The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Gambit

Posted on December 05, 2016 by

Unionists got very excited last week about a YouGov poll for the Times which showed that not only had the post-Brexit bump in support for independence been undone, but that it was now (fractionally) below the level recorded in the indyref for the first time since the September 2014 vote.

(It was a slightly curious poll, with a massively disproportionate number – over 27% – of its respondents born outside Scotland, mostly from the rest of the UK, but it was weighted so that shouldn’t have been much of a factor. It also found majority support for a second EU referendum, despite a 30-point margin for Remain, but opposition to a second indyref despite the margin for the Union being just 12 points.)

horses

Nevertheless, given that nothing’s happened since the end of June that ought to have damaged the case for Yes (the oil price is currently at a 12-month high, for example, almost twice what it was in January), the 10% drop in support is a troubling one for the independence movement.

But it shouldn’t be. Because what the poll shows is that there is currently a majority of people in Scotland prepared to vote for independence.

Now, just bear with us for a moment. Obviously that seems counter-intuitive, because only 44% say they’d vote for it tomorrow. But among the 56% who say they wouldn’t are a substantial number who as recently as 2014 actually did vote for independence.

And crucially, when they did that they were voting for a vision of independence that was expressly premised on Scotland remaining in the EU.

wpeu

So we know that within the last two years, a majority of Scots have been willing to vote for independence, just (usually) not all at once. But polls have consistently found that around 12% of people have switched in each direction since the indyref, leaving the final total unchanged.

The reason given in the majority of cases is the Brexit vote – a substantial number of Unionist Remain voters are horrified at the prospect of leaving the EU and willing to back independence to keep Scotland in, but they’ve been balanced by Yes Leavers feeling they’d rather throw in their lot with the UK if it gets them out of Europe.

Readers will recall that this site is something very close to agnostic on the subject of the EU. There are positives and negatives to being part of the trading bloc. But the position of the Yes Leavers who’ve switched to No is a pretty bewildering one. In an interview in this month’s issue of iScot magazine, the strikingly handsome editor of an exceptionally popular pro-independence website (cough) said:

“I have to try quite hard to not get snappy at Yes Leavers, not because I disrespect their views on the EU – I’m almost 50/50 on it – but because it’s such an idiotic assessment of priorities.

The EU has very little (negative) effect on the day-to-day lives of most people, whereas Tory rule from Westminster is a very real rolling 24-7 catastrophe that impacts on nearly everyone nearly all the time, and we need to do something about that right now before the country’s left in completely irretrievable ruin.”

But if we’ve learned anything from the Brexit vote and then the election of Donald Trump as US President (and it’s not at all clear that we have), it’s that it’s no good just yelling that at people and telling them they’re stupid or racist if they don’t agree with you. So how do we solve the problem?

We’re increasingly coming to the view that the answer is for the SNP to commit to a second EU referendum in the event of Scotland becoming independent.

refgeneric

Now, we can hear a lot of people sighing already. FOUR national referendums in the space of about five years (we’re not including the AV one, which nobody cared about) would be an awful lot of democracy and an awful lot of campaigning.

But we can see no other way to cut the Gordian knot of the electorate coming to decisions that contradict each other. Scots currently want to stay in both the UK and the EU, and that simply isn’t possible, no matter how many semantic contortions Unionists try to hide behind about “Scotland” not existing in the context of the EUref.

(There is of course a rather sour argument that if Scots were dumb enough to choose to effectively hand control of their affairs back to England then they’ve got no business whining when England does stuff they hate – indeed that basically IS the argument of the Unionist parties in Scotland, when you boil it down – but we wouldn’t like to be the people making that argument.)

It’s not an easy solution either. The timing and the nature of the question/s would be open to debate, and the politics would be delicate. The EU might not react kindly, for example, to an independent Scotland negotiating its continued membership while it was under the cloud of another referendum.

But mostly the problems are soluble. Everyone knows the arguments backwards by now, so the campaigns could be short. A second indyref in the spring of 2019 could, if successful, be swiftly followed by a Scottish EUref in the autumn.

(You can’t just have a single one with two questions, because if you get a No/Remain result you’re right back where you started.)

Referendums aren’t expensive – £15.8m is loose change in government expenditure – and going to the polling booth again isn’t too onerous a chore to ask of voters when it’s to settle the constitutional debate once and for all this time. (Because however the results went, there really wouldn’t be any legitimate grounds for another referendum on either subject for the imaginable future.)

sitfence

It’s not credible (and not politically sustainable in the long term) to let the fundamental contradiction created by the indyref and EUref simply go unaddressed. But it’s also no good mocking Unionists for being terrified of a second indyref – which they are – if you’re not prepared to apply the same principle to Remainers.

Pro-Europeans could offer the Scottish EUref in confidence of winning, with every party in the Scottish Parliament on their side. Leavers, on the other hand, could accept it on the basis that 38% is a strong starting point to have a fighting chance. And everyone would have the advantage by 2019 of having seen how the UK’s Brexit negotiations had turned out.

The bottom line is that the Venn diagram of support for independence and support for the EU is a horrible tangled mess, and there’s only one acceptable democratic way of sorting it out. If we don’t, then we’re all going to be condemned to arguing bitterly about the constitution for the rest of our lives, something we’re pretty sure nobody – Unionist or nationalist, Remainer or Leaver – really wants.

– if Scotland votes No in a second indyref, knowing for certain in advance that doing so means leaving the EU, there are no grounds for complaint. It’s pretty much impossible to imagine a bigger material change than Brexit. If we can’t win it then, we’re never going to win it.

– if it votes for independence, and then votes to stay in the EU, the Leavers will have been given a fair chance to get their way and will have lost. They’ll be free to keep campaigning, of course, but from so far on the fringes that the debate will be to all intents and purposes over. (Who would be their party, for a start?)

– and if Scotland votes Yes then Leave, then that too will be the unarguable will of the people. By then it’ll be far clearer what Leave means than it was in the UK’s EU referendum, and if voters choose it anyway then so be it.

It’s time for everyone to back their horses and get the race over with.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 05 12 16 12:32

    Why? – Towards Indyref2…
    Ignored

582 to “The Gambit”

  1. Socrates MacSporran
    Ignored
    says:

    Much much too-sensible an argument Rev. The public will never go for it, particularly the UKOK faction.

  2. Not Convinced
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s definitely something to what you suggest, though as you you say the EU might be less then thrilled about it!

    However it would be nice, it we went first that route, if the Leave campaign had a definite end-state in mind which they had campaigned on. (The so-called “Norway option” might suit an independent Scotland, and might be a compromise that could win?)

  3. Holebender
    Ignored
    says:

    A referendum needs to be about a single issue or it will never truly address people’s opinions on the issues. I have been saying for years that we needs several referendums to settle the country’s will on independence, EU membership, monarchy, NATO membership, etc. I therefore agree with Stu’s position.

    For those of a more statistical bent, it’s all down to probability theory. If x% of a population like proposition a and y% of the same population like proposition b the percentage who like both propositions will be x multiplied by y. So let’s say 70% back independence and 70% back EU membership, the number who will back independence and EU membership will be 49% (0.7 x 0.7) and the proposition will lose! That’s why it’s a mug’s game to tie any propositions together in a referendum.

    One issue at a time is the only way to truly gauge opinion, and the only way to win.

  4. CameronB Brodie
    Ignored
    says:

    The position of the Yes Leavers who’ve switched to No is a bewildering one, times infinity plus one.

    I’m no fan of he present EU but it is a club of independent nations. There also appears to be an effective democratic process and mechanisms for leaving, so what the bother?

    There is no sustainable future for Scotland governed by London. Scotland must become independent if Scottish culture is to remain intact. Cultural diversity and integrity are considered essential components of sustainable national development strategies.

    Policy driven by a heightened culturalism does not require closed borders or an attitude of isolationism. That require a particular outlook more commonly found elsewhere.

  5. mogabee
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m perfectly content going for