Decentralised technology can support decentralisation as a movement

In the context of a UK election that has, IMO entrenched the takeover of a democracy by centralised power, there’s of course an opportunity for decentralisation as a movement, which will need suitable decentralised infrastructure such as a secure, autonomous communications and storage network with an independent economic system.

Here’s my reply to a timely thread by George Monbiot, which I recommend like minded folk should read in full (whether in UK or not, because we are all connected to this).

George is proposing such a movement, so I chipped in with our :slightly_smiling_face: simpotential technical contribution.

For myself this is more than just a marketing opportunity, but I think this is the most appropriate category for it in this forum.


Thanks for this Mark,

I’m not on social media any more so it was nice to follow the link and see your feed and realise that people are cognisant of the fact that the last four years have been based on cynically false narratives and propaganda, and that this is neither a legitimate victory nor a legitimate government.

So many people in the world in the same position too, with various versions of nihilistic strongmen and surveillance societies, and also victims of a british way of life that we all used to go along with to greater and lesser extents.

I really hope SAFE can give people an option of bypassing all those illegitimate governments, but it’s not going to be easy.

PS. In reference to one of your tweets, speaking as an English person in Scotland, I’d say it’s not perfect by any means, but having a vaguely sane political system up here really does make a positive difference to the way people engage, contrary to what pretty much all sections of the English-based media would have you believe.


That is ALL of our media. Even the National is far from wholly on side with YES, let alone the SNP, always finding some way to niggle, detract and publicise the ravings of RISE or Sillars or some other irrelevant chancer whose only qualification is they are NOT-SNP.
The fact that the SNP can attract the vote-share it does is an incredible achievement given the wall-to-wall hostility of the press, TV and radio. Also a complement to the Scottish electorate who continue to see through through the lies and supercilious sneers of journalists who know they have no future in an independent Scotland and no hope of employment elsewhere. Most have the wrong accent to have any hope of a job in rUK media and the “Uncle Tom” slots are already filled with Andrew Neill, Eddie Mair and Kuennesburg.


Interesting Willie, and @david-beinn, thanks both of you.

David, I’m not packing my bags yet, I’ll have to get Willie’s approval first and it’s not a given obviously.

As it’s still day one of the Johnson dictatorship I’ll allow myself to share the only insightful take I’ve found on why Corbyn was reviled by traditional Labour voters who were equally unfathomably favourable towards Johnson.

We can all see the role the media played except for, it seems anyone in the media itself, although even that doesn’t quite explain it for me.

However, this Twitter thread has some insights that just might, and which give me some hope the future in England. If only Scotland could hang around a little longer we just might do this together. I mean, what’s a decade more oppression after centuries of ‘rivalry’?


Don’t want to rant about this too much as we’re pretty off-topic but…

That thread is really insightful Mark, but I just feel in analysing it people are missing the point that it’s not Corbyn that voters didn’t like, it’s a cartoon monster version of Corbyn that they didn’t like, and that was the only version that was ever presented to them. It was the establishment that closed ranks, not the voters themselves.

In terms of the Scottish thing, Willie, I guess I was just specifically thinking of how it keeps getting mentioned as established fact that, ‘oh, they’re terribly divided up in Scotland after the independence referendum,’ when in actual fact, media bias notwithstanding, that was a relatively civilised and informed discussion compared to what has come afterwards down south.


The requirements are simple, Mark. You know this .

  1. Don’t talk about property prices.
  2. No cricket. None. (or not in public anyway)
  3. No royal arse-licking, not even in private.
  4. Cider - bring lots with you, the scrumpier the better.

Now start packing, pal. Get your barge to Lancaster and we will arrange exfiltration from there. We will moor you at the the refugee jetty in Irvine harbour to stat with.


EDIT: Mods move this to Off-topic or wherever you think.

