SO, Mr G Brown, British Kingdom central controlling ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, funder of the Iraq war, and ex-PM, has determined that never have the people of Scotland been so divided. He sees this as a bad thing, far worse than his governmental raids on people’s pension funds, and far worse than his putting into hock councils across Scotland, obligated to use PFI, to demonstrate that all was fine with the British Kingdom financial balance sheet.

I would have to agree that the people of Scotland now express opinions that appear more divided than ever before, especially in respect of whether to align more with Europe, rather than the USA and/or the rUK. But in large part this is due to an awakening in the people of Scotland to what those who they have elected to govern them across the British Kingdom have been up to, inclusive of lies, misdirection, and general incompetence.

READ MORE: Where is Gordon Brown's evidence of a ‘divided Scotland’?

This awakening largely centres upon indyref1 and the EUref, but is not simply a bisection of opinion. It is an awakening of multiple opinions on multiple subjects, and remains a work in progress. Once substantially completed, the awakening process will lead to a self-determination on the way forward by the people of Scotland, and will be heavily reliant upon their elected representatives.

This awakening has now substantially moved on from geographical isolationist nationalism, and also the more traditional reliance on the political remits for the Tory party to look after their own wealthy voters, and Labour to look after their own union members. It is moving into the area of defining a fairer society for Scotland, compared to the rest of the British Kingdom.

So when austerity was delivered across the UK, the unnecessary deaths of poor people and the mentally and physically disadvantaged, the “improvement” of high-rise dwellings into death traps, and the expulsion and deriding of the non-white etc were accepted as a mixture of toxic financial party dogma mixed with perhaps more than just a little racism.

It would now appear that what was being overlooked was the operational side of eugenics, where the poor, the disabled and those of perceived poor breeding stock (foreign), were being reduced in number. Bedroom tax, the rape clause and PIP assessments all played their part. Racist rants about the financial costs of foreigners are even now being disseminated by the British Broadcasting Corporation, underpinning the London-based mainstream media, and general political bile from known British Kingdom establishment figures.

Well, the awakening debates in Scotland have now moved well on from simple geographical nationalism, and somewhat on from fair society difference perceptions between Scotland and the British Kingdom government. Support for the practical implementations of a eugenics-centric policy by the electorate of the British Kingdom is now being evidenced, and the degree of awareness of it by the people of Scotland will determine both the extent of any division within Scotland, and between the electorates of Scotland and the rest of the British Kingdom.

So, if Mr G Brown is suggesting that what is needed is a more collaborative approach by the people of Scotland to the eugenics-centric financial approaches being supported by the peoples of the British Kingdom outwith Scotland, then such suggestion is without merit. If he is suggesting that the people of Scotland eschew eugenics-centric approaches and continue with the development of their awareness until self-determination, perhaps some of his earlier misdemeanours may be viewed more charitably.

Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow