Opinion
Does Scottish gov’t turmoil signal the end of the ‘green’ agenda’s stranglehold on Europe?
Former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
‘Green’ politics is now understood as a campaign for electoral and national suicide. With the coming European elections the writing is on the wall for globalist ‘progressives’ across the continent.
The First Minister of Scotland, Humza Yousaf, quit on live television on April 29, following the collapse of his left/Green Party coalition government. A power sharing agreement between his bizarrely named Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Greens was broken over the SNP’s retreat on Net Zero commitments.
Despite his camera savvy assertions, Yousaf’s departure has nothing to do with either duty or principle, which he stressed in the speech announcing his resignation. It is the result of a feared public backlash against higher taxes, over-regulation, and the madness of progressive “green” policies which prefigures a European political realignment.
READ: Net Zero’s days are numbered? Why Europeans are souring on the climate agenda
Yousaf’s coalition with the Greens fell apart because his SNP had recognized that the extreme Net Zero agenda was unrealistic, and could deliver only electoral suicide. The SNP under Yousaf had abandoned its “decarbonization targets” in early April, with Green co-leaders Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie describing Yousaf’s attempts to ditch extremely unpopular policies as “an act of political cowardice” and a “betrayal.”
As a result, the Greens withdrew support from the SNP, which fell one seat short of a majority in 2021. A new deal with a new leader is unlikely, and the chaos spells doom for the SNP with an election coming this year. The SNP remains in power – for the time being – albeit in a minority government.
Wider lessons for globalist ‘greens’
The lesson from Scotland is that the liberal parties of Europe face electoral meltdown. A recent report from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) warned of a “sharp right turn” following EU elections in June:
Inside the European Parliament, a populist right coalition of Christian democrats, conservatives, and radical right MEPs could emerge with a majority for the first time.
The future spells doom for the doomsayers, it seems, with the globalist agenda under severe threat. The existence of the globalist EU itself may be threatened, with Unherd saying in December that this decade may be the EU’s last.
The ECFR report continued:
This ‘sharp right turn’ is likely to have significant consequences for European-level policies, which will affect the foreign policy choices that the EU can make, particularly on environmental issues, where the new majority is likely to oppose ambitious EU action to tackle climate change.
The attempt of the SNP to avoid electoral oblivion has only made it fall faster. It is an example which will be nervously observed from the once-dominant power in Europe.
Germany next?
The SNP’s partnership in power with the “green” zealots mirrors that of the government of Europe’s former economic and industrial powerhouse, Germany.
The crisis-hit Scholz administration relies on the support of a Green party whose policies have not only devastated the economy with deindustrialization, lockdown debt, and soaring energy prices, but have also, as in Scotland, advanced a raft of extremist “progressive” issues, such as the promotion of the “trans” movement, opposition to border and immigration control, with both Green parties pursuing policies strongly resented by the public.
Scotland’s Greens sought to ban wood-burning stoves, and Germany’s Greens were met with similar outrage with their decision to ban gas-fired central heating, and mandate the use of heat pumps. Yet the money for the subsidies required has run out – as “green” policies have helped to destroy the economy.
The Greens succeeded in closing the last of Germany’s nuclear power stations in August 2023, but the policy of replacing home heating which works with an expensive alternative that does not, was met with widespread opposition.
As a result, it is not just heat pump sales that have plummeted in Germany, but the sales pitch of the international “green” lobby.
Faced with defeat in the European elections, which the ECFR blames on “national parties start[ing] to respond to the changing opinions of their voters,” many parties of the liberal establishment are rowing back on Net Zero commitments – as well as on other issues beloved of the shock-haired shock troops of “progress.”
The face of globalist progressives
The co-leader of the Scottish Greens is Patrick Harvie, whose social media accounts notify readers that his pronouns are he/him.

The causes he supports are an object lesson in how Net Zero is not the only crazy agenda aggressively pushed by the Greens, whose policy platform is increasingly seen as electorally toxic. He is a self-described member of the so-called “LGBTQ+ community,” identifying as “bisexual.”
Like many progressive fanatics, he strongly supports the futile and avoidable destruction of the population and nation of Ukraine.
Here he is in 2020, championing the prescription of hormones and surgery to sexualized children as “trans healthcare.”
I wish I could say it was shocking that an MSP today called on the First Minister to instruct the NHS to withdraw trans healthcare from young people.
Trans healthcare already suffers from unacceptably long waits, even for referral. Greens will continue to push for improvement. https://t.co/9iXwQ8zmUz
— Patrick Harvie 🇪🇺🌈 (@patrickharvie) December 10, 2020
Naturally, he repeatedly describes Christians with disdain, labelling the Christian Institute as a “hate group.” The institute “campaigns for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.”