Indeed - for what was potentially so divisive an issue, on a personal level, there has been almost zero animosity.
In whose interest is it to big up stories about us all being so terribly divided? And who controls the media? So its not surprising that your average punter - or even the well-informed like Mark think we are at each others throats daily.
The MSM stranglehold and the dumbing down of society in general makes the attitudes exposed in the twitter thread seem like the norm.
It will take an awful lot more than a few uncensorable channels on SAFE to change this, but its a start. Sad fact is most folk are too lazy, or too tired after a days work trying to make ends meet to do much ccritical thinking for themselves. So they are quite happy for the likes of Fiona Bruce to tell them how they should be thinking. And its always easy to blame a brown person.
I do so myself. Gordon is a moron. Luckily he’s a moron that nobody pays any attention too.
Its fun to watch the Brit MSM push various personalities forward as the “bulwark against the Nats”
Originally it was Gordon Brown, then the we had a a few years where Ruth Davidson was the most perfect being and we all had to listen to her, wall to wall coverage of her every deed. Her star faded when it was finally noticed that she just was not effective anymore. She gets full marks for an incredibly well-timed IVF pregnancythat avoided her being asked ANY questions about the upcoming Brexit shit-show. Her desperation to be noticed in some way, anyway was demonstrated by her ridiculous offer to swim naked in Loch Ness if the SNP got 50 seats. Everyone and their dog knew 50 seats was pushing it a bit but we still were concerned at the prospect of that blubber scaring off the local megafauna.
Then we got the odious Jo Swinson - 24/7 with her relentless SNP Baaad message. Particularly sweet to see her deposed, especially on a night when the LibDem vote held up pretty well throughout Scotland. Make no mistake, Jo Swinsons defeat was a personal defeat for her, most of us were totally in agreement with her pro-EU stance. One good thing, at least she doesn’t have to kid on she lives in Milngavie (pronunciation classes on demand at very reasonable fees, MAID accepted) and she can scurry back to Shropshire.

And that’s probably more than enough from me for now.
I hope the message is clear -Scotland has space and resources, refugees and New Scots are welcome, colonists can GTF.
We know the difference, its not hard to spot.


If only it was just ‘rivalry’
But its not, it never was. It was and remains colonial exploitation. The concept of “Britishness” is a total lie. Britishness demands Scots , Welsh Irish (and Cornish) subservience.
So a decade more is not on, no chance. We have been voting Labour in Scotland to give them one more chance for many generations now.
All to be told by Corbyn (by far the most attractive of labour leaders - in terms of policy at least) that Scotland doesnt matter and he will refuse a referendum. Nuclear weapons are baaaad, especially when you are marching with your middle-class chums in Islington. Different story when you are keeping them on the Clyde and will not countenance them on the Thames or in Portsmouth.
You have had your chance, You have had your chance many many times.
Times up now, we want nothing to do with the kind of society that the English seem happy to put up with.
So get out while you can or you are stuck in a declining fascist state with zero hope or resources.

1 Like

Could you explain pls your use of the word “countenance”? Not a word I ever came across before, and google didn’t really help me understand it.

As for nukes, my father worked in the forces, there are nukes stored all over, and are often flown about on practise runs, despite the military’s stance that it does not happen. Pointless having them if when they are needed ppl are not used to handling them and problems arise.

Edit: think I found the meaning the way you used the word. “Give support to them” ?

1 Like

Basically Scots will not accept nuclear weapons on the Clyde - or anywhere in Scotland. Whether that suits the UK US or any other military is of no concern, the only people who can approve this are the people of Scotland. Over many many years, it has been shown overwhelmingly that they do not want these weapons.

All - and I mean ALL of the UKs nuclear weapons are stored at Glen Douglas, Faslane and Coulport within 30 miles of our largest population centre.

Check it out for yourself on Google maps.,-4.4286591,71956a,35y,35.26t/data=!3m1!1e3

These weapons apparently are too dangerous to store near 100,000- odd English in Portsmouth but it is perfectly OK for them to be placed on the doorstep of 3m Scots.

Sorry, Mark that’s not ‘rivalry’, that’s not taking the piss, that’s colonialism. And that’s being polite. Sooner or later we are going to stop being polite.

And @bones, I do not want to hear stories about how your father and his buddies handled nukes safely for decades, one “accident” is one too many. In any case the US hardly has a clean record either. Search on “Broken Arrow” and Palomares just for starters. And thats only the shit we have learned about…
Thankfully the Yanks have left Dunoon, just down the cost. No-one yet has been brave enough to go into the Holy Loch (thats of the sea the bit that sticks in just north of Dunoon) to see exactly what shit they left but we do know that radiation levels in the Holy Loch remain well above the norm.

Nobody in Scotland asked for these bases to be placed there, instead they got put there because of decisions taken in London.

As an aside , ever wonder why the Fast Breeder Reactor Program was set up at Dounereay, near Thurso? Because if it was the point on the UK mainland with a rail connection that was furthest from London. If it all went wrong, it wouldn’t be London property values that got affected. Same holds for Windscale and Chapelcross, London was very keen to produce plutonium for their bombs to fill their imperial codpiece but it wasnt going to be done anywhere near London and the South East.

