Steve Norris letter to the ICJ over the Supreme Court Ruling.

This is the letter Steve Norris sent to the International Court of Justice seeking information on how Scotland could challenge the ruling from the Supreme Court in England. Tomorrow I will publish the response he received from the ICJ.

I am a senior Scottish journalist investigating possible legal and political steps open to Scotland following the November 23 decision of the Supreme Court in London.

The ICJ is no doubt aware that Lord Reed found against the Scottish Government, ruling that despite having a democratic mandate  to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in October 2023, Holyrood did NOT have the ability to do so without the consent of the UK Parliament.

The reason given by Lord Reed was that even a consultative referendum would have legal force by virtue of the fact that a Bill enabling it would have been passed by the Scottish Parliament.

That status, he explained, meant that such a referendum could have direct consequences for the union between Scotland and England and, because the constitution is a policy area reserved to the United Kingdom parliament, would therefore be outside the competency of the Scottish Parliament and  ultra vires.

The verdict. predictably, was greeted with some consternation in Scotland: protest rallies were held across the country that evening along with similar events in several European cities, notably Munich, Berlin and Rome.

Speakers highlighted how the decision ran contrary to the long established Scottish constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty – namely, that power, ultimately, rests with the people, and not, as is the case in England, with the Crown-in-Parliament.

It was forcefully stated that the Scottish people, by majority vote in the Scottish General Election of May 2021, instructed the Holyrood government to hold an independence referendum: therefore, in order to honour their democratic wishes, one must be held, without fear or hindrance.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court decision discarded that aspiration, effectively  closing off a lawful and democratic route to that referendum.

That is, of course, unless the UK Government agrees to transfer the required consent – something it has made abundantly clear it will not do – or another authority intervenes to rule on whether the Supreme Court’s decision accords with international law.

The ruling shattered a few illusions in Scotland – the most important being that the country was a partner in an entirely voluntary union – a belief previously and publicly reiterated and endorsed  by UK Government Ministers on many occasions.

The verdict has exposed the truth of Scotland’s status – or at the least the truth as the UK state sees it – with the result that previous UK Government assurances regarding the union’s voluntary nature are now widely regarded as having been false, even deceitful.

The Scottish Government has stated that the court’s findings have profound implications for the proper functioning of democracy in Scotland, not least because it raises the question of whether there is ANY democratic route out of the union with England at all.#

In short, the country, both in effect and in reality, appears to many to be trapped in a constitutional prison – with the UK Government holding the keys.

This perception that this locking in of Scotland is neither fair nor just is widely held, and not only by supporters of Scottish independence.

Another point worthy of note is Scotland’s unique constitutional status in Europe and the world.

The Kingdom of Scotland was one of the two co-signatories to the 1707 Treaties of Union (the other being the Kingdom of England) which gave rise to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in the first place.

Under international law, therefore, the ability of Scotland to dissolve that union, as with any political divorce, has always existed in theory, should the majority vote for it. 

Relevant also is the country’s unique constitutional history: Scotland is Europe’s oldest integral kingdom, has Europe’s oldest fixed frontier and was an independent state for almost 1,000 years.

Moreover. two famous historical documents enshrined its concept of popular sovereignty: the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 – centuries ahead of its time – and the 1689 Claim of Right, both reserving to the people the right to remove their rulers should they act contrary to their interests.

Scotland therefore bears no comparison to any other territory on earth, not the Chagos Islands, not Quebec, not Catalunya and certainly not Kosovo.

The United Nations Charter upholds a nation’s right to self determination – and the Supreme Court made reference to this.

But Lord Reed held that because Scotland is “not a colony”, is not “oppressed” and has “access” to the UK government and the levers of power, the argument invoking the United Nations Charter, and specifically its self-determination clauses, falls.

However, that interpretation to many appeared perverse.

Lord Reed’s first point on Scotland not being a colony is arguably true (with serious caveats), but the third, although having some superficial substance de jure, is in truth de facto a misrepresentation of reality, given the Westmister parliament’s cursory dismissal of Holyrood’s wishes ever since the 2014 independence referendum.

However, it is Lord Reed’s second point, that Scotland is not “oppressed”, which is widely regarded as being of doubtful merit. 

His reasoning seems blind to the fact that Scotland’s democratic voice has been consistently ignored, even contemptuously ignored, since 2016, when the country overwhelmingly voted to remain in the European Union, but was removed from the bloc against the popular will. 

Subsequently, insult was added to injury, in terms of democratic deficit, during long and disputatious negotiations with the EU, when the country’s government in Edinburgh was excluded from any meaningful involvement in those talks.

Most notably, the UK Government deliberately raised a legal challenge in the Supreme Court against the Scottish Government’s 2018 EU Continuity Bill designed to align all devolved competencies with EU law – despite the Bill having been already passed by Holyrood. 

During the delay, the UK Government rushed through its own legislation which supervened the Holyrood Bill, rendering it redundant – an egregious action referred to by Scottish Ministers as “constitutional vandalism”.

Even more importantly, at several Scottish national elections the ruling Scottish National Party, won a succession of mandates from the people to hold an independence referendum.

The last – and strongest – of these came in the May 2021 Holyrood elections, where independence-supporting parties won 72 seats to the unionist parties’ 57 – a majority of 15. 

Pro-independence parties also won an outright majority of the popular vote.

One glaring anomaly therefore arises with regard to the November 23 Supreme Court decision, and it is this: if one partner in a bipartite union consistently and egregiously denies the right of the other to walk away, what is that if not “oppression”? 

Is it not the case that Scotland is being “oppressed” through being denied the democratic right to decide its constitutional future? 

In the eyes of many, the Supreme Court ruling is a ludicrously narrow interpretation of the self-determination rights conferred on nations by the UN Charter.

My questions, therefore, are these: firstly,  its “sub-state” status notwithstanding (although it is worth bearing in mind that both Ukraine and Belarus, despite holding sub-state status were UN members alongside the USSR from 1945-91), would Scotland, through legal representatives of its elected government,  have recourse to the International Court of Justice with a view to seeking a ruling on whether the Supreme Court judgement is fair, just and compliant not just with international law, but with the UN charter itself and, equally as importantly, in accordance with the spirit of the articles of the charter governing the right of nations to self-determination?

Secondly, given the country’s unique constitutional history and status outlined above, would the ICJ be prepared to look favourably on at least considering a plea from Scotland on a non-precedential basis,  the current grounds for hearing a grievance under “contentious cases” or ” advisory proceedings” notwithstanding, on whether the nation has the right to hold a referendum on its constitutional future in accordance with the wishes of the people?

I look forward to your response by Burns Day, January 25, if possible.

Le durachdan (regards),

Steve Norris

Senior Reporter

Galloway News


59 thoughts on “Steve Norris letter to the ICJ over the Supreme Court Ruling.

  1. Rescusitation. My poor old political soul, bludgeoned by the loss of socialism in the labour party, drowned in disappointment at the perfidy of the Murrells, distressed to witness the slow dissolution of previously well kept infrastructure in the far north (only place I know), revives in hope. Oh what will tomorrow reveal?

    Liked by 13 people

  2. Wow!! After years of being fed a diet of delay after delay, promise after promise by the SNP, this letter has real meat to chew upon!

    I cannot wait to read the response of the ICJ. Of course, I hope that the response is favourable, but either way it will tell us a great deal about Scotland and its international status.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. Agree, this is am excellent letter staing the facts of our treatment at the hands of our neighbour over the years, and detailing the effect this has had on our population.
      i would have liked to have seen more about the effects this has had on increasing poverty through the theft of our resources (gas, renwable enrgy and water as well as people) though i understand the wirter did not want to be seen as a ‘winging Scot’.
      I hope we get a positive reply from the ICJ and look forward to tomorrrow;s post from Iain, continuing his stawart work in keeping us informed and the hope of freedom alive.

      Liked by 9 people

    2. The answer to the Question was given by the English Attorney General in the UK Parliament where he stated that he ‘ new of no law which prevented one party to a Treaty from withdrawing from that Treaty if they wished to do so’ .
      Now that question wasn’t asked and frankly that is the only question that needs to be asked. It’s also the only question that needs to be asked if the people of should be asked.


  3. What a wonderful letter setting out extremely clearly Scotland’s current position. What a pity it comes from an individual and not from the Scottish government in Holyrood.

