gets little more than self-publicity as far as I can tell.

Received wisdom regarding how the Scottish parliament was set up by the incoming Labour government in 1997 is that in 1995-1997 the Labour party high-heid-yins who had been close to John Smith (the previous leader of the party who died very suddenly in 1994) put pressure on the still-inexperienced Blair to the effect that devolution was John Smith's "unfinished business", and that he owed it to the dead leader's memory to complete it. The rest of the tale was partly that John Smith genuinely recognised the desire of the people of Scotland for a degree of self-determination and wanted to grant it to them, while at the same time not believing that the move would be especially favourable for the SNP. The received wisdon within the Labour party then grew to the point where they became certain that devolution would satisfy that desire completely and so fatally undermine SNP support. So Tony Blair reluctantly went ahead with the referendum.

I'm hugely sceptical of this entire "Scotland-UN Committee" tale. However, the web site doesn't look especially bogus and whoever wrote the stuff was at least well-informed and literate. However, I'd welcome opinions from other political sceptics here as to the likelihood of any of it being true.

Rolfe.

[dudalb]

"Realm Of Scotland"
Realm implies a monarch.
Does this mean if Scotlands gains it's indepedence.they will bring the Auld Stuarts Back Again?

[Rolfe]

Oh for goodness sake.

I don't think there's any necessity to know anything about Scottish, British or EU politics to look at this one chaps. It's a web site. Can you web-hounds figure out if the highly influential "Scotland-UN Committee" and its activities described therein have any existence apart from the electrons of the Internet?

'Cos I think it may be either a hoax, or a few sad little people blowing up the importance of a small unilateral representation way out of all proportion.

Rolfe.

[sophia8]

The domain name is registered to Amanda Gillies of something called AMCSScotland, at an address in Forres. Amanda Gillies appears to be this woman; she doesn't look like somebody who hob-nobs regularly with EU politicos. And I can't find anything about this AMCS group.
A link on the site gives you the homepage of this man; I suspect he has more to do with it than his partner.

[richardm]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

a few sad little people blowing up the importance of a small unilateral representation way out of all proportion.

This would be my guess. It's hard to imagine a politician of any significance talking in terms of "a Thatcherite attempt at a “final solution of the Scottish question” "

Edited to add: Although I suppose the events they describe could still be true, it does raise a doubt in my mind that they have been somewhat exaggerated, at least.

Edited again to add: I see the phrase was originally employed by Iain Sutherland, Scottish Watch's treasurer.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm hugely sceptical of this entire "Scotland-UN Committee" tale.

as well you should be.

Quote:

However, the web site doesn't look especially bogus

not unless you look at the claims they are actually making.

Quote:

and whoever wrote the stuff was at least well-informed and literate.

Literate yes, I see nothing to indicate that they are well informed.

Quote:

However, I'd welcome opinions from other political sceptics here as to the likelihood of any of it being true.

The claims fail the basic conspiracy theory sniff nest (and it is a mild CT they re putting forward). That these major political events happened, forced through by this shadowy organisation of which seemingly no independent record exists, furthermore the government won't reveal the truth because of "security" yet they are free to publish it on their website.

Now, I don't doubt their claims that they have made representation to the UN , the EC/EEC and CoE as anybody can do that, there is no evidence that they have actually achieved anything. A few well placed FOI inquires, either by them or by you if you are especially interested, would be enough to prove or disprove their claims.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by dudalb

"Realm Of Scotland"
Realm implies a monarch.
Does this mean if Scotlands gains it's indepedence.they will bring the Auld Stuarts Back Again?

Brian's still at a loose end.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by brodski

as well you should be.
not unless you look at the claims they are actually making.
Literate yes, I see nothing to indicate that they are well informed.

The claims fail the basic conspiracy theory sniff nest (and it is a mild CT they re putting forward). That these major political events happened, forced through by this shadowy organisation of which seemingly no independent record exists, furthermore the government won't reveal the truth because of "security" yet they are free to publish it on their website.

Now, I don't doubt their claims that they have made representation to the UN , the EC/EEC and CoE as anybody can do that, there is no evidence that they have actually achieved anything. A few well placed FOI inquires, either by them or by you if you are especially interested, would be enough to prove or disprove their claims.

Sorry, by well-informed I was referring to some of the other pages of statistics about Scotland and so on, which I assume are accurate.

Yes, I was applying the same sniff test and getting the same answer. I don't see how or why such representations would have been secret, and if they had had any real influence then there is no reason this would not have been reported in the press.

Given the alleged amount of documentation I suspect the group really exists and really did make some representations to the EU (as you said, anybody can do that), however I have a serious credibility gap regarding the claims that they actually influenced real events.

The poster on the Herald site who is pushing this is ALEX of Glasgow.

Originally Posted by ALEX, Glasgow

Morag, this isn't just a website created by National enthusiasts. Your comment seems to suggest that this may just be a site set up by some crank. I can assure you that the Scotland-UN Committee did and continues to exist. Through its efforts it brought the Scottish situation to the world stage culminating in the Strasbourg Meeting Where the UK Government was instructed to resolve the Scottish and Welsh problem or face Sanctions! The original Papers of the Scotland-UN Committee are lodged at the Scottish National Library where they can be examined and or verified.

Since I received a 2007 Christmas Card from him, I can assure you the Dr. James Wilkie is still around and very active. He was a member of the Scotland-UN Committee and can vouch for the authenticity of these papers and their content.

May I respectfully suggest you return to the Realm of Scotland site, download and read/study the section on ‘Scotland-UN Papers’. Alternatively go to the National Library and read them there. I’m sure there will be someone there who will be able to vouch for their authenticity.

A second poster takes up the baton in today's comments page.

Originally Posted by Traquair, Alba

Karin - You are correct it is scandalous that this great work has not been highlighted. I checked the Scottish National Library collection and the work done on Scotland's behalf is phenomenal and I have listed them below for those unaware of this. Dr James Wilkie should be receiving Scotland's highest honors for this service. Thanks again for highlighting this and we should definitely ensure that this information is made widely available. Personally I need no convincing of the treachery of the Tories and Labour on Scotland, but even I was awe struck by the detailed and highly professional work undertaken by "The Scotland – UN Committee".

There follows an interminable list of documents which I will put in spoiler tags simply because of its length.