Its almost as if Scots (and Cumbrians) were of lesser value than Londoners or those on the South Coast near Portsmouth. But that can’t be true, can it? Its a United Kingdom where we are all treated equally, isn’t it?

I had no intention of saying anything of the sort.
Personally I hate the idea of having them.

They are very often flown about on planes within the UK though, on planes launched from many different bases.

I know this is not a reliable source particularly, but I am not convinced they are all stored in one place, that would not be a good idea as a defense / attack strategy.

Edit2 : I guess technically those weapons are stored by the States, as it is technically their soil, but it is certainly in England.

According to this report, many are stored near London

1 Like

Apologies if I misunderstood you.
The weapons you refer to are US weapons. The UK only has submarine-launched nuclear weapons. All of these weapons are stored n Scotland when they are not actually on board submarines.
There are approx 30(?) nuclear weapons at Incirlik in Turkey. These are not Turkish weapons but US, just as those stored at Lakenheath are US not British. RAF Lakenheath is a total misnomer BTW, its a Yank airbase, commanded by Yanks and manned by Yanks. There may be a few Brit civilian employees and a handful of RAF “liason” officers but make no mistake, its a bit of the US in England.

True, its not a good strategy to have them all in one place, the thinking is that as long as some are on a submarine and can be used , that is sufficient. Not very much of the Brit nuclear deterrent makes sense, including the fact that the missiles can only be fired with US approval. But then very little Brit military thinking makes sense to any sane rational onlooker. Its all about the UK elite trying to convince themselves and just enough of the UK electorate they still have some kind of relevance in the modern world.

The Mail demands I switch off my ad-blocker before I can look at that article - that’s not going to happen but in any case, if its in the Mail, its a lie.
What I can categorically tell you is that there are NO nuclear warheads owned by the UK within 400 miles of London, unless they are on a submarine temporarily in port at Portsmouth or Devonport, where London would see no immediate effects. What the Yanks have on their own patch at Lakenheath is another story but these are strictly US weapons.

Bottom line, the English want nuclear weapons but only if they can store them in Scotland. This is the line taken by politicians on all sides in England, Labour as well as Tories. Little wonder Scots reject both Tories AND Labour.

1 Like

You could be right.
Although to be honest i am fairly sure the military would not disclose where all their weapons were held, or exacly how many and of what sort we had, i feel certain this would be classified information, available to very few.

I know very well about lakenheath, having friends whose parents were based there, and having lived reasonably cose by.

I think we must agree to disagree, we obviously both have our own opinions, and as i said earlier, i dont think we can really know.

the mail article was from information from a video posted to youtube, so has no real credibility.

edit: for you to say england wont store nukes here due to safey precautions, but will allow the US to makes little sense to me.

Willie, for clarification I put rivalry in quotes because I wanted to acknowledge there was and remains a colonial aspect to the situation without getting into something I don’t know much about. I wasn’t trying to minimise anything. I don’t pretend to understand either side well, and so am not looking to debate it, just clarify for the sake of good relations.

Also, I hear your arguments about the siting of nuclear weapons, but I suspect the location was much more than nimbyism. I did a tiny bit of work on UK submarines so I know that the siting of our nuclear base was also to do with its military effectiveness, such as being able to come and go with minimal chance of detection, interception, or tracking.

We have just three or four nuclear armed subs, and the aim is that there is always one deployed somewhere in the world whose location is unknown, and which can receive authorisation to launch wherever it is without being detected. This is tricky to achieve and the location of the base is an important factor in that.

I’m not saying nimbyism is not a factor, but I suspect the effectiveness would be priority number one in the minds of the military and the government of the time. I don’t recall anything of the process or politics myself, so am just making suppositions based on bits and pieces and my own experience.

As I say, I’m not well informed, just making observations and not wanting to dismiss anything you’ve said. I know there have been great wrongs in the past, and that in a perhaps misguided attempt to preserve the Union, the Scots have been treated badly by Westminster at times. Maybe we’ve helped at times too, but I’m not able to say.

I’d like to leave it at that, but I do care what you and other Scots think - and am interested to learn, though it is one of so many things I’m mostly ignorant about. The die does seem cast anyway, and the future of Scotland has to be your collective decision. I certainly value and appreciate Scotland and the great contributions you’ve made and continue to make. I’m hopeful that wherever we put lines on maps, our geography and shared history can continue to unite us when it serves us, and am reminded by discussions in my men’s group yesterday that national borders and nationalism are a relatively recent invention. It was very interesting to hear a British view on this, and on the colonialism of Britain, challenged by a German in my men’s group yesterday. I’ve been in this group over ten years, and this was the first time I’d learned he had a PhD in history (mostly we deal with personal and relational stuff, but we’ve also been concerned about our role in the world as the personal, political and global connect so strongly).

1 Like

It is a difficult thing really. The history is terrible as many are, Scottish people revolted 3 times after the union of the crowns in 1707. The last being Culloden, thereafter we were banned form owning land, playing bagpipes, carrying weapons and even using Gaelic. After the Glencoe massacre the soldier in charge had a copy of the order, signed top and bottom by the king at the time (William of Orange) to put to death everyone in the village, man woman and child. It was publicised by the Jacobytes who took it from he drunk general in France. The whole of Europe and the Pope condemned England at that time.

The whole union came from the Darien adventure where Scotland pooled all it’s cash (£350K) to send 1200 people in a ship to Darien (near Panama) to trade. The West India tea company forbade any nation from trading with them. All 1200 perished.

Then the English offered Scottish landowners (guess what) £350K to commit to a union. This is why you hear the phrase bought and sold for English gold.

There is a significant amount of wrongs been done in the name of union. It was never voted for by the people and actively resisted. Even in recent times 1979 a large majority of Scotts voted for devolution, an overwhelming Yes vote was the result. The UK government under Thatcher decreed that every person who did not vote was to be counted a no. Then in 1997 they capitulated when there was an even bigger majority.

In 2014 there was horrific propaganda in Scotland. People were told we would be out of Europe, lose our pensions and even ridiculous things like the Russians would invade us (even martians was mentioned). It was like the teardown of Corbyn times 1000. The votes themselves were weird, almost everybody speaking was a yes, but the count an dodgy postal ballot went the other way. In any case the vote was no.

Now we have a country that was the enlightenment, one that is socially inclusive and welcoming of others, one who looks after the young and elderly and that country is not the union of the UK, but Scotland.

Even now the mainstream media are horrific, last week headline was Scotland fails A&E waiting times. It had 88% targets met instead of 95%. You think oh that is OK then, however, England had 81%, Wales 76% and NI 65% (approx, I cannot remember the figures). So the truth was Scotland outperformed ruk, but the headline was very misleading and pure propaganda.

Now the tricky Scotland/England issue. We are rivals, like CanadaUSA, NZ/Australia etc. We have here a huge disparity in wealth. Most Scottish villages now have a huge proportion of English people as well as many other nationalities. However, the English in many instances sell a house down south and buy one here with so much cash left they don’t need to work. Many then get involved in community things, like gala’s parades etc. (All good so far). In Skye for instance the English are at over 50% of the population and you will not hear a Scottish accent in any shop, even the traditional trinket shops.

That does 2 things that are used in bad ways.

  1. Creates a sentiment of Anti English (not true)
  2. Allows the mainstream to declare independence a nationalist issue only for Scots.

Sotland is not anti English, but it is losing the Scottish culture. That allows many wrong parallels to be dawn. A lot of English people I know here, believe they a disliked and that is amazing. The Scots I know, do not feel that, but they do feel oppressed and overwhelmed by the amount of English with lots of cash and time to change our ways. that dilutes the think they came here for, the culture, the openness and friendly people.

So right now we have a country in some turmoil and one that needs to tread it’s own path. We need to allow the social inclusion of any people and welcome folk with open arms. all other nationalities seem to love it, but I fear many English are already conned and persuaded of a false narrative to a great extent.

The Scot as the weaker, more silly nation really is a feeling you can perceive from only [edit, a minority, granted] English incomers, that is worrying!

I say all this as a normal Scot, I married an English lassie so I am 100% not anti English, but I can see the problems that do exist.

All in all, the Scot is a curious breed, they never give up their country and quietly and steadfastly they will always be Scots and proud. The quiet part hides a lot.

I hope this helps Mark, it’s an honest appraisal.


Yes David, very helpful. I welcome the information and perspectives, especially at this time.


Yes, it’s not straightforward at all. I fear for us all in the UK in many ways.

Something I should have mentioned, but Scottish history was never taught in schools. All of the Culloden, Glencoe, Darien etc. have been almost removed from history in our schools. I think it may have changed since devolution, but when I was at School, it was all Henry VIII and war of the roses stuff. Scotland had no history in schooling back then. I think that says a lot.

Scotland the nation has a chance to stand among it’s European allies and hopefully a North Europe assembly (Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden etc.). I hope we take it, but I am also wary we are leaving many good people in England behind us, as many of the folk I speak to agree with.


Thank you Mark, a very thoughtful considered reply. I would have expected nothing else, really. Your desire to learn more does you great credit.
NIMBYISM: It is of course true that deep water immediately offshore is a very desirable trait when choosing a submarine base and that is something that England lacks. Doubtless due to the fact that like the Romans, the English (or Angles, Saxons etc) — insert barb about Scots being a nation long before the English here — could not subdue the lumpy bits of this island by force of arms alone. So yes, the lumpy bits with the deep water ideal for getting subs out into the ocean quickly are exclusively ours. ( or Welsh at Milford Haven - though Pembrokeshire has always been one of the least “Welsh” areas of Wales)
But - we have lots of suitable sea lochs up the West Coast - why Dunoon (for the Yanks) or Faslane, Coulport, Glen Douglas for the Brits? Why so close to Glasgow and the Central Belt?
The US sailors needed recreation - Mull, Lochaber wherever are not noted for their fleshpots. Dunoon was chosen because it was only an hour or so to Glasgow by ferry and train. The Yanks used ships as bases. (USS Proteus, USS Simon Lake, it changed a few times). Very little ground structure to be seen at Dunoon after they left. Common factor on the boats was the missiles themselves were stored in tubes mounted about 11deg to the vertical ( I wonder why?), they could have gone in just about any sea-loch if need be.
For the Brits, Faslane was chosen for not only its deep sea loch - although with a shallow bar to be crossed at Kilcreggan ( David will know this better than me being a nautical chap) but because it was close to existing shipbuilding capability on the Clyde. A railway line helped too. Easy access to the Glasgow knocking-shops was probably not too high on the RN list, I’ll grant you that. — delete barb about the proclivities of Jolly Jack Tar—) Existing infrastructure from WW2 undoubtedly played a part as well. the GareLoch (Faslane) was always a fairly industrialised loch as these things go. Coulport and Glen Douglas followed soon after. There is also a base in Loch Goil about which I know little except they dont spend all that money on security for nothing.
The fact remains these sites were chosen for expediency over any concern for the natives within the blast radius, not simply for the excellent military reason of deep water close inshore that you point out.

Another point, you keep talking about the British view, there is no “British” view anymore. There is an English view which we are told is “British”.
BBC, ITV and our 100% foreign owned press ram this down our throats daily in all sorts of subtle and unsubtle ways Our viewpoints have diverged very sharply since they were brought together somewhat artificially during WW2 and the Atlee govt advances re the NHS - which as David points out is and was ENTIRELY separate from the NHS in England and Wales - and the nationalisation of the railways. Despite its imperial errors re the British Bomb and the desire to hold onto what was left of the Empire, the colonial crimes of Malaya, Kenya and Suez must be laid at the feet of Churchill and the Tories.

Anyhow - the offer still stands, get your bottom up here soonest - with or without wire brushes. Still demand you bring scrumpy though :slight_smile: You and like-minded folk ARE welcome, coders especially :-), those who sell a brick shithouse in Streatham and can now afford a bungalow in Skye and think its just the same but with lots of golf, different accents and fewer brown people are most assured NOT welcome.
Farage and his like have made much of the alleged impact of immigration on the NHS. What is never talked about is the impact of so many elderly English coming up here and taking advantage of our free health care and putting the Scottish NHS under stress. It is being coped with right now but is a major concern amongst Health Boards especially in the Highlands and Borders where most of the white settlers gravitate. Unlike the lies of the fascists, this IS a real issue.

Anyway again, more than enough of my ill-structured rants


David, it wasn’t Scotland as such that pooled its cash, it was the nobles. Nobody in the street was ever asked about Darien, it was simply OUR upper-class wanting a slice of the colonial action. If only every other colonial expedition had failed so miserably, the world would be a better place. So I shed no tears for the Darien thing.
Which like almost all Scottish history I had to learn for myself, we also got the Wars of the sodding Roses shoved down our throats and examined the Magna Carta and Crusades. Its almost as if there was a conspiracy NOT to teach Scots their history. I wonder why that might have been? Similarly with language, my Granny spoke only Gaelic at home and was beaten for speaking it in school. As a result she never taught my mother and now I know more Turkish than I do Gaelic - yet it was the daily language of our people in Sutherland within living memory. That did not happen by accident.
It is entirely wrong to blame all our ills on the English. It would not be far from the the truth to blame most of our ills on the Anglicised, the nobles and clan chiefs who were so easily bribed.
The great thing about independence is it will at a stroke remove the “easy” option of blaming everything on the English or Anglicised, it means our decisions will be our decisions alone and we will need to bear full responsibility for them. That in itself will be the making of the nation.