    Liked by 17 people

  4. Stephen is not a lawyer and as a result, some parts of his letter fail to state the case in legal terms. The IJC is a legal org. It can only accept as correct the legally correct evidence placed before them for consideration. Stating that ‘such and such’ is legally correct, without at the same time laying out the legal supporting evidence, simply will not cut it with the IJC and therefore there is the possibility of such evidence being treated with disregard.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. You make a very good point. However I have more faith in legal systems. Most at high level have developed the skill to understand the person lacking the skill to express themselves in technical/ legal language. I believe they will look at the merits of the plea. I believe they will offer guidance or advice.

      More importantly, Steven got off his arse and did something….an example to our Politicians.

      Liked by 23 people

      1. Stephen certainly did do something. However, I do not completely support your contention that they will take into account the lack of legal construct in his letter. The IJC is not a Scottish Court considering a case brought before it by those less conversant with legal terms/practices and procedures. However, I would be delighted to be proven wrong! I am sure more weight would be given to the IJC if all supporters of an Independent Scotland wrote to them, or even present a signed petition with mass numbers of signatories. However, that would only be effective if they could accept such evidence for judgement. I don’t know how exactly the IJC operates.

        Liked by 6 people

      2. As you will discover shortly signing up to Liberation.Scot and creating a Scottish Liberation Movement is the route to go to have any prospect of success. Most countries gain Independence via that route.

        Liked by 16 people

    2. To be fair to Steven, he was seeking guidance on how Scots could approach the ICJ for a judgement he was not making a legal submission. As others have stated he has already done more about it than the entire Scottish Government.

      Liked by 18 people

      1. I thought this comment from North Chiel very interesting.The role of Westminster as the Government of the Union and England

        North chiel says:
        14 March, 2023 at 5:47 pm
        How can you “ devolve” a limited powers Parliament under the treaty of union to one signatory of the treaty ( Scotland) without an equivalent “ England Act” devolving to England the exact equivalent powers under the exact same PR system of elected members . ? Surely unless a simoultaneous “ England Act “ was passed then this legislation breached the 1707 treaty ? Where is the English Parliament ? ( Westminster should not have been allowed to be both the UK and English Parliament after the Scotland Act was passed ).

        Liked by 12 people

      2. Clootie, Westminster should not have been allowed to be both the UK and English Parliament after the Treaty of Union was ratified. From 1707, England’s MPs should have lost the power to pass any legislation on their own. An English MP majority was no longer sufficient to approve legislation, it required a Scottish MP majority to approve it too, or it couldn’t be a Union decision.

        Liked by 8 people

      3. Absolutely correct. And I think we know why nothing like this was ever done by the Scottish Government. The curse of the career politician.

        But we have now seen without any doubt the limits of the political route to independence – and the even more limited parliamentary route to independence- particularly as all the levers of political/parliamentary/judicial power are in the hands of our adversary.

        We can not say this often enough or loud enough:

        A free people does not ask the colonial power for permission to be free.

        If you are free in your own mind and soul then national liberation will surely follow.

        Forget the SNP. They serve to show us the deplorable limitations of the parliamentary route to independence. Lesson learned, we move on!

        Liked by 5 people

    3. Did you not read my questions at the end? It’s not up to me. We need the country’s best constitutional legal brains on this, empowered by an active Scottish Government. Jeezo.

      Liked by 3 people

    4. How and when did the “ Supreme Court” become superior to Scot’s Law?
      Was this part of the agreed union of 1707?

      Liked by 1 person

  5. “When you get into a tight place and everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could not hold on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.” – Harriet Beecher Stowe

    Liked by 15 people

  6. It’s fine letter Mr Norris.

    My two observations, which are not criticisms in any way, are first; what a shocking indictment of Holyrood that no similar submission has been forthcoming from our SNP “Government”. And second, for all your thoroughness, your letter is all too brief.

    I believe a massive opportunity went a-begging when Scotland did not pursue a Scottish Backstop in 2016, to the same formula as the Northern Irish backstop; an International Treaty violated and breached by the execution of Brexit.

    Ireland and the International Community defended the Good Friday Agreement. Such a pity that Scotland and the International Community didn’t defend the Claim of Right and breached Treaty of Union en route to Scotland’s unconstitutional and unlawful subjugation.

