Holyrood Far From Hong Kong

Breaking-up Britain is a breeze compared to challenging Chinese rule

Anyone who thinks Scotland faces an awful struggle for independence and freedom of expression should sit down and watch the latest TV images from Hong Kong. The sight of editors on a brash tabloid being led away in handcuffs whilst other hacks fled for the airport, all knowing they might end their days in prison, was distressing. Particularly for those of us who have spent many happy hours marvelling at how a city-statelet with a million more inhabitants than the whole of Scotland could function so harmoniously in a geographical space no larger than Glasgow or Edinburgh. And especially harrowing for a hackademic like myself who has also personally experienced living and working on the Chinese mainland. Although not there for long, I saw enough to know what sort of justice awaits these fellow journalists. It certainly puts Craig Murray’s plight into perspective.

The most dewy-eyed admirers of the diplomat-turned-rebel blogger would doubtless reply that dissidents like him and Julian Assange are just dealt with more subtly by the British State and the Anglo-American empire. The UK and US legal systems are equal shams, many regularly blurt in the below-the-line comments section on Mr Murray’s still very active blog. To which I would reply: why then is their idol putting so much feverish effort into crowdfunding an appeal in the Supreme Court? Why’s he grabbing their donations any which way he possibly can – PayPal, direct debit or international bank transfer? And why, for that matter, is the Scottish Government preparing to take a case against the UK government over indyref2 to the same legal appeal forum in the UK capital?

Mr Murray might continue to lambast how the state he represented turned a blind eye to appalling human rights abuses in Uzbekistan when he was the British ambassador there, but he well knows (unlike some of the daft groupies he’s attracted) that rule of law applies in London in a way it never has done in Tashkent – and clearly no longer does in Hong Kong. Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law (香港基本法第二十三條) prohibits any act of treason, secession, sedition or subversion against the Central People’s Government.

We saw what that means last week when 500 uniformed goons raided Apple Daily’s headquarters and arrested five top executives, including its founder and funder, Jimmy Lai, a rags-to-riches maverick millionaire now considered a leading enemy of the state. To which, one of the (sadly many) regular, below-the-line ranters on Craig Murray’s site responded:

I would suggest Jimmy Lai and all the other CIA assets either shut up or pack their bags and f*ck off to the west, see how the rich, yellow men get treated there.

Like those lucky colleagues who got away in the nick of time, I’m sure Mr Lai would love to board a plane to almost anywhere else on the planet right now. A devout Catholic, he named his scrappy, subversive rag after the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Its advertising jingle was a clever rhyming couplet: “An Apple a day, no liars can hold sway.” But last week, when the authorities froze his media group’s bank accounts, his paper’s parting comment to its readers had a plangent tone: “Here we say goodbye. Take care of yourselves.”

For some years the 800 journalists on Apple Daily knew that no words they served up to their half million readers would make a blind bit of difference in Beijing. The same went for all of the dozen dailies that compete for the attention of Hong Hong’s six million-strong population. The cold apparatchiks who run the People’s Republic of China are impervious to any pleas for mercy or compromise. The situation is now beyond hope for Hong Kongers who prayed in vain that Xi Xinping might honour the promise his predecessors made of upholding ‘one country, two systems’. It’s very much one country, one system now and that system is totalitarian.

Those who think there isn’t any fundamental difference between that country and ours need to catch themselves on. Holyrood isn’t Hong Kong. Secession is not sedition in Scotland. Nor do our present (predominantly English) Conservative political masters hold all the cards – as the Chinese Communist Party does over Hong Kong. The fact is David Cameron did concede a legally-binding referendum on Scottish independence on September 18. Aye, one reason he did so was because he felt absolutely confident that there was no serious threat to the status quo. But the fact is he did it. And his gamble could have gone tragically wrong for him – as happened with Brexit. He knew that only too well on the night of September 18 as he and George Osborne were slumped on a sofa in Downing Street watching the referendum results roll in on TV. According to Mr Osborne, they nervously munched pizza as they wondered if they might go down in history as the cretins who allowed their country to be broken up.

The paramount leader of the Chinese Communist Party would order another Tiananmen-style massacre before he would tolerate any secessionist rebellion anywhere subject to his diktats. No one in the upper echelons of the CCP cares a jot what anybody else in the world thinks about China’s complete charade of a criminal justice system. But that is not the situation in Britain. Many powerful members of the British Establishment do care about international public opinion. We saw that recently when UK legislation aimed at curbing prosecutions of military personnel came under heavy fire in the House of Lords. Peers including ex-military chiefs and a former senior judge warned that the bill, sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, could damage Britain’s international image.

Even a former defence minister and secretary-general of NATO, Lord (George) Robertson of Port Ellen, piped up with a warning that granting unlimited immunity to members of the armed forces for crimes committed during overseas deployments “opened the door to others questioning the integrity of the UK’s legal processes”. He clearly doesn’t want Great Britain to be seen in the same light as the “forces of darkness” around the world which, he warned during the 2014 referendum campaign, would revel in Scotland splitting away from the UK.

As it struggles to make its way in the world as a shining beacon of independence, integrity and enterprise, Brexit Britain cannot afford to be seen as a brutal state which denies indefinitely the democratic re-testing at the ballot box of demands for Scottish independence. However dismissive they might be on public platforms, privately senior Conservatives (including, I suspect, Mr Gove) know that they’re skating on thin legal ice on a Scottish loch.

Sources suggest the new Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain QC, is likely to give a green light to a referendum bill now that she has been sworn as the Scottish government’s senior legal adviser. Were Holyrood’s right to hold indyref2 given the seal of approval by Scotland’s top law officer, the international optics of a British government with scant support north of the Border brusquely dismissing that would not be good. If it wants to rule the waves again, Britannia cannot be seen to waive the rules for ever.

Be they forced to concede another referendum, English Tory leaders will naturally do everything in their power to maximise the likelihood of another Unionist victory. There will be a real tussle over the timing of the poll and over the question that appears on the ballot papers: Yes/No might very well be replaced by Leave/Remain, as in the 2016 referendum on the UK EU membership. Doubtless there will also be attempts to let Scots residing south of the Border have a say in Scotland’s future. Yet even the disclosure that UK ministers are discussing how to rig the rules of an indyref2 might contain a hidden morsel of hope for those impatient for a rematch. Because, as Nicola Sturgeon pointed up in her reactive tweet: “In doing so, they also concede that it’s going to happen”.

So next time any of us advocates of Scottish independence are feeling sorry for ourselves, we should stop and consider how far more scary and hopeless it is for our counterparts in Hong Kong, as well as in other subjugated stateless nations such as Xianxing (home of the Uighurs), Tibet, Kashmir and Catalonia. It’s time to stop just snivelling in the blogosphere and bellyaching in the BTL sections of newspapers. We need to start applying some real, hard, critical thinking to how the case for independence can be excitingly renewed. Then how sufficient people power can be then mobilised so we can triumph in the most important court of all – the court of international public opinion.

As it currently stands, we’re woefully far from that. The chances of Messrs Johnson and Gove spending a nervous night together in BoJo’s controversially redecorated Downing Street flat watching the Scottish independence movement sweep to victory look slim. And not just because of the Cabinet Office Minister’s statement that he “can’t see” a second referendum before the next general election. Nor can most of the Aberdonian’s compatriots: a poll in today’s Sunday Times shows that barely a fifth (22%) of Scottish voters think independence will happen within five years, a drop of 8% since April. The Panelbase survey found that support for independence has fallen from 52% to 48% since April and now stands at its lowest level for two years. Professor Sir John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, detects “a cooling of the independence ardour” since the Holyrood elections last month.

Even if they were minded to, the Old Etonians in charge of the Conservatives clearly don’t need to adopt Chinese Communist tactics to quell such a far-from-fervent secessionist movement as currently exists in Scotland.

37 thoughts on “Holyrood Far From Hong Kong

  1. What about the inconvenient fact that independence is not a majority choice? Making comparisons with totalitarian governments is nonsense. There isn’t even an obvious majority for independence in Scotland.


    1. I agree, Brian. The overwhelming support required doesn’t exist at present. Which is why I stated at the end – as I have done a number of times on this blog – that the Indy movement will need a real leader.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Fair play Rob. I support independence for any country that is suffering under governance of another. Personally I have difficulty in identifying the facets of our (my) everyday lives that will be enhanced by independence. I do not expect the SNP to explain this because the present incumbents appear happy with the status quo. Are you able and prepared to describe how 5.5 million people will experience enhancement in their daily lives by being separated from the UK? Approx 50% may experience emotional gratification but that means 50% do not. Will it bring us enhanced standards of living? Will we be able to defend ourselves? There are other considerations but I’ll stop at these two points because ultimately unless they can be answered positively nothing else matters. Does it?


      2. I will certainly try to take up your challenge in the coming months, Brian. Even people who are pro-independence sometimes need to be reminded of why full self-government isn’t only a principled objective but could have real practical benefits from the outset.


      3. Considerably more than 50 % of the native born population support independence. Scots born people voted by majority in 2014 on a 45% result for yes. With polls showing as large an overall majority as 58% recently I have no doubt that a large majority of Scots would be happy with that outcome. Why not follow the United Nations rules on any future referendum? It is not simply about enahnced standards of living there are issues surrounding cultural identity, language, sovereignty and colonialism that are wrapped up in our national and civil rights. It would also take considerable skill for a nation to make their economic situation worse having full control as opposed to partial or no control of the resources belonging to it. As for defence who will attack us? Where are our enemies? We are more then capable of organising for ourselves our own defence force.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. With all due respect, I disagree. We cannot just dismiss the polls that are depressing for the pro-Indy side. Today’s Sunday Times survey shows support for secession has shrunk by 10% since that 58% high, and not just because of Covid. Moreover, surveys show only the breadth not the depth of support. The reality is independence is a low intensity aspiration for many people. Why should the question on the ballot papers matter that much if the substance of the arguments are persuasive? The problem is they wouldn’t be with Sturgeon leading the charge – which she would be if First Minister and leader of the largest (by far) “pro-Indy” party. As for the presumption that support for secession could only increase during another referendum campaign, I really wouldn’t count on an automatic repeat of what occurred in 2014. Only one thing seems certain – there won’t be an indyref3 in any of our lifetimes.


      5. Inertia and stasis, Rob. I would bet that, if we took the Treaty to the UN and asked for it to be resiled on the basis that it no longer serves us at all, as the nation that signed up to it (under co-ercion), we’d find that it suddenly becomes a high intensity aspiration. If you never read a book, you’ll never aspire to discovering the pleasure of reading; if you never play a sport, you’ll never aspire to playing it well; if you never bother to think about what independence could do for your country, or if you live in fear that something is going to be taken away from you, you will never take the risk of voting YES. Sometimes, doing something kickstarts something else.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I don’t agree, Brian, I believe it is a majority choice, but that the majority don’t get a look-in just now because the majority is not mobilised. To mobilise the majority who do want independence, or who would opt for it when they see that it is not up for negotiation in the sense of being perfectly normal and legitimate, you have to actually do something to break the inertia. The SNP is doing zilch. I have no patience with this argument that a majority of people in Scotland don’t want independence. It is a myth that has gained traction, like the myth about a referendum being the only possible way to gain independence. Take our case to the UN and ask for the Treaty to be evaluated and our situation made the subject of UN policy. At least that would force Westminster’s hand to an extent. Doing nothing leads to doing nothing leads to nothing.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Who said it is not a majority choice, Brian? The same people who say that we cannot have independence without holding another referendum, that a referendum is the only way to achieve independence? Both are myths that the Scots have swallowed whole. The Treaty route or a plebiscitary election are democratic and legitimate ways to achieve independence. You have to ask yourself why we don’t use either.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “Yes/No might very well be replaced by Leave/Remain, as in the 2016 referendum on the UK EU membership. Doubtless there will also be attempts to let Scots residing south of the Border have a say in Scotland’s future.”

    Any plebiscite must be overseen by an impartial observer such as the UN who have rules that the apply in popular self-determination votes.

    Any concession on this – excluding all involvement of the British state in Scotland’s referendum – would necessarily undermine it would necessarily result in the failure to restore this country’s full self-government.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Scotland isn’t a colony but pretending it is is a great way to make the independence movement look like crackpots.

    2014 was when we found out Scottish nationalists were ‘civic’ nationalists and not the nasty type. Now the idea of voting being restricted to Scots born or even ethnic Scots looks very like blatant manipulation and you can bet that’s how it will be portrayed.

    As mentioned above, why not try persuasion with information instead of ‘we woz robbed 300 years ago’?


      1. Lorncal.

        “One from Craig Murray London’s supreme Court, has ruled that parts of the Scottish Government’s UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill exceed the powers of the Scottish Parliament.” (2018)

        However this is the kicker.

        “If you carefully read the judgement, especially paras 47 to 65, the Supreme Court has gone still further than ever before in saying that neither the Scotland Act nor the Sewell Convention in any way limits the power of the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland, even in devolved areas, without any need for consent from Scottish ministers or parliament. They even go so far as to specifically state that London ministers have an untrammeled power under the Scotland Act, without needing consent from Scotland or specific further endorsement from the Westminster parliament, to impose secondary legislation on Scotland.”

        Sounds like a colony to me.

        Click to access uksc-2018-0080-judgment.pdf


      2. Republic: yes, the Scotland Act proviso – or apparent proviso – for consent from Holyrood – the Sewell Convention – was always a blatant con. We have to assume that the Unionists and Westminster knew it to be, intended it to be but put it in, in the full knowledge that it would pass so long as nothing constitutional was the subject of it. So long as the subject was not contentious, they would not interfere. That is yet another reason why we have to take our fight to the international court. The Treaty Articles do not contain blatant cons in the same way that domestic legislation does. Yes, Westminster has overreached itself even there, but in any international translation of the Treaty, they would be hard pressed to make a case, or, at any rate, one that would stick. It is also a powerful reason for never agreeing to a renegotiation of the Treaty into domestic law – as an Act – and destroying its international character. This will be the next move, and, if the SNP agrees to that, they are finished totally. Although the Supreme Court is a constitutional and EU court, it does/did not have the jurisdiction to rule on international law. That alone should be reason enough to go to the international court because even the Supreme Court will rule in Westminster’s favour. I just can’t get my head round the fact that so few actually realize the predicament we are in via-a-vis the law in the UK, or, if they do realize, they don’t care.

        WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.


  4. Unionism has always been the «no worries» soft option and the SNP and its band of loyal eunuchs dancing attendance on Daughter of Heaven Empress Nico has made it more so.
    Effectively, Nurse Britannia has no need to get nasty, she knows she is the one in control.
    Sleep on wee Scotia….and keep taking the nice medication.
    Independence….just a wee bit wind.
    Dr Alba with the alternative meds, where art thou?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Alas, Alba may be a dealer in snake oil.
        I feel the current political class is now busted, everywhere.
        When there are noises off in France suggesting coup d’état the actual dispensation is in deep merde.
        Liven things up a bit nuke Russia, think the North Brit Nats could well go with that….
        I sense the National Movement has been well shafted.
        Given the cast of players we work with shoulda seen that coming!
        Shift in the paradigm?


  5. One paradigm shift worth exploring, to me anyway, would be the Scottish government showing a clear and determined commitment to making Scotland one of the most successful regions of the UK. As a stepping stone to full independence can there be a stronger argument? Only avowed Unionists could gainsay a justifiable claim supported by undeniable evidence of our self-sufficiency. Unfortunately I fear the SNP does not have the stomach for such ambitions certainly in the foreseeable future. Perhaps a referendum on independence is the last thing they want in case they won.


    1. In response to Brian Crunch’s comment on Scotland becoming the most successful region of the UK the answer is we are and have been for the last 15 to 20 years. Scotland ranks second on the economic and trade tables after the SE of England on the UK Office of National Statistics website.

      We are at the limits of what devolved government powers can achieve and are unable with the existing powers to eliminate poverty and social inequality in the West of Scotland, Dundee, housing schemes, and in remote rural and island communities.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We are nowhere near the limits of what devolved government powers can achieve because there are still substantial tax varying powers available to the Hollyrood incumbents.

        But they know only too well that if asked to open their wallets, Scots support for Scottish autonomy melts away like sna aff a dike.


  6. Not for me to push it but less «accommodation» with the current order, less of the cosy monarchism and implied historic «special Britannic relationship» which in effect allows weakening of resolve for the new and fear of change.
    Yes, Scotland and England as neighbours have a relationship, however, that is as a consequence of past events. Sentimental attachment to certain external manifestations of that as seen in travel poster and Walter Scott, John Buchan images of the country and its culture are the equivalent of the security blanket.
    Independence will be a shocking thing and means losing the smothering blanket. It will be what the French call a «douche écossaise» a shower of alternate cold and hot; bracing, exhilarating, stimulating, immediate and good for the body and mind.
    The politics of security, safety and no risk has no place in a movement whose essence is a quasi revolutionary reset. Frightening a few of the horse is to be expected.
    The prize, as you may be well aware, will not be proffered on a silver salver with pretty trimmings. Scottish independence is a hammer smashing old idols. For the guardian high priests of the order that is anathema and psychologically they have much to exploit.


  7. Phew! For a minute there Rob I thought you were morphing into Stewart McDonald, on the China thing, any of course there’s far more democracy in the UK than China, did someone ruffle your feathers on this?

    Anyway we all saw what Spain did to the Catalan people for trying to hold a plebiscite, of course countries laws aren’t handed down from the hand of God so to speak, and borders aren’t immutable otherwise they’d be no new countries, though some like Pakistan and South Sudan, were hewn off for other reasons than independence.

    As for Lord George Robertson, he infamously said that Scottish independence would lead to the Balkanisation of Western Europe, I’d take what this man says with a pinch of salt, but I get the point.

    They’ll be no tanks in George Sq again, nor troops on the train from Newcastle arriving to beat up folk after vote for independence, though it would be extremely naive to think the unions jack booted bullys won’t become violent as they did in 2014 even though they won that one.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Thing is, Rob, you are right when you say that there is no real comparison with China, but we should not be complacent either. We just haven’t actually prodded them enough since the 45 to find out what the British government and its apologies are capable of, although, if the Willie MacRae thing doesn’t settle down, we might find out what they were very capable of. In NI, they understand – the Nationalist side – what they are capable of when pushed.


  9. A couple of points: Craig Murray is facing 8 x months in jail, He is over 60 years old with health issues. Comparisons can be odious; ‘Secession’ is a strange word for an Independence supporting scribe to use. We are not contemplating seceding from anything. We are aiming to dissolve the Union.

    We may not be facing Chinese levels of oppression, but a re-run of Catalonia is becoming more of a possibility with Johnson ruling by diktat and a revised Act of Union being proposed unilaterally is in the pipeline. Your admiration for Andy Burnham is also worrying.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If you read my previous blogs on Craig Murray, you can see I’ve highlighted his personal plight as movingly as I can manage, despite thinking he has brought it upon himself to some extent. I fully expected Lady Dorrian to find him in contempt of court early in the Alex Salmond trial proceedings. What is arguably wrong (and I have argued this very stridently) is the severity of the punishment and the particular grounds on which he (and he alone) was eventually prosecuted – jigsaw ID. As for my use of the word secession, look up all the relevant political science literature and you’ll see it’s not a loaded term. Nor is talking of an Anglo-Scottish divorce (which I also do on occasion) for that is what “dissolving the Union” would mean. What I find strange is any supposed “nationalist” supporting “independence in Europe” – an obvious oxymoron. Re. Burnham, I’m not a huge fan but I’d far rather he was leading Labour right now and in No 10 (mainly, but not exclusively, for the sake of my family and friends south of the Border) than Sturgeon being in Bute House. I believe Scots’ basic civil liberties remain in severe jeopardy so long as she’s in control of our criminal justice system. The Supreme Court is our only safeguard against her sinister and shady cabal at present. A supreme irony that it is a U.K. institution a rebel nationalist blogger is desperately appealing to. On the matter of a revised Act of Union, Alba MP Kenny MacAskill effectively called for that when he unilaterally chose to argue for “Independence in the U.K” (another oxymoron). So I gave it to him with both barrels in two blogs. I forthrightly tell the truth as I see it because I believe the truth will set us free. Certainly not Sturgeon, Salmond or MacAskill. Sorry if all of that disappoints you.


      1. I wouldn’t tar Craig Murray with the opinions of his febrile commenters, people some of whom are very keen to excuse Putin and China of any malice because it must be all a CIA plot. That includes the Hong Kong newspaper btw. Craig did sail close to the wind, but for a very good, if impassioned reason – justice and the right of a population to know what is being done in their name. The blatant selectivity in the prosecution of dissenters, like Mark Hirst and Craig, tells you everything about how and why he is, out of all the media, being prosecuted, with the reasonings given in the judgement highly biased and completely lacking in evidence – with a special rule being introduced to exempt mainstream journalists.
        Making parallels to other more serious and life-threatening situations in the world is a mug’s game, and doesn’t help at all, quite the opposite in fact.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I did draw a distinction between Craig and his daft groupies. But what concerns me is how frequently I hear people in the Scottish independence movement drawing no proper distinctions between liberal capitalist countries and totalitarian regimes like China. Apart from anything else, that is politically paralysing as it suggests we can never win.


      3. You are trusted Rob, Dinnae fash yersel man.
        Craig Murray was sailing close to the wind. I respect him for that. As for our contempt laws they are a joke or a disgrace or both. They are a plaything for Judges to exercise their power over us. Scots law as our protection juxtaposed against our contempt laws or the difficulties in having criminal charge over turned on appeal is a sick joke. Take away legal aid and throw in a hate crime bill, add a corrupt crown office and where are we? Richt here, richt noo.


  10. We live in a period when basic civil liberties have been suppressed, by decree, in all states claiming to be democratic. The ease with which that was effected and the obedience of the those «suppressed» is surely an indicator of how skin deep Western democracy is in praxis.
    Madame Écosse is up there with the worst of them.
    Chinese experience in digital social control has been an inspiration.
    We are all potentially Uyghurs.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Craig Murray may be a headstrong and emotional individual, but his judicial persecution based on the absurd ‘crime’ of reportage of the Defence case in the A.S. which led to the sinister and Machiavellian ‘jigsaw identification’ accusation being adduced to be a contempt of court, allied to all the other malicious prosecutions that are taking place are the thin end of the wedge. We are teetering on the edge of Totalitarianism with its associated arbitrary and partisan oppression of State enemies. Yes, we ain’t China, but that’s not a great relief for a country that until very recently saw itself as a democratic and just society.

    Sorry Rob, I don’t agree with your use or definition of ‘secession’. It has been captured and utilised to demean Scotland’s equal right to break or dissolve the Union with England. The classic usage was the ‘secession’ of the Confederate States in 1861 from the USA. It is used in the present day pejoratively by Unionists to parallel Scotland with Catalonia, Quebec and the Soviet republics etc. By association and definition it has come to mean the breaking away from the ‘Home’ or Original state.
    It is a classic term of obfuscation used continually by trolls and opponents of Scottish sovereignty. I question you using it as I know you are a clever and seasoned media savvy individual.

    I question your take on Burnham because for too long Scottish political pundits worried about Labour ( see Kevin McKenna), whilst all the time Labour worried nought about Scotland. I have English family, but if England wants pink tories, then let them get on with it. Neither am I a supporter of the bogus ‘Independence in Europe’ trope. I lost faith in Salmond when he started singing ‘Ode to Joy’ in the Commons and I questioned MacAskill’ s road to Damascus conversion to Alba so late in the day. Sturgeon?…I have no words that are fit to use in a public forum for she/her/it. As regards the Supreme Court, well I wondered why the SNP allowed it as it is a clear breach of the Treaty of Union. But they will find that out the closer we get to letting English jurists pass judgement on the impossibility of our ‘secession’ ( your words). Until we seize the initiative at Westminster with a Declaration by our elected Representatives i.e. MPs ( not likely to ever be SNP) of the breaches of the Treaty and a final walk out, we will be forever in thrall to the Etonian criminals and their lackeys that have run the UK for centuries.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s