This land, is our birthright; just as the air, the light of the sun and the water belongs to us as our birthright, so too the land.

The land and who owns that land is pivotal to the whole notion of national independence and freedom. The debate currently simmering on the Mound merely tinkers with the concept of land ownership. The self-styled ‘Scottish Landowners Federation’ claims that the reforms currently underway, under the guise of the Feudal Tenure Bill represents an assault on their members ‘private property’ and a “charter for the jaded urban dwellers to use their (sic) land as a potential theme park.”

The usual extremist, colonialist British establishment agenda pervades the Scottish Landowners Federation whose members include the Earl of Haddington and the Marquis of Linlithgow. That agenda depends on ensuring that they hang on to their land as long as possible and by so doing maintain British hegemony in Scotland.

Despite their protestations the Bill itself is not about to change, in any real and meaningful way, the current situation of most of the land being owned, legally at least, by private, pro-unionist individuals.

The brutal facts remain that in Scotland today there is no legal requirement to register which individual owns the land. The recent eight part, full colour picture supplement which ran in the Scotsman, entitled “Who Owns Scotland”, was largely based on the Land Register and Register of Sassines, both of which are voluntary land ownership lists. Substantial areas of Scotland were conveniently left absent. Compulsory land registration of course only allows identification of owners and will not address the core issues which are how did these people acquire the land in the first place, and what are they doing with it now?

The Labour appointee Lord Sewel who has claimed that the current proposals for land reform in Scotland would mean encouraging community participation and community ownership has overseen the land reform debate. But what would that mean? In some quarters of the Highlands, so infested by the woolly ‘I’m going to call my goat Percy’ Brigade, that would mean simply swapping one group of non-indigenous, self-righteous Saxons with another. That’s not land reform it’s a continued undermining of our culture by people who have not the slightest inclination or understanding of what community, and particularly in the Gaidhealtachd, what Gaelic community actually represents.

A far firmer hand is required, not one which merely pampers to the colonial mindset. The majority of the Land Owners in Scotland have ‘inherited’ the land from ancestors who disposed of the people on that land with a ruthlessness which even Pol Pot would have admired. That land is soaked in the blood of the Gael. The land which was the common treasury was exploited by the Land Owners who once their labours were exhausted threw the people out and burned their cottages. We owe them nothing. To talk about compensation for this particular parcel of rogues who have been the guardians of foreign rule and oppression in our country borders on the sadistic. They deserve only pain and suffering for the systematic assault, with which they have at the very least, been duplicitous in assisting.

Coincidentally the issue of land ownership has also raised its head in one of England’s former colonial countries, namely Zimbabwe. When Zimbabwe became independent 20 years ago land reform was high on the political agenda. Almost quarter of a century later and fewer than 4,400 white farmers own 70% of the best land, whilst around one million indigenous black peasant families own less than 18% of the land. The white farmers, because of their previous colonial status and wealth also own the more fertile areas with better rainfall. So in terms of prime farming land, whites do own a disproportionate share. No compensation was paid to Africans when they were forced off their ancestral lands by the white invader in 1889 and arguably the Colonialists are now reaping the harvest they themselves sowed.

Britain’s state sponsored media, and by that we mean ideologically as well as financially, have turned a convenient blind eye to the notion that Mugabe and his people have genuine grounds for forcing whites from their farms. Since Mugabe came to power his Government have persistently tried to come to a negotiated settlement on the issue of genuine land reform, in which the British Government has maintained a constant presence. Mugabe has been frustrated at every turn by both the former colonialists living in the country and the British government and whilst there may be some truth that he has now brought the issue to a critical point for political reasons, he is tapping into a known reserve of anti-colonialist, meaning anti-British sentiment.

Interestingly there has been no direct accusation made against Mugabe that he is following a racist policy in removing whites off their land. He is carrying out action against the colonialists, which he should have taken 20 years ago. Should similar necessary action be required in Scotland, as almost certainly it will be, then no doubt that same media will attempt to label us Anglophobes, Nazis and all the other derisory terms which have become common place in attacking what is fundamentally a question about colonialist occupation of our land.