    Liked by 19 people

  7. “Never give up, never say die, and there is no such thing as a no-win situation!”, somebody famous once said. Looking forward to tomorrow’s response.

    Liked by 9 people

  8. Theire refusal to allow a referendum should have read”you can have your referendum but we in london will never recognise the result even if it were 80% YES tou are our Colony and will remain so and History tells you that since 1707 we have broken the treaty many times and you took no action.You and your children’s children shall remanin colonised because you are our property ” Your Colonial Masters.

    Liked by 9 people

  9. A clear and forceful letter. I look forward to reading the response from the ICJ.

    In the meantime the glaringly obvious question to be asked is if an SNP member and journalist can make this approach to the ICJ why has the the Scottish Government and First Minister not done so?

    Liked by 16 people

  10. A good letter and just shows that the talent the SNP has and in a lot of cases had in its membership and failed to use it properly. I suspect if Joanna Cherry had not been blocked from standing for Holyrood we would have seen more action on a legal front and likely she would be in the mix for leadership of the SNP. Look forward to the response in the morning.

    Liked by 8 people

  11. “if one partner in a bipartite union consistently and egregiously denies the right of the other to walk away, what is that if not “oppression”?

    Well that’s a killer line. Indeed what is it other than majoritarian oppression! I’ve no idea what the ICJ’s response will be, I take riggerfellow’s point about it not being backed with legal supported evidence. However Steve wasn’t asking for a legal judgement, he was asking for answers to his questions – would they accept a legal submission from a sub state parliament and be prepared to hear a grievance case – at which point the legal case would be stated.

    Liked by 9 people

    1. “if one partner in a bipartite union consistently and egregiously denies the right of the other to walk away, what is that if not “oppression”?

      If the majority vote of one partner’s MPs in a bipartite union consistently and egregiously uses its vastly larger representation to overrule the refusal by majority vote of the other partner’s MPs, thereby setting legislation binding on both, what is that if not “oppression”? At the very least it is fraudulent, being English-only legislation passed off as Union legislation. That has occured far more frequently! If anything like that took place during the Scotland Act’s 1998 passage through the legislative process, then the constitutional and legal validity of that Act must be seriously compromised, along with many other major and minor pieces of legislation over the last three centuries. It may be helpful to look into the voting patterns for it, and other Acts that created significant detriment on Scotland.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. In all the excitement over this letter I see Smitty the whistle blower in the wee small hours claiming Humza has lost the leadership election and will go into damage limitation to preserve his own skin. He claims the numbers do not stack up for Humza so it looks like the ladies supporters giving each other their second preference may have carried the day. I hope this turns out to be correct.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. I read this also. However Smitty’s earlier posts stated that if anyone other than Yousaf wins, Murrell and others will be led off in handcuffs. The offence in question not being related to the missing £600k. Desperate times call for desperate measures. My money’s on Murrell flat out lying and stating that Yousaf has won regardless of what the Southampton based company tallying the votes reports. Then the fun and games begin as there is undoubtedly still a whistleblower / whistleblowers at HQ.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. Great news, if true and there will be lot of people running for cover in an attempt to save themselves.
      Looks like the Sturgeon/Murrell axis is finally coming to an end and the enablers of it will start fighting among themselves soon enough.
      Will they ravage Sturgeon, they might well do, if desperate enough.

      Liked by 7 people

  13. We are where we are today because of the SNP, its membership and their pathetic leader who i have nothing but condemnation for, especially with regards to Scotland sovereignty. She took us down the Supreme court route knowing that before she had even mention it in Holyrood it was doomed to fail.

    She then arranging the rallying cries again a for independence, I attended the one in Edinburgh were she spoke, setting on special conference, only to resign and instigate all this pathetic leadership contest. Had the leadership election being after the conference then whom ever became leader would have known what direction the membership wanted the leader to take on independence .

    Scotland in 2023 is more entrenched in this union than we where in 1707. I blame the SNP for everything not the British government and certainly not the likes of Joanna Cherry or Ash Regan. Yes its a good idea to write to the ICJ thank you Mr Norris for doing it but it was only needed because of Sturgeon’s and the SNP’s actions in binding us in this union.

    I would have preferred Mr Norris to write the SNP leadership and asked them to stop perusing their own agenda and deliver on the 7+ mandates, or better still vote for the only person willing to delivery us Independence Ash Regan.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Steve Norris has declared his support for the Section 30 promoter Kate Forbes in this election. The same Steve Norris in a BBC Newsnight interview following a hustings in Dumfries condemned the futility of seeking a Section 30 order yet he wishes us to believe that Forbes is the candidate who will deliver Independence via that route should she become FM.

      It is clearly obvious by backing Forbes that Norris is happy for Westminster’s continuance in determining Scotland’s future. #NAE SECTION 30, NOO YE SHUID KEN THAT MAK’S SENSE! #NAE SECTION 30!!

      Liked by 3 people

      1. I totally disagree with Kate Forbes and agree with you her plan is bonkers. Her argument is the cost of living crisis and children are living in poverty, Yes this is true Kate the Tory thinker and supporter and we have been in poverty in Scotland for as long as I’ve been alive, the only trouble is its now affecting people on £40,000. Scotland’s poverty is by design as a result of being tied to England and the idea she going to make us more wealthier while we are connected to Westminster is for the Birds.

        The argument from Kate Forbes is vote for the SNP only and I’ll sort out the finances and when Scottish economy is in good shape I’ll ask the UKG now for a section 30 order as the UKG will see I’ve increased support for Independence by my governance of how I’ve run the country. Kate Forbes is claiming to be mystic Meg, if we are on 46% today then I ask why would the UKG give a section 30 order if we reach 60% and the answer is they won’t ever grant permission until we stop asking and take matter into our own hands.

        Liked by 3 people

    2. “We are where we are today because of the SNP membership”. Are we, aye? What an easy place to be in, sniping and moaning from the side lines. This is no time for hard wringing. Grow up.


      1. No an easy place tae be in from where ah’m standin Mr Norris! Nae haun wringin here! The SNP membership have stood idly by while the Murrells and their apologists have ripped the airse oot o’ the parties democratic structures that were once so rigorously applied as to be the envy of every organisation seeking to demonstrate transparency in governance. At the same time ony body wha had the temerity tae criticise Sturgeon for lack o’ progress in securin’ Independence was accused fae inside that SNP membership o’ “sniping and moaning from the side lines”!

        It is mair than instructive tae note that is aw auld hands wha are comin’ oot in support o’ Forbes full in the knowledge o’ her intention tae crave the respect o’ Westminster afore she maks up her mind on the wye forrit. Whaur’s the desire fur fresh thinkin’ thereaboots? A “Gold Standard” o’ an opportunity tae drive forrit the fecht for Independence an’ them that has been IN THE SNP AW THAE YEARS huv opted tae cairry oan doon Sturgeons road tae oblivion. Whaur’s the secret plan noo then?

        Forbes is the MSP fur the constituency whaur ah bide an has done little mair than huv her picture took in it. The big ticket issue o’ Independence absent fae aw her electoral material but nae shortage o’ her staged photies.
        Runnin’ awa fae the responsibility o’ votin’ on the recent passage o’ the GRR(Bill), in a similar fashion tae Yousaf previously, hisnae went doon weel wi’ the weemin fowk o’ thae pairts.

        It’s nae wunner the fowk seekin’ Independence are greetin their een oot, ah’d jalouse thar’s a wheen o’ tears yet tae come!!

        Liked by 2 people

  14. Now I’m curious about the reply.

    Gonna take a complete guess the ICJ, being Legal Eagle types, won’t commit themselves to anything approaching a judgement. Even a mibees aye, mibees naw, is still far too explicit, so I’d expect a resolute no comment, although I am guessing they will excel themselves in putting up procedural protocols and barriers to punctuate your progress, designed exasperate your patience and test your stamina and determination, … oh yes, and encourage you to hire a Lawyer.

    However, with all that said, I think it’s very encouraging to get a reply at all, and even better, a reply which might have a little substance or direction to it… Something along the lines of “You may have a point, but you need to fill in Form XYZ and make a formal application…

    Something we can interpret as “If you have a crow bar, insert it here”….

    Great news… when you’ve got a muckle big crow bar like Scotland does.

