By Jock Mulligan
A chairdean, let us look through the mist of Westminster’s “democracy” to see the machinery of capital and empire at work. These reports from Scottish paper, The National expose a predictable reality: the British state is a playground for foreign capital and state-sponsored lobbying, while it simultaneously weaponizes “national security” to cast doubt on the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish and Irish working classes.
The Illusory “Sovereignty” of the Westminster State
The British state, founded on the enclosure of common lands and the blood of the clearings (Fuadach nan Gàidheal), remains a creature of the landed elite and the industrialist class. It is no surprise then, that while it postures about “foreign interference,” its own MPs are caught in the pockets of the global arms trade.
The Allegation: An investigation by Westminster’s standards committee confirmed that the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Defence Technology was “temporarily funded” by the Israeli government.
The Source: This came to light via reporting by Declassified UK and a subsequent Westminster Standards Committee probe into Tory MP Neil Shastri-Hurst.
The Details: The group accepted £1,499 from RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, a subsidiary of the state-owned Israeli defense firm Rafael. While Shastri-Hurst cited a lack of “due diligence,” the Marxist lens reveals this as a systemic feature. The parliamentary system is designed to be porous to those with capital – especially the military-industrial complex that sustains imperial interests.
Selective Scrutiny: The “Bot” Narrative
While the state ignores the flow of money from its military allies, it is launching an “independent review” into foreign interference. Born from the scandal of former MEP Nathan Gill taking Russian bribes, the probe is now being used to suggest that Scottish self-determination is a product of external manipulation.
The Allegation: Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander claimed that Iranian “bot networks” have targeted social discourse around Scottish independence.
The Source: Statements by Alexander and Local Government Secretary Steve Reed (December 2025).
The Question of Evidence: We must ask: where is the empirical proof for these claims? The “evidence” typically stems from cybersecurity firms or “intelligence-linked” reports which often conflate “coordinated behavior” with any narrative that challenges the British state’s integrity. It is a convenient fiction used to delegitimize grassroots anger.
David vs. Goliath: A Rigged Struggle
The suggestion that Scottish independence is a product of foreign “bots” is an insult to the thousands of activists who built the movement with their own hands and meager resources.
The 2014 referendum was a David vs. Goliath fight. On one side, the Yes movement was entirely resourced by ordinary Scottish activists – from the Radical Independence Campaign to local groups in every scheme and village. On the other, the No campaign was a monolith of the establishment. It was funded jointly by the three biggest political parties in the UK, the weight of the British state machinery, and the overwhelming bias of the British media.
In this fight, David’s mouth was effectively taped over; Goliath employed an army of “fallen angels”- embodied by a state broadcaster (the BBC) that many in the movement found to be structurally biased, and a cabal of billionaire, tax-avoiding media magnates who used their rags to manufacture fear.
A History of Repression and Surveillance
This latest “interference” review is merely the modern face of a centuries-old tradition where the British state uses legal and intelligence apparatuses to crush dissent in its internal colonies.
Russia/China/Iran: Accused of “bot” activity and bribery; now the focus of high-level state probes to undermine the legitimacy of independence.
The British State & Billionaire Media: Actively spent millions to influence the 2014 vote, utilizing state resources to intimidate voters; remains “legitimate” discourse.
Israel: Directly funded a parliamentary group via a state arms firm; currently unconfirmed for inclusion in the “interference” review despite the Standards Committee findings.
Our Path is Clear
As we look toward a future where the border in the Irish Sea vanishes and the Alba Gu Bràth is realized, we must recognize that Westminster will never be a neutral arbiter. Its foundations are built on the wealth of the few, and its “investigations” are merely tools to protect the status quo. We do not need the permission of a corrupt parliament – funded by arms dealers and obsessed with digital ghosts – to reclaim our land and our labor.
The struggle for the land (An Fhearann) and the struggle for the Republic are one and the same.
Please copy paste this letter (and edit if you want to) and send it to your MP about Israeli Government interference in our so called democracy. This can be done HERE
Subject: Ensuring Transparency in the Foreign Financial Interference Review
Dear ________ MP,
I am writing to you as a constituent deeply concerned by the recently announced independent review into foreign financial interference in UK politics.
While the government has rightly identified concerns regarding Russian and Chinese influence, I am alarmed by the apparent omission of confirmed instances involving other states. Specifically, the Westminster Standards Committee recently concluded that the APPG on Defence Technology was “temporarily funded” by the Israeli government via RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, a subsidiary of the state-owned firm Rafael.
As my representative, I ask that you:
Formally urge the Secretary of State to include the funding of APPGs by Israeli state-owned entities within the scope of this review.
Question the evidence base for claims regarding “Iranian bot” influence on Scottish democratic discourse, ensuring that legitimate grassroots activism is not being unfairly maligned by unverified intelligence reports.
Advocate for a tightening of due diligence rules that currently allow the military-industrial complex to bypass lobbying restrictions through APPG secretariats.
The integrity of our democracy depends on a review that is comprehensive and unbiased, rather than one that selectively targets movements for self-determination while ignoring the influence of the state’s military allies.
I look forward to hearing your position on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address/Postcode]