Our actions, in contrast with some of Britain’s border-line fascist activities in numerous corners of the globe, would have the justifiable weight, as in Zimbabwe, that the colonialists had no right, either culturally or legally, to the land in the first place. One of the most startling dichotomies in relation to reporting of fascist colonial oppression lies with the establishment and expansion of the state of Israel. When was the last time Israeli troops were accused of using Nazi-style tactics by the British press?

The Zimbabwe land issue has important implications and lessons for any future land reform we will have to undertake once we re-establish independence. The clear message from Zimbabwe is act quickly and decisively. Do not allow the landed gentry, in other words the British establishment to continue their presence in our land. Like any future civil service, Land Owners will have to be extricated, root and branch, to ensure that their influence is removed completely. Allow them to carry on as they have done for long enough, either through the present system or through a reformed land ownership, will only allow them to slowly infest and decompose the fibre of the country.

We have a dream and vision for our country. A vision of national independence, free from foreign intervention and parasitic institutions and bodies which have corroded our culture and deprived our people from a national destiny which is rightfully theirs. Land ownership, particularly on the scale of private land ownership, which Scotland has experienced, are breeding grounds for foreign and for the time being exclusively English colonialist ambitions. They have to be removed if this country is to establish itself with any integrity as a free and independent nation.

There is no need for revenge tactics to force them to go, many live in England in any case and would simply be ignored when it came to decisions on how their land was to be used in future. As for the others, unlike the horrors exacted against our ancestors, there will be no burning of homes, no personal belongings scattered along the road, no wives raped or husbands tortured. Landowners will not be starved out of existence and despatched to the far flung corners of the earth. They will simply be asked to leave quietly, but swiftly.

The colonial mindset is alive and well within the British establishment. Anyone who doubts that needs look no further than England’s recent military intervention in Sierra Leone. Initially Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon declared that British military units were being sent to the Ivory Coast to ensure safe passage for British nationals ‘stranded’ due to the civil war. Less than two weeks later and the British moved eighty senior civil servants in to key posts in the Sierra Leone Government. British media reporters claim that the local population is calling on them to permanently occupy their country, despite the obvious lack of apparent ‘locals’ to voice this for the cameras.

Again the British media claim that the government infrastructure is a complete mess and that government officials are, majoritively corrupt and incompetent, but none of these journalists are capable of making the cognitive and intellectual connection that perhaps the ‘rebels’ then have a legitimate reason for beginning the rebellion in the first place given the poor state of Sierra Leone Government.

Even less subtly, British Paratroopers begin attacking the so-called rebel forces and reverse what was almost certainly going to be a complete rout for the Government troops. The British occupy the main airport in what now appears to be the unfortunately named Freetown, set up road blocks and uniformly begin searching the indigenous population. All this with absolutely no mandate from the United Nations and highly questionable aims.

Only the Press Association dare claim that Britain’s involvement is due to a land related issue, namely the numerous diamond mines and the Sierra Leone Government promise to grant Britain substantial revenues, if they assist in suppressing the rebellion. All the time Britain is supplying the government with arms, military training and civil servants. This is the British establishment’s idea of an ethical foreign policy in practice, a pattern it has followed in every part of it’s red soaked empire. It is also explicit and unapologetically colonialist in nature.

Meanwhile back in Englandshire, the historic language of Irish suppression is being used by Senior British military officers who claim that foreign mercenaries should be employed by the British in Sierra Leone, in order to reduce the chance of front line British combatants becoming casualties. The mentality of the Black and Tans is alive and well, and has never been healthier.

The issue of land is, in essence, an issue of colonial occupation to which there is no cure other than execution, metaphorically speaking. You cannot reform a mindset which is utterly incapable of reform. A mindset which has no notion of anything else but oppression and exploitation of other peoples. In Scotland then, removal of land, with no compensation for the ‘owners’ together with the outlawing of British colonialist ambitions, in which ever form that might manifest itself is the only credible answer, followed by the re-establishment of the only legitimate authority – the Gaidheal.

One land, one people, one culture.