    Liked by 7 people

  15. I think the next letter into the UN should be for an application for Decolonialisation. Take our future out of Westminster’s hand. The voting franchise would then be changed from the rigged council model to a constitutional model where the indigenous population can have their democracy without interference from the colonisers. The UN would monitor elections to ensure fairness free from the gerrymandering of the security services. Do not forget the media is also monitored for impartiality to ensure an even debate. ( National broadcasters such a the BBC and Sky might learn what impartiality actually means)
    This would go along way to tone down the propoganda of the Britnat press.
    We need to start doing things differently .

    Liked by 9 people

    1. We already are Salvo Liberation has been building that route up for a while and it’s gathering momentum, hopefully the explanation in tomorrow’s article will help make that clear.

      Liked by 10 people

  16. It is no small matter to prepare the letter as Stephen Norris has done, what to include, what to emphasise is highly complex, and very much so when addressing the issues for consideration by a body such as the ICJ. I congratulate him on his letter!


    I offer this extract from a comment I made on Peter A Bell’s blog yesterday:

    “Last comment the UN Charter is insufficient (and is not law in and of itself). As I take forward the next Stages in the Declaration initiative I will eventually address in detail those aspects of international law which I believe are relevant and of assistance, with the necessary factual evidence.

    I have one more Stage to handle before that eventuality arises.”


    Fwiw … this was the full content of my comment on Peter Bell’s blog, of which the above extract was the penultimate paragraph:

    It is very far indeed from just S30, Peter, the Scotland Act has many Sections, S35 is also now very much in play, and it was making very specific choices from its many other Sections that allowed the UK Supreme Court to rule as they recently did.

    The Scotland Act 1998 was very carefully constructed as Scotland’s prison.

    That is why – now over 2 years ago – (beyond removing any consent to the continuation of the Treaty of Union, in writing the Declaration of a Sovereign Scot, that being what is the foremost statement and 100% fundamental in the Declaration), I also included this:

    “I do not consent to the terms of, nor the continuation of, the Scotland Act 1998, and all subsequent relevant Acts of like nature and purpose.”

    Freeports, funding Councils but by-passing the Scottish Pariament, the internal market act, Brexit, a forthcoming Bill of Rights, and much much more all have their origins in “reserved powers”, and the source for those powers is – the Scotland Act.

    That is where our politicians ultimately lose credence when – and only when – they accept that position, but it is not a position that Sovereign people have to accept – thus that inclusion in the Declaration.

    Our politicans may accept their incarceration, I can think of no reason why anyone else should. Regaining Scotland’s independence will only result when and if it is a majority decision ” … of the people, by the people, for the people”.

    Last comment the UN Charter is insufficient (and is not law in and of itself). As I take forward the next Stages in the Declaration initiative I will eventually address in detail those aspects of international law which I believe are relevant and of assistance, with the necessary factual evidence.

    I have one more Stage to handle before that eventuality arises.

    Liked by 10 people

  17. Well done Steve Norris. I await the reply in tomorrows blog but as Iain said don’t get your hopes up. I still believe Salvo Liberation is the safe route to independence.

    Liked by 7 people

  18. The big problem is the Ukraine. With Russia in aggressive mode, all of Europe, along with America is banding together against a common enemy. They won’t be in a mood for upsetting a still powerful ally. Especially one that guards the North Atlantic and the entrance to the Baltic.

    Hopefully we will get a fair hearing and advice as to how to proceed. But politics always plays a part in these decisions. We should be ready for that. I sincerely hope that I’m wrong.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. There are parallels in the UK/Scotland position with that of Russia/Ukraine, eg in language and culturaL Imperialism and population movement, plus access to infrastructure like ports which the UK would not appreciate being pointed out.

        Liked by 6 people

    1. Wullie. The only reason that the German fleet was , with one or two exceptions, kept bottled up in the Baltic during both world wars, was the British fleet at Scapa Flow.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. I think the next letter into the UN should be for an application for Decolonialisation. Take our future out of Westminster’s hand. The voting franchise would then be changed from the rigged council model to a constitutional model where the indigenous population can have their democracy without interference qfrom the colonisers. The UN would monitor elections to ensure fairness free from the gerrymandering of the security services. Do not forget the media is also monitored for impartiality to ensure an even debate. ( National broadcasters such a the BBC and Sky might learn what impartiality actually means)
    This would go along way to tone down the propoganda of the Britnat press.
    We need to start doing things differently .

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: