A Place to Stand

Sir,

       Having attended the Scottish UKIP meeting with Nigel Farage may I point out a substantial factual error in your report of the event. Rather than a "couple of dozen" of us there were around 100. Granted this was probably less than the total of protestors but one must remember that they were drawn from, by their own admission, diverse viewpoints.

 

         From hooded and masked thugs at the, back of the crowd, to those waving IRA flags, SWP promoters of totally unlimited immigration, windfarmists, and various strands of gays including one young woman holding up a poster about her genitalia and another denouncing fascism, but spelling it with an H. The only common factors seemed to be their opposition to democracy and free speech and their commitment to the SNP's "Independence in Europe" (indeed at the meeting organising this spontaneous demo a few No campaigner supporters were made ostentatiously unwelcome).

 

        It is arguable that UKIP represent the views of the average Scot and perhaps even the average Scotsman reader rather better than these assorted totalitarians do. Which is why, despite almost total censorship of debate of our actual policies by the state broadcasting corporation and most of our media we are getting 12-18% here in polling for the EU election and the assorted thugs of the Yes campaign are reduced to protesting against Scots rights to vote for who they want.

 

      It is unfortunate that your newspaper decided to falsify its report in a manner designed to support what are, at least by Mussolini's definition of the word, fascists.

 ====================================

 

      This is a case where the editing clearly reduced the impact, but I nonetheless feel this makes the point. My only regret is that I did not, at the time, know of the LibDem leader's call on Alex Salmond to "call off the dogs".

 

     One commenter disputes my remark about policies, claiming "This censorship which Mr. Craig alludes to must be why I have never seen an actual policy document from UKIP" which is open to the obvious rejoinder that we have published many policies and it must indeed be because of censorship that has not seen them discussed on the MSM.

 

     Unfortunately I my email has been censored from the Scotsman for mentioning the dissection of thousands of living people by our KLA "police" in Kosovo - something which has since been confirmed by the Council of Europe but remains non grata in our MSM. If any of those who falsely call UKIP "racist" were not deeply and murderously racist themselves they could not possibly have failed to spend several thousand times longer denouncing the LabConDem parties who promoted and have legal responsibility for these obscene racist atrocities. There are no circumstances under which we should not vigorously counterattack anybody making such claims about UKIP when they have not opposed real racist atrocities - that particularly includes the state censors of the BBC.

 

    I trust our lead candidate David Coburn will approve of this contribution since, though he has expressed discomfort with other members participating in the campaign, he drew our attention to this article himself and did not ask us not to reply.