1 “The Scotland – UN Committee: the Story in Brief”. By James Wilkie.
2 “Scotland’s Claim of Right to Self-Determination”. A printed broadside petition. With around 200 copies of this, with signatures appended. These latter were returned too late to be presented to the United Nations in June 1979.
3 “Scotland’s Claim of Right to Self-determination. (March 1st 1979/July 1st 1980)”. viii + 99pp. Typescript in ring binder. This was presented to the United Nations in August 1980.
4 Scotland – UN self-determination papers, part 1
Contents are:
Act of Union.
Articles of Union.
Scotland’s Claim to Right of Self-determination.
Scotland’s Claim petition.
“Scotsman” press cutting from 25 June 1979.
“Glasgow Herald” press cutting from 18 August 1984.
Press release, 9/10 October 1978.
The legitimacy of Government in Scotland after 1979. By James Wilkie.
Petition to the Queen.
Memo to the U.S Congress.
Memo to the Council of Europe, June 1980.
Appeal to the U.N. for the return of the Stone of Destiny.
5 Scotland – UN self-determination papers, part 2
Contents are:
Four letters from the United Nations acknowledging receipt of Scotland-UN appeals, 1980-1993.
Memo to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 28 April 1986.
Memo to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1986.
Memo to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1987.
Memo to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1988.
Memo to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1989.
Submission to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1989.
Observations on the Scottish Constitutional Convention’s consultation document. By James Wilkie.
Memo to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1991.
Memo to the U.N Conference on Human Rights, 1993.
Memo to the Council of Europe, 1993.
Scotland’s Parliament – The Right of Recall by the People.
Documents relating to the Council of Europe Summit, 1994.
Scotland and the Union (German Language Paper). By James Wilkie.
The Sovereignty of the People of Scotland, 1997.
Letter to Mary Robinson, President of Eire, 7 July 1997.
Scotland’s Parliament – the European Dimension. Newsletter – February 1998.
Six papers regarding the European Union & Scotland’s fishing industry, 1998-1999.
E-mail on Scotland–UN papers to Alan Montgomery, 3 December 1998.
6 File of 1979 documents. Includes:
A copy of Scotland-UN’s original petition to the United Nations in 1979.
The United Nations official document, “Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities”.
Letters & Constitution relating to the founding of Scotland-UN.
Copy of the original petition, letters from enquirers, supporters, members of the public, MPs, press cuttings, and general Scotland-UN business papers.
Council of Europe Conference document, “Local and Regional Authorities of
Europe”.
7 File of 1980 documents. Includes:
Letter from the Office of United Nations in Geneva acknowledging receipt of Scotland-UN’s petition, “Scotland’s Claim of Right”.
Photograph of Scotland-UN delegates preparing to embark on the journey to deliver the Scotland-U.N petition to the United Nations in New York.
Copy of a letter to the President of the USA.
Copies of submissions relating to the activities of Scotland-U.N.
Letters of support from home and abroad.
A letter from Buckingham Palace.
Letter from representative of the Government of Eire.
Letter from the permanent representative of Belgium to the Council of Europe.
Letter from the Republic of Zaire.
Letters from MEPs and MPs.
Invitation to Scotland-UN to attend a Non Governmental Organization Conference in Geneva.
Press cuttings.
8 File of 1981 documents. Includes:
Map of France showing the route Scotland-UN delegates took to Geneva to attend the Non Governmental Organization Conference.
The United Nations document, “Right to Self-determination.
Agenda of the Geneva International Non Governmental Organization Conference on Indigenous Peoples and Land attended by three Scotland-UN delegates.
Letters to world leaders and the World Peace Council.
Scotland-UN presentation documents/press cuttings/excerpts from United Nations Charters.
Report from the Non Governmental Organization Conference.
Letters from supporters overseas/overseas government representatives/World Council for Indigenous Peoples.
Letter from the Council of Europe.
Letter to the Ambassadors at the Council of Europe.
United Nations documents on Human Rights/letter to Aberdeen University Press.
Non Governmental Organization documents.
Official Report from the Non Governmental Organization Conference/letters from supporters.
Photograph of delegates at the Non Governmental Organization Conference in Geneva with the three Scotland-UN delegates.
Letters to the press.
9 File of 1982 documents. Includes:
Copy of the Bill to set up a Scottish Parliament.
Letters from opponents, supporters and solicitors.
Press cuttings and letters from overseas.
Copy letter to the International Court of Justice.
Proposal, to create the Scotland-U.N. committee and elect Mr J McGill as General Secretary.
Memo on Unilateral Scottish Initiative to set up a Scottish Legislature.
Letter from the European Commission on Human Rights.
Letter from the University of Ottawa.
Letters from MPs.
Letter from Nuffield College.
A paper on the anglicisation of Scots Law.
Documents relating to the Jim Sillars Case on charges under the Criminal Justice Act.
10 File of 1983 documents. Includes:
Prescription and Limitations (Scotland) Bill 2 December 1983.
Letters to the press.
Letters of support.
Letters from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly
Discussion paper on a Scottish Convention by Billy Wolfe.
A message from Nigel Tranter.
A press statement from the Scotland-UN Committee.
The Scotland-UN presentation to the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly, 9 April 1983.
Letter to the President of the E.E.C Commission.
Some of the Scotland-UN Council of Europe files on human rights.
11 File of 1984 documents. Includes:
Envelope containing copy of information to the Motherwell Times.
Letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland, 17 April 1984.
Documents relating to the Scotland-UN campaign for the return of the Stone of Destiny.
Press cutting Glasgow Herald, 18 August 1984.
Copies of application to Intergovernmental Committee for the Return of Cultural Property, i.e. the Stone of Destiny, to its country of origin.
Replies from the United Nations.
Draft of an International Convention and of a European Protocol on Rights of Nationalities and Protection of Minorities.
12 File of 1985-1992 documents. Includes:
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe – Final Act (1975).
Several Scotland-U.N. petitions to C.S.C.E..
Petition to the Queen.
Letters to Scotland-UN from the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly.
Message from the Secretary General of the United Nations on “Human Rights Day” 9 December 1987.
Confidential Report: Progress Reports on the Submission to C.S.C.E - Vienna Conference 25/5/1988.
Official C.S.C.E Roundup report and background release document.
Documents relating to the European Democratic Union.
Letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office C.S.C.E Unit.
Scotland-U.N. submission to the C.S.C.E for 1989.
Letters from: Jim Sillars MP and Dennis Canavan MP.
The Anniversary Document from Scotland-U.N commemorating the first ten years after the Devolution Referendum.
Scotland-UN Presentation to the C.S.A.
Scotland-UN presentation to the C.S.C.E Conference in Moscow September 1991.
Scotland-UN document, “The Future of Scotland”.

I think, discounting massive fraud, this indicates the group actually exists, and has made representations to the EU. However, skimming that lot, I can't see any evidence that they achieved anything at all. In fact, a lot of it reminds me of the sort of evidence the MAS collective puts forward for homoeopathy - up to and including "Photograph of Scotland-UN delegates preparing to embark on the journey to deliver the Scotland-U.N petition to the United Nations in New York". (Ooh, I just noticed "Map of France showing the route Scotland-UN delegates took to Geneva to attend the Non Governmental Organization Conference" - and that proves exactly what, mate?) I've googled "James Wilkie", but that is a very common name in Scotland and I don't see anyone on the first page of returns who looks like the right person.

There have been numerous groups set up to try to achieve constitutional change in Scotland. 1992 saw an absolute explosion, following the unexpected Conservative victory in the general election, but there were other more longstanding bodies such as the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly. (Who suddenly became the Campaign for a Scottish Parliament when the Child Support Agency started getting bad headlines!) It's possible that these pressure groups had influence on Tony Blair's decision to hold the 1997 referendum - the noise they were making added credibility to the claim that there was huge demand in Scotland for constitutional change, and if that was not granted then these people might become out-and-out nationalists.

I suspect that what we have here is a small group of self-important people with more time and money on their hands than was probably good for them who took the argument the EU route. They are now claiming credit for influencing international bodies and the UK government, when in fact the outcomes almost certainly had no more to do with their representations than my rain dance has influence on the weather.

I might try that one on the Herald blog.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I suppose Alex's "culmination", said by him to be "the Strasbourg Meeting Where the UK Government was instructed to resolve the Scottish and Welsh problem or face Sanctions" is the place we'd find actual evidence of their having achieved anything.

Pity the word "Strasbourg" doesn't actually appear in Traquair's list of documents.

I'd like to get as much information as possible on this, because the way the "Realm of Scotland" web publications are being touted round the blogs by a few posters suggests they might get a few creduloids actually believing this stuff. Certainly, Traquair and Alex have got a few people marvelling and denouncing the press for keeping all this quiet. Debunking may be required.

Maybe I should have posted this thread in the CT forum. Come in Gravy!

Rolfe.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I suppose Alex's "culmination", said by him to be "the Strasbourg Meeting Where the UK Government was instructed to resolve the Scottish and Welsh problem or face Sanctions" is the place we'd find actual evidence of their having achieved anything.

Pity the word "Strasbourg" doesn't actually appear in Traquair's list of documents.

I'd like to get as much information as possible on this, because the way the "Realm of Scotland" web publications are being touted round the blogs by a few posters suggests they might get a few creduloids actually believing this stuff. Certainly, Traquair and Alex have got a few people marvelling and denouncing the press for keeping all this quiet. Debunking may be required.

Maybe I should have posted this thread in the CT forum. Come in Gravy!

Rolfe.

I suggest contacting the Scottish office with an FOI inquiry, the lodging of lots of documents with libraries which will take almost any submission, is a classic CT tactic 9as seen by the "secret dossier" which started all of the Da Vinici code rubbish).
As you note, they do seem to have a rather slick website, which makes me ask the question of why they haven't hosted these documents there, instead of locking them in a filing cabinet in a disused toilet with a sign on the door reading "beware of the leopard".

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Maybe I should have posted this thread in the CT forum. Come in Gravy!

That's OK: he doesn't post there any more.

[Mojo]

I'd want to see some materials from the actual body that this committe was under. They seem to be confused about whether this committee was part of the UN, CoE or EU. These organisations generally to put their documents on their websites.

CoE website: http://www.coe.int/

The EU's Europa website: http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

UN website: http://www.un.org/

[Rolfe]

Thank you, kind friends, for your input. Especially Sophia8 and Brodski.

I think I've managed to get Traquair to slow down and think twice. With the help of copious theft from the above members. I hope pointing out that the burden of proof is on the claimant might concentrate a few minds.

A little lesson in critical thinking never hurt anyone.

Rolfe.

[dudalb]

Rolfe, I was just making a freaking joke....

[Rolfe]

Yeah, you're forgiven. It was just, at that point it was the only bloody response the thread had attracted!

In fact the subsequent responses turned out to be gold.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I must have a wider look round that web site. I can't decide if it is legit, and the owner has fallen for the "Scotland-EU Committee" propaganda and decided to host it, or if all the background material and statistics are just there as a fancy frame for the grandstanding claim. Since the "Scotland-EU Committee" stuff seems to be nowhere else on the Net, so must have been obtained directly from participants, I suspect the latter.

Or maybe there are more startling feats of unrecognised international diplomacy in there, if I just looked....

I wonder how the lady with the new business in environmentally friendly nappies is connected to it all? And what AMCSScotland is? (The only Google reference to it I found was this thread!)

Most of all I wonder why people who must be fairly intelligent would want to aggrandise the role they played in this way? I like to get my head round these things, and this seems a bit pathological, if that's what's going on.

In fact I think we have the totality of all the Home Rule movements to thank for Tony Blair's compliance. From the SNP to Scotland United. In 1992 many of these things sprang up, and there was renewed interest in those that were already in existence. Quite a lot of noise got made. I made some myself, from marching through the streets of Glasgow and joining in a protest in Edinburgh to having letters published in the Herald.

The perception at the time was that if the pressure for devolution was not satisfied, significant numbers of frustrated supporters would make the transition all the way to independence support and SNP voting. The thinking in Labour circles was that giving in to the devolution demands would prevent this, and keep the SNP vote down. They looked at Catalonia, and persuaded themselves that people would settle for that. In addition, there was a genuine perception that the party owed it to the memory of John Smith (who for all I know was just carrying on the noble Labour tradition of promising while in opposition with no intention of delivering when in power). Nevertheless, if it hadn't been railroaded through so fast, I think Tony Blair (who just didn't like the idea, and who may have realised it wasn't that straightforward anyway) would have put his foot down.

Of course most of the SNP (apart from some elderly die-hards) were just salivating for the degree of representation and the platform that a devolved parliament would provide, because they could see what could be done with it. And so it has proved. But I don't think we need this "Strasbourg meeting" scenario to explain what happened.

I see Traquair is back favouring the conspiracy again. If anyone actually produces any further evidence, I'll be very surprised indeed.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Interesting new piece of information on the Herald site, from a poster who has also visited here.

Originally Posted by daveymac

James Wylkie and others ar linked with the formation of the SEP, a new(ish) Scottish political party with independence as their goal, but more to the right than the SNP.

I've figured out that "SEP" is the "Scottish Enterprise Party", a political party so successful that I'd never heard of it until today (OK, vague memories of some letters to the press a year or so ago that might have related to this, not sure now.) Seems to be a right-wing party committed to Scottish independence. Oh how nice. Do they just want to split the vote or what?

Well, at least this provides a motive for the grandiose claims.

Quote:

The truth is, however, that the centuries-old home rule nut was finally cracked by Scotland-UN with a piece of hard-nosed international diplomacy that involved playing major powers against each other, and which in the end forced London to concede the referendum or face international sanctions....

The Scotland-UN members could relate anthologies of the anti-home rule tactics we encountered over the years....

Home-based committee members were followed and harassed on the streets of Glasgow by Special Branch and uniformed police. One of our representatives in Washington had to drop out because of threats to his career. A surreptitious attempt to unseat one of our European representatives ended in an unprecedented diplomatic disaster – which, to our regret, we are precluded from publicising, for diplomatic reasons. A student member was told that if he wanted his PhD ... and so on.

Nor have there been any scruples against using more underhand methods. One member survived an assassination attempt on the A77 on the way from Glasgow to Kilmarnock, the only result being a large-calibre bullet hole in his car. The police, of course, never found the culprits. According to the official version, one of our two legal advisers committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of his head, walking fifty yards to drop the gun into a ditch, and then strolling back to die in the driver’s seat....

God give me strength!

I'm getting a very nasty taste in my mouth regarding this little group. Still, I'm a great deal better informed than I was three days ago!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Don't know if anybody is still reading, but it gets even better. Poster Karin is definitely promoting this outfit, though I don't know whether she's a real adherent or has just fallen for the charms of the web site.

Originally Posted by karin, glasgae

They didnt just work for devolution they also worked to have the stone of destiny returned. I can copy and paste that if you want but i wont unless someone asks. However for all those who think that like morag that its still to be proved. I want to you to ask yourselves one question.

Why did westminster decide after all those years to send the stone back?
Given the fact that it had been under the coronation chair for hundreds of years was taken back after it was stolen in the 1950s and suddenly with no discussion in the press etc we suddenly get it back?

Does anyone not find that a tad strange?

I thought it strange at the time i thought why are they suddenly giving it back when for years they refused. Now i know it was because of the scotland un comitee and some other nations getting together to make sure stolen artefacts are returned.

Think of the ghost shirt that was in a glasgow museum and returned. why suddenly did things change?

Think back to when the stone came back?

All this is tied into the scotland un comittee. There are still many many things that have to come out about this. And they will

IN TIME.

Just keep an open mind.

I really should have this thread moved to the CT forum. This lot belongs in a Dan Brown novel!

Rolfe.

[Architect]

I'm still reading....


...but I still think they're nuts.....

[Mojo]

Oooooh! Legal threats now! And it looks as if they've been talking to Dana:

Quote:

You are nano metres away from a court order.

[funk de fino]

I think they are full of wind and pish

[proxywar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_o...iny_%28film%29

Seems more like a good plot for a movie to me.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Oooooh! Legal threats now! And it looks as if they've been talking to Dana:

Ooh, I hadn't been back to that thread. Nice one! I think I need to borrow Peter Bowditch's "vacuous legal threat" counter.

Quote:

fffffssssaaaa hohohohohohoho to any smart **** comments you manage to tag on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!.

This bit is quite telling, don't you think? I was questioning the story as presented on their web site, and suggesting that if they had better evidence then it would be advisable to present it. I also suggested rethinking their approach to presenting their story so that it came across as less of a tall tale.

Instead of actually producing some of the evidence, he produces puerile hohohos. Hmmmm.....

Anybody know what FSA actually stands for as a postnomial? My only two referents for this are Food Standards Agency and Financial Services Authority.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

What strikes me about this story is the implications of the absence of press coverage. I don't have such a poor view of journalists as some of the people on the Herald comments section. I find it incredible that anything significant was achieved by this group, without some national press coverage - even if it was hostile coverage. In particular, the Scots Independent (the monthly newspaper that publishes SNP news) would have been unlikely to have omitted to comment on it, even though the protagonists were not SNP members.

What is on the web site at the moment is an open invitation to some investigative journalism. Since we are now more than ten years past the devolution referendum, there is unlikely to be any resistance to publishing the story. However, nothing. Why not?

I think it's an over-hyped account of an initiative which in fact achieved little or nothing. I find the vision of Tony Blair secretly being forced into mounting the 1997 referendum because of covert pressure from Europe, which nobody was writing about even though there should have been no secrecy about such a situation, to be quite unconvincing.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Hmmmm. What do we know about the behaviour of bogus claimants?

• They lodge documents with copyright libraries and then point to the presence of the material in a respected institution to give credibility to their claims? Check.
• They present huge amounts of material as evidence of their claims, in the hope that nobody will realise that none of the material actually contains any objective evidence? Check.
• They present posed photographs of themselves in official-looking circumstances to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative? Check.
• They make juvenile schoolboy retorts instead of answering criticism? Check.
• They issue vacuous legal threats? Check.

Well, this one is certainly quacking like a duck. I note I haven't yet been accused of working for MI6 (a la Mohammed Fayed) or the NWO, perhaps that's too much to hope for. However, the whole tale of the dead legal eagle does suggest that some sort of NWO division is believed to be involved.

I'm intrigued by all this, but perhaps not so intrigued as to spend a lot of time trying to verify someone else's claims that they can't be bothered to document for themselves. I wonder who I know who might have more information? Hmmmm.....

Rolfe.

PS. Architect, the genius with the legal threats is

Quote:

John FSA.(Scot)., kilmarnock .... founder member and General Secretary [of "Scotland-UN", apparently] for thirtysix years

Any clues at all who this clown might be?

[richardm]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

"John FSA.(Scot)., kilmarnock .... founder member and General Secretary [of "Scotland-UN", apparently] for thirtysix years "

Any clues at all who this clown might be?

Could be this fellow:
If you wish to contact Scotland-UN via email , or by snail-mail to John McGill, The Secretary, 25 Wallace View, Kilmarnock, SCOTLAND, KA1 4EN.

Could be him?

If I was feeling argumentative, I'd complain about this stuff being hosted at Learning Alive. The site is sponsored and hosted by the owner of the above email address' employer, Research Machines. Is it an abuse to put such partisan and possibly directly incorrect information on a website which is

Quote:

designed specially for primary and secondary school pupils and their teachers. It is here for you to have fun and assist in filling your brain with useful and interesting information.

?

- The email address is not for John McGill, it appears, but for the author of the page, who since he's put it forward as a contact presumably has connections to the Scotland-UN organisation.

[Alan G]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I wonder how the lady with the new business in environmentally friendly nappies is connected to it all? And what AMCSScotland is? (The only Google reference to it I found was this thread!)

Googling for AMCS Scotland gives references to the Area Museum Council but I doubt that's it. companieshouse.gov.uk shows no record of AMCS Scotland

[Rolfe]

No, I don't think it's that. That one is probably irrelevant anyway, it was just the affiliation Sophia8 came up with for the owner of the Realm of Scotland site, the lady with the environmentally friendly nappies.

The Scottish Enterprise Party is probably the real current affiliation of those involved. (But it has much less spiffy web design than Realm of Scotland, they really should look into that.)

I think I'll just copy here the entirety of John's last post to me, just in case it vanishes. (In fact he posted twice - the site is prone to double posts, but I realised later it wasn't that as there was a good 90 minutes between the posts and in fact he'd embellished it for the second run.)

Quote:

Dear Morag,not,
At first I was going to treat your comments with the contempt they deserve. But I decided to give you a wee bit of advice. Your are nano metres away from a court order. Your cynicism will yet get you into very deep water one of these days. The difference between you and me is simply that I have spent a lifetime advocating Scotland's re-take of it's natural place in the world as an Independent Nation State. What is your claim to fame?
By the way you should engage your brain before striking those letters on your key board. You see I have the forensic Scientists report from Helen Street Police Laboratory, you do not. I know what happened, you do not. This is the very last time I will respond to any of your political galsh on this or any other thread Dear, not, Morag. John.fffffssssaaaa hohohohohohoho to any smart **** comments you manage to tag on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!.

[First version ended "Dear, not, Morag. John.
I am still hewre for Scotland what on earth are you for? John."]

I was considering that I might be mistaken and that these people were perhaps entirely on the level and maybe just a wee bit over-hyping their achievements. However, this tirade I think is strong evidence that we have a real heidbanger here.

Actually two posters on today's thread about Wendy's spinmaster have posted exactly the post of mine which started this - commenting that the reason Blair gave in to calls for devolution was the conviction of his party (if not himself) that devolution "would kill the SNP stone dead". This is received wisdom, and I think it's broadly accurate. However, this comment is what previously led to Karin and I think Alex jumping in with the Realm of Scotland link, asserting that no, this is what really happened. They don't seem to be so anxious to reignite the debate today.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by richardm

Could be this fellow:
If you wish to contact Scotland-UN via email , or by snail-mail to John McGill, The Secretary, 25 Wallace View, Kilmarnock, SCOTLAND, KA1 4EN.

Could be him?

Almost certainly, I would think. If any forum member happens to be passing that way any time, maybe they could see what sort of an address it is?

Originally Posted by richardm

If I was feeling argumentative, I'd complain about this stuff being hosted at Learning Alive. The site is sponsored and hosted by the owner of the above email address' employer, Research Machines. Is it an abuse to put such partisan and possibly directly incorrect information on a website which is

Quote:

designed specially for primary and secondary school pupils and their teachers. It is here for you to have fun and assist in filling your brain with useful and interesting information.

?

- The email address is not for John McGill, it appears, but for the author of the page, who since he's put it forward as a contact presumably has connections to the Scotland-UN organisation.

Well done for finding that. It didn't come up in my search.

The thing is, I don't know for a fact that their claims are false. I merely observe that they are unsubstantiated by any evidence. So I'm not really in any position to start making complaints.

The other thing is, that is a very old web page. The group say they were formed in 1979, as a response to the rigged referendum that year, and they go on to speak of "the last 16 years". Sixteen years on from 1979 gets 1995. (As an aside, I'm still wondering how John McGill can possibly have been General Secretary of an organisation founded in 1979, for "thirty-six years"??? It's 29 years at the absolute max. But then, they're not active any more, so less than that. Typo for 26, maybe, even though he typed the word and not the number?)

That the text has not been updated in a long time is corroborated by the statement that the Scottish Parliament is "currently in abeyance". No, reconvened in 1999, as Winnie Ewing took such pleasure in announcing. Also, the group seems to have disbanded some time after 1999, and yet it is referred to as still being active, in that text.

I see the petition which gives the group "legitimacy" is said to have 2 million signatures. I thought I saw an earlier claim of 300,000, and even that seems far-fetched. There was a very big home rule petition back in about the 1950s I think, probably was claimed to be 2 million, but that as usual got nowhere and I think Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck had signed it rather too often. I can't see how they can be using that to legitimise themselves, as it had nothing to do with them. Oh wait, maybe I can....

What's more, scroll down to the bottom and you see, as the last organisation listed, the SNP. There is a picture of a membership card. With the old jaggy logo, and the date 1995. The SNP's web address is also out of date, though the link still works because they maintained a redirect from the old domain.

Other organisations noted on the way down are things like "Scotland Independent - Canada" and "Scotland Independent - United States". These proto-organisations were set up by the SNP at the time (again about 1995) when the Tories were courting donations from ex-pats, and someone had the bright idea of trying to tap into the Scottish diaspora in the same way as the Irish do. The groups died fairly quickly because legislation was brought in that outlawed any donations from people not on the UK electoral roll - the very legislation that Wendy fell foul of last year. I don't think they really had much life in the first instance, though I remember a conference presentation showing off the logos.

Also, there is a bit about a William Wallace Society, with no mention at all of Braveheart!

So basically the page is a cobweb, and as such probably not worth bothering about. I think the site's owner's email address is given because neither Scotland-UN nor the Wallace Society had email back then. I would suspect such an old address is no longer active.

The thing is, I have a feeling that if I could find the right people in the SNP, I'd get chapter and verse of what it's all about, and what's really driving this thing. But although I was very active in the SNP up to about 2001, I have been less active since then and not at all since moving back to Scotland in 2006. I haven't made contact with my local branch, as I was too busy moving house to get involved with the election. So I don't immediately have anyone to ask.

However, I think I might put out a few feelers in the general direction of my old buddies in London Branch, and find out who knows what. It's essentially trivial, but it's an intriguing little conundrum.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, thinking aloud here.

That old web page is interesting, as of course it doesn't contain the grandiose claims of the later version, of having had major influence in international affairs. It is more concentrating on the group's actual activities.

It appears that this was a response to the 1979 referendum, in which a majority voted for a Scottish parliament, but due to the bar having been raised above 50% by a Labour amendment, no parliament was forthcoming. It seems as if these people took it upon themselves to take this "injustice" to the international arena. I don't follow what they claim legitimised them as international representatives of my nation. One claim of a petition of 300,000 signatures and another claim of 2 million signatures? I don't really know what they are talking about.

In the 1950s a breakaway group from the SNP formed the "Scottish Covenant Association" which collected a petition of (allegedly) 2 million signatures in favour of a devolved assembly. This achieved precisely nothing, and I recall when discussing this with SNP activists that apparently Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck had signed it rather too often. I can't imagine any other 2 million signature petition has been collected, and even if it was, that Messrs Mouse and Duck would keep their paws out of it! I'm equally hazy about the 300,000 signature petition mentioned on the Herald thread, possibly the one which "was returned too late to be presented to the United Nations in June 1979".

I still wonder how such a group would be accorded international diplomatic audience. Any way you slice it, they were unelected and unappointed and unaccountable. I suspect there was nothing beyond public consultation level going on. Though at one point in the later document there is a claim to have "brainwashed President Ronald Reagan"! Well, he did act strangely towards the end of his term of office! I also feel that if the quality of argument from John McGill, the General Secretary, is any sample of their diplomatic gifts, it is unlikely they won many hearts or minds.

Now there has been another entry, from James Wilkie himself, in the Herald comments page.

Quote:

Really Morag, I don't know how you can be so obtuse. The Scotland-UN documents only state the facts, and no attempt has been made to achieve any widespread publicity. The RealmofScotland website is not run by Scotland-UN; we merely acceded to the request for the use of a limited amount of our material, which is a good deal more extensive. The NLS archives do not - yet - contain an amount of material that is still diplomatically sensitive, but that will be added in due course.

As to the assassination attempts on Scotland-UN members, these were all over the newspapers at the time, and I can assure you that they were only the tip of the iceberg as regards the repressive measures that were taken in an attempt to stop the campaign. If Scotland-UN was so ineffective, how do you explain them?

As to the diplomatic action at the Council of Europe, I was there in person at the summit meeting in October 1993, when Lord Mackay represented the Queen. (He may remember his conversation with me on that occasion.) I know exactly what happened then and in subsequent years, because the relevant reports passed through my hands.

There are plenty of other witnesses to the truth of the Scotland-UN documents, but the records cannot be opened for the meantime because the monitoring by the Council of Europe is still ongoing and has not been concluded. Furthermore, the records of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Cabinet Office will not be opened for some time yet.

Do you really think it likely that anyone would invent such a complex web of artifice, and then make no attempt to capitalise on it? The facts related in the Scotland-UN papers happened - neither more nor less. It was felt necessary to put them on permanent record, not least because of the almost inconceivable corruption of the Labour Party over the devolution issue.

I have retired officially in the meantime, but I am still working in international diplomacy on special jobs for for the United Nations, and i know how the system works. It is a closed book to most lay people, but that still does not justify a purely negative reaction to a recital of plain facts. it all happened as stated in the Scotland-UN papers, and in due course that will be amply verified.

Well, "obtuse" is better than the puerile insults from "John", but there is no more meat there than anywhere else. I still lean to the view that this is a group who spent a lot of time and effort and money running around to international meetings without any real legitimacy, and after events happened to deliver their main wish, they would like to feel they had some influence in getting there. While in fact events may well just have gone their own sweet way regardless.

In particular, I feel that such posturing is essentially pointless. If there is a clear vote by the people of Scotland for a devolved parliament, or independence, then that vote will create its own diplomatic environment. You don't need advance agreement that such a vote should be recognised. You need the vote. This is what the SNP have rightly been concentrating on, and without them, no agreement by the Council of Europe would mean a damn thing. With them, we got the vote, and that alone is what counts.

In 1979 we also got the vote, but it was marginal and obfuscated by the change in the rules. The answer is not to start international petitioning to change history, it is to get out there and create some new history. I think that in fact is the crux of the issue, and the reason why the Scotland-UN people were apparently quite impotent while the SNP got on with doing.

And I'll tell you one thing. If I could have assassinated one single person to try to stymie Scotland's independence movement, any time during the 1990s, it would not have been some obscure lawyer advising an obscure group. It would have been Alex Salmond (check Architect's current avatar), who practically singlehandedly kept the SNP together after the 1987 general election defeat and forged it into what it is today. And yet, unaccountably, he's not only alive and kicking, but has not reported any sinister strangers skulking in his shadow. I wonder why?

So, Scotland-UN - unsung heroes or delusions of grandeur? Why is there no Wiki entry for any of these guys or their organisation?

I might get round to making enquiries in quarters which are almost certainly well up on all these machinations. But right now I think I need my beauty sleep.

Rolfe.

[six7s]

WhoIs.net lookup for realmofscotland.com:

Quote:

domain:	realmofscotland.com
created:	10-May-2006
last-changed:	11-May-2007
registration-expiration:	10-May-2008
registrant-firstname:	Amanda
registrant-lastname:	Gillies
registrant-organization:	AMCS Scotland
registrant-street1:	Califer Road
registrant-street2:	168
registrant-pcode:	IV36 1JD
registrant-city:	Forres

According to Google, the site (though well written) doesn't have ANY direct 'friends'... after 21 months since 'creation':

Google: Your search - link:www.realmofscotland.com - did not match any documents.

Compare this with:Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 8,480 linking to www.skepdic.com


How many women called Amanda Gillies live on Califer Road in Forres?

At least one:www.northern-scot.co.uk » Mum hopes bottom doesn't fall out of venture

Quote:

Published: 11 January, 2008

NAPPY days are here again for Moray mum Amanda Gillies as she turns a passion into a business venture in the new year.

The mum of six has used environmentally-friendly real nappies on five of her children.

And now 34-year-old Mrs Gillies, of Califer Road, Forres, is pinning her hopes on her new business paying off.

She has become an agent with real nappy retailer Lollipop, the company's first advisor in the north of Scotland.

[Rolfe]

However, James Wilkie himself appeared yesterday in the old Herald comments thread, to call me "obtuse". Well, at least he is less crass than his "international diplomat" mate John McGill.... James revealed:

Quote:

The Scotland-UN documents only state the facts, and no attempt has been made to achieve any widespread publicity. The RealmofScotland website is not run by Scotland-UN; we merely acceded to the request for the use of a limited amount of our material, which is a good deal more extensive. The NLS archives do not - yet - contain an amount of material that is still diplomatically sensitive, but that will be added in due course.

Thus it seems as if the Realm of Scotland web presence is in the same category as the stuff RichardM found on "Learning Alive", which seems to have been dead for around 13 years. Just material put up on the web by a third party who has heard of the group and wishes to give it some publicity. Scotland-UN as such has no web presence at all.

They make "no attempt to achieve any widespread publicity". Oh no wait. From John McGill: "We are not a "shadowy" group and every time we submitted a paper to the International Community we copied it to the Press, Westminster, every Political leader in the land."

This could simply be a result of Scotland-UN being a collection of superannuated old buffers with no net savvy. However, at least two of them seem to have internet access and the ability to post to newspaper web sites. They have twice supplied material to third parties to display on the internet. They just have no interest in putting together a complete presentation and actually coming off as credible, it appears.

I have difficulty understanding why any international body, the UN or the CoE or the POTUS, should pay any particular attention to the representations of a body of this nature. Self-appointed, unelected and unaccountable, apparently basing their claim to speak for the Scottish nation on some sort of petition, the nature of which is unclear. Why would they be granted any more attention than any other private individuals?

I also find the press silence on the whole issue quite inexplicable, if any real influence was being brought to bear. We're told, ".... every time we submitted a paper to the International Community we copied it to the Press, Westminster, every Political leader in the land." So, nobody at all was prepared to run any major stories on the subject? Not even the independent, SNP-supporting paper? Nobody even felt it was worth writing an article criticising this maverick group for presuming to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland? We see newspapers printing stuff that is very embarrassing for the government every week. And yet they managed a complete news blackout on this issue, despite such wide circulation of the material by the participants? Sound much more like a conclusion of "nothing to see here", than a masterly cover-up.

The lack of anything much to find on the internet is also striking. No, this isn't some great secret, and it's alleged to be major international news, but all we have is a couple of third-party pages, one of which is 13 years out of date. Nobody blogging about it, no online discussion of the issues raised, no articles showing general interest in the subject. No wiki entries for the participants, or the group. (In marked contrast to other independence movements such as the SNP, which is discussed everywhere, has wiki entries and all the trimmings.) This is one helluva cover-up! Or not.

And these guys, who are allegedly such seasoned international diplomats, are incapable of interacting on a public internet forum without abuse and (in one case) childish outbursts that would shame a schoolboy?

I also find the paranoia about the alleged assasination/assasination attempts suspicious. It's almost like the twofers - oh yes the NWO will stop at nothing, but here I am, carrying on regardless. OK.... And this little group of private citizens were the real danger, worthy of such comprehensive suppression and attempted elimination, while the high-profile political campaigners were allowed to get on with it? OK....

Yes, there was a democratic deficit in Scotland in 1979 when the group was founded. A small "yes" majority in a referendum had been ignored. However, the unique rules of that referendum made the interpretation unclear - since a no vote and an abstention were counted exactly the same way, then it's arguable many people may simply have abstained rather than bothered to record a no vote. There was certainly anger and a feeling of betrayal in many quarters, but there was hardly rioting in the streets. In any case, the SNP was standing at every general election on a platform of independence, and thus serious pressure for constitutional change did not lack a means of expression. Given that background, I just don't see why anyone would consider representations from such a group to carry much weight.

In the 1990s the group seemed to change its emphasis. This was when the eastern European accession states were petitioning for entry into the EU. Scotland-UK's story is that they started to point out that the standards of democracy and representation of minorities being demanded of the new applicants were not being upheld by the UK. However, such concerns don't just affect the UK, France and Spain in particular have active secessionist groups of their own. Again, are we really to believe that this group of private individuals forced the "crowned heads of Europe" to do something their influential senior states didn't want to do?

Hmmm. I really must email some SNP contacts - or even see if I can get a retired historian who is a prominent SNP member and writes regularly on the history of Scotland's government to give me an answer.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Oooh, look, more from James Wilkie.

Quote:

Yes Morag, I appreciate your standpoint. John does tend to shoot from the hip, and he takes no prisoners, but he is a born organiser, and he was the live-wire who ran the Scotland-UN network over most of the civilised world. He apparently sent the above comments from an aircraft en route to Australia. He told me that his final inscrutable remark was a code he picked up at the Bletchley Park Museum, and that I should go there to find out what it means. So don't ask me!

I thought you would have recognised the Willie Macrae case from the description in the document. Other members of Scotland-UN could not be physically eliminated in a similar manner, but if you ask Alastair Campbell, whom I understand you know, about the actions he undertook after the Council of Europe meeting in 1993/94 you will have a story that would make the career of any journalist. It would be a smash hit if you were back on the BBC, but I don't think the Scotland Office would approve of the publicity. In any case, i doubt if Campbell would tell you anything - it was a major embarrassment to him and Tony Blair.

I have a distinct impression that the central group at Downing Street (Blair, Campbell, Dewar and Robertson in particular) deliberately did not inform Scottish Labour about the true background to the devolution legislation, and left them with the impression that it was all a Labour initiative. It resulted in their making fools of themselves with the Dewar statue and in other ways. Remember Wendy Alexander's behaviour at the time? - triumphal, exulting in her ministerial status with a mobile phone at each ear simultaneously. I imagine that bubble has burst now.

In short, the Scotland-UN story is the journalistic scoop of the century, but the entire Labour leadership is presently sitting on the lid to keep it down, because the story would finish the party as a political force in Scotland. We are not worried - it will all come out in due course, and we never claimed anything or sought publicity anyway, apart from routine media information about what we were doing, to ensure that we could not be accused of working in the dark. Still, carry on with your enquiries, and who knows, it might yet make your career!