The NSS recently agreed that after his latest outburst the racist historian David Starkey had to be removed as an Honorary Associate. They accepted that his racism was a red line. Why should homophobia, transphobia and misogyny be treated any differently?
— Patrick Harvie 🇪🇺🌈 (@patrickharvie) July 31, 2020
As Britain’s Telegraph reported, explaining the background to the collapse of Yousaf’s SNP-Green coalition:
Harvie’s determination to indulge his permanently-angry purple-haired activists even at the expense of the Scottish Government’s credibility was probably the last straw for many senior SNP ministers, if not for Yousaf himself.
Harvie is a strong advocate of abortion. He and his party describe the reminder that the lives of unborn children have value as “misinformation and intimidation,” as they seek to afford “dignity and privacy” to women killing their children, “as they are at every other medical procedure.”
SPUC, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, pointed out that the measure to legally enforce “buffer zones” around abortion facilities was “opposed by 70 percent” of the Scottish public.
The Greens in Scotland, as in Germany, vehemently oppose any attempt to control mass migration – however weak and belated.
The Greens have also refused to alter their stance on the now discredited notion of “gender affirming care” for children.
Against scientific advice, the Greens prefer to support the views of the “trans community,” saying “lived experience” is a better guide to reality than the clinical evidence that prescribing hormones and surgery to confused children is wrong, and causes irreversible harm.
The U.K.’s Cass Review, published in mid-April, cited a lack of “evidence based guidelines,” noting that pro-transgender organizations such as WPATH had exerted considerable influence in the adoption of the Dutch Pathway – a template which resulted in rapid access to hormones and surgery including for children.
Cass said in her introduction, “Although some think the clinical approach should be based on a social justice model, the NHS works in an evidence-based way.”
The rejection of the fast track to “puberty blockers” mirrors a similar preference for evidence-based decisions in Western electorates.
The Godless, nation-wrecking policies of national suicide have produced enough evidence of the motives, methods, and monumental disaster of the globalist Green agenda. It is anti-natalist, pro-open borders, anti-family, and seeks to promote the sexual distortion of the lives of what few children we still have. In a final irony, is also destroying the economic prosperity on whose subsidies it relies for its own survival.
Happily, “green” politics is now understood as a campaign for electoral as well as national suicide. This realization has spelled the end of the appalling Scottish coalition government, and with the coming European elections the writing is on the wall for globalist “progressives” across the continent.
Humza Yousaf’s left/Green government was just the first Green-backed coalition which has ended in disaster. It will not be the last. For the reality based community, the best news is yet to come.
Daily Caller
Tech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Billionaire Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, announced Monday that they will give 25 million American children a $250 deposit as an initial boost to President Donald Trump’s new investment program for children.
The Dells’ pledge totals $6.25 billion and will be routed through the Treasury Department. The goal, they say, is to extend access to the federal Invest America program — referred to as “Trump accounts” — established by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by the president in July.
The federal program guarantees a $1,000 federally funded account for every child born from 2025 through 2028, but the Dells’ money will instead cover children 10 years old and younger in ZIP codes where the median household income is under $150,000, according to Bloomberg.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“What inspired us most was the chance to expand this opportunity to even more children,” the Dells wrote in the press release. “We believe this effort will expand opportunity, strengthen communities, and help more children take ownership of their future.” (RELATED: Trump Media Company To Create Investment Funds With Only ‘America First’ Companies)
Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Technologies with a net worth of about $148 billion, has been one of the most visible corporate leaders championing the Trump accounts. In June, he joined Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, and others at a White House roundtable promoting the initiative.
In addition to the new $6.25 billion pledge, Dell Technologies committed to matching the government’s $1,000 contribution for the children of its employees. Other companies, such as Charter Communications, Uber, and Goldman Sachs, have said they are willing to match the government’s contributions when the accounts launch.
“This is not just about what one couple or one foundation or one company can do,” the couple wrote. “It is about what becomes possible when families, employers, philanthropists, and communities all join together to create something transformative.”
Starting July 4, 2026, parents will be able to open one of the accounts and contribute up to $5,000 a year. Employers can put in $2,500 annually without it counting as taxable income.
The money must be invested in low-cost, diversified index funds, and withdrawals are restricted until the child turns 18, when the funds can be used for college, a home down payment, or starting a business. Investment gains inside the account grow tax-free, and taxes are owed only when the money is eventually withdrawn.
The accounts will “afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning,” according to the Trump administration.
The broader effort was originally spearheaded in 2023 by venture capitalist Brad Gerstner, who launched the nonprofit behind the Invest America concept.
“Starting 2026 & forevermore, every child will directly share in the upside of America! Huge gratitude to Michael & Susan for showing us all what is possible when we come together!” Gerstner wrote on X.
Business
Ottawa’s gun ‘buyback’ program will cost billions—and for no good reason
From the Fraser Institute
By Gary Mauser
The government told Cape Bretoners they had two weeks to surrender their firearms to qualify for reimbursement or “buyback.” The pilot project netted a grand total of 22 firearms.
Five years after then-prime minister Justin Trudeau banned more than 100,000 types of so-called “assault-style firearms,” the federal government recently made the first attempt to force Canadians to surrender these firearms.
It didn’t go well.
The police chief in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, volunteered to run a pilot “buyback” project, which began last month. The government told Cape Bretoners they had two weeks to surrender their firearms to qualify for reimbursement or “buyback.” The pilot project netted a grand total of 22 firearms.
This failure should surprise no one. Back in 2018, a survey of “stakeholders” warned the government that firearms owners wouldn’t support such a gun ban. According to Prime Minister Carney’s own Privy Council Office the “program faces a risk of non-compliance.” And federal Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree was recently recorded admitting that the “buyback” is a partisan maneuver, and if it were up to him, he’d scrap it. What’s surprising is Ottawa’s persistence, particularly given the change in the government and the opportunity to discard ineffective policies.
So what’s really going on here?
One thing is for certain—this program is not, and never has been, about public safety. According to a report from the federal Department of Justice, almost all guns used in crimes in Canada, including in big cities such as Toronto, are possessed illegally by criminals, with many smuggled in from the United States. And according to Ontario’s solicitor general, more than 90 per cent of guns used in crimes in the province are illegally imported from the U.S. Obviously, the “buyback” program will have no effect on these guns possessed illegally by criminals.
Moreover, Canadian firearms owners are exceptionally law-abiding and less likely to commit murder than other Canadians. That also should not be surprising. To own a firearm in Canada, you must obtain a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) from the RCMP after initial vetting and daily monitoring for possible criminal activity. Between 2000 and 2020, an average of 12 PAL-holders per year were accused of homicide, out of approximately two million PAL-holders. During that same 10-year period, the PAL-holder firearms homicide rate was 0.63 (per 100,000 PAL-holders) compared to 0.72 (per 100,000 adult Canadians)—that’s 14 per cent higher than the rate for PAL-holders.
In other words, neither the so-called “assault-style firearms” nor their owners pose a threat to the public.
And the government’s own actions belie its claims. If these firearms are such a threat to Canadians, why slow-roll the “buyback” program? If inaction increased the likelihood of criminality by law-abiding firearms owners, why wait five years before launching a pilot program in a small community such as Cape Breton? And why continue to extend the amnesty period for another year, which the government did last month at the same time its pilot project netted a mere 22 firearms?
To ask those questions is to answer them.
Another question—how much will the “buyback” program cost taxpayers?
The government continues to block any attempt to disclose the full financial costs (although the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has launched a lawsuit to try to force the government to honour its Access to Information Act request). But back in 2020 the Trudeau government said it would cost $200 million to compensate firearms owners (although the Parliamentary Budget Officer said compensation costs could reach $756 million). By 2024, the program had spent $67.2 million—remember, that’s before it collected a single gun. The government recently said the program’s administrative costs (safe storage, destruction of hundreds of thousands of firearms, etc.) would reach an estimated $1.8 billion. And according to Carney’s first budget released in November, his government will spend $364 million on the program this fiscal year—at a time of massive federal deficits and debt.
This is reminiscent of the Chretien government’s gun registry fiasco, which wound up costing more than $2 billion even after then-justice minister Allan Rock promised the registry program would “almost break even” after an $85 million initial cost. The Harper government finally scrapped the registry in 2012.
As the Carney government clings to the policies of its predecessor, Canadians should understand the true nature of Ottawa’s gun “buyback” program and its costs.
-
COVID-192 days agoThe dangers of mRNA vaccines explained by Dr. John Campbell
-
Alberta2 days agoKeynote address of Premier Danielle Smith at 2025 UCP AGM
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago‘Trouble in Toyland’ report sounds alarm on AI toys
-
National1 day agoMedia bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
-
Energy1 day agoCanadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project
-
Bruce Dowbiggin23 hours agoSometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTom Homan Predicts Deportation Of Most Third World Migrants Over Risks From Screening Docs
-
Alberta23 hours agoNew era of police accountability