Hmmm, I wonder how any discoveries about this minor CT could possibly affect the career of a veterinary pathologist? Who does he think I am? He thinks I know Alastair Campbell? This gets weirder and weirder!

Well, he's given the name of the alleged victim of the assassination. Now, can I actually be bothered? Soapy Sam, this wasn't a relation of yours was it?

Rolfe.

PS. I've just had a proper read of that spiel.



James seems to be labouring under the impression that I'm a journalist, who used to work for the BBC, and that I know Alastair Campbell! (I just checked Mr. Campbell on wiki, and it seems his father was a vet, but no I don't know him.) He thinks I'm after a story!

Where is he getting his delusions? It's all the more surprising because someone else on the Herald comments pages (a different page) tracked this thread down and correctly identified me. I don't have anything in my profile here, but it probably wouldn't take a huge amount of digging at least to realise that I'm not a journalist.

Funnily enough I do have a past connection with the BBC. I used to be a member of the BBC Symphony Chorus, its major amateur choir. I just told James that I have a perfectly satisfactory career thank you but it isn't one that would be advanced by making revelations about a minor conspiracy theory (true). I then told him the only thing the BBC had ever paid me for was singing (true). The two facts are entirely unconnected, but I'd be fascinated to see where it might lead him next. Bonus points for him if it's here!

[Architect]

I'm laughing at the suggestion that journalists and editors wouldn't run with a story which would "make their career".

THis is starting to look like a CT thread!

Incidentally I was in Englandshire yesterday and the Independent ran an op-ed which was pro-Salmond in a cynical way. Might be worth seeing if it's online.

[Alan G]

It's the first time I have heard of Willie Macrae being linked to them anyway. Is there not a campaign group for Macrae, or is it just an SRSM front. Donald Anderson would probably be able to let you know (he who posts as "donald, glasgow" on the herald site ranting about the Anglo-Brits et al.)

[Rolfe]

Oh yes, I'd heard about the MacRae thing all right. I had it pegged as "pointless conspiracy theory" and I couldn't even remember the name to look up some details until James came up with it. I actually wondered if it might someone else they were talking about. The MacRae affair has been linked to more than one thing he was involved in, including the SNP and nuclear disarmament, but I'd not heard of a connection to this lot. (Well, I'd never heard of this lot at all before last week so that's hardly surlrising.)

There seems to have been some call for the case to be reinvestigated when the 20th anniversary was reached in 2005. I'm not that impressed that it's Fergus Ewing who seems to be heading the pressure group. Nice guy, but....

I have no idea what that lot was all about, but I suspect that as in so many other cases (like David Kelly recently) the truth is probably a lot more mundane than the flights of fancy.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

Any Macrae (including athon) is probably a relative at some remove. It's not the commonest of names. Nobody in my family knew Willie Macrae though, or had heard of him before his death.
I have to be honest with you Morag, I'm profoundly uninterested in politics, including the Scottish variety. The world is too big and I've spent too long in other parts of it, for me to get excited about trivial events in the northwest limits of Europe.

I've seen the memorial cairn -(I dunno how to do a youtube "I agree" link, but I doubt anyone will find anything offensive in the following link- (except perhaps the quality of the singing. Of all Burn's songs- why do we always drag out the bloody awful dirge "Scots Wha Hae?" Can't we have a bit of "Scots Wahaaay!", or is dour glumness fixed in the Celtic soul?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNQOe4kG0ss&feature=related

It's a potentially fast stretch of road, and in bad weather, potentially hazardous. I once nearly put a Golf GTi off the road about 200 yards from the same spot. Imagine the headlines!
My own view is that he probably fell asleep. I did that once too. 1/4 second at 40mph is a car length, a buggered half shaft and a large bill. I did it on a blind bend. I managed to get the car off the road seconds before two folk on a motorbike came round the bend far too fast. Maybe they were MI5.
It may also have been MI5 who put a bullet (or some projectile) through the window beside me on a train leaving Blantyre a month or so back.
The bastards are out to silence me, I tell you. Why don't they offer to pay me to remain silent? I could use the money.
ETA- THe GF used to work for Alastair Darling. Maybe he's trying to finger me.

The Scottish Eye videos at the same sight are intriguing though. I knew Macrae was supposed to have shot himself after crashing the car. I didn't know there were so many inconsistencies in the reports.

[Rolfe]

Although this started with politics, it's the conspiracy theory aspect that intrigues me.

Politically, I think Scotland-UN would be a non-story by now even if it had happened the way they say. Scotland has moved on in the last 10 years, and considerations of why Tony Blair set up the referendum in 1997 are now largely academic. Any "expose" would barely raise an eyebrow, in the grand scheme of political machinations undertaken by the Labour party.

I'm just interested in this odd little group and their bizarre claims. I'd quite like to know the actual events they're basing the claims on, to see what really happened.

It's also been interesting to have flushed two of them out. John completely blew it, with the threats of a court order (for what? pointing out that the story is uncorroborated? finestkind woo!) and the puerile jeers (Bletchley Park? God give me strength!). James was less intemperate, but if anything more revealing. It's clear that there has been some wire-pulling going on behind the scenes, first to get these two on to the Herald page (posting from an aircraft en route to Australia???!!!), and then trying to guess who I am.

Funnily enough, higher up the same page, I hinted pretty hard at my surname. Add that to the details I post under, put that into 192.com, and you get straight to me - address, phone number, the lot. I'm not trying to hide. If you Google my name, I'm six of the ten links on the first page, including links to sites selling the two books I've written, and the fourth link down is to my profile at work. It would be obvious this was the right person, due to the proximity of the home and work addresses. (There is another person there with the same name, but her work location is in Stirling, which is probably too far to match up with the Peeblesshire home location.)

But no, James has decided that I'm a journalist who once worked for the BBC, and I'm in hot pursuit of a story. And not only that, he thinks he knows exactly who I am, because he "understands" that I know Alastair Campbell! So, if this is a sample of this genius's deductive abilities, I have to say I'm underwhelmed. His linking in to the Willie MacRae saga is also a bit suggestive of a suspicious mind grimly hanging on to the wrong concludsions.

This is quite fun, completely apart from politics.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Bonus points for him if it's here!

But not too many, since all he has to do is Google "Scotland-UN Committee".

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

A
This is quite fun, completely apart from politics.

Rolfe.

You'll no say that when the large calibre bullet holes appear in your windaes.
Meanwhile, have a look at El Greco's "Earthlings" thread. Your input would be valuable.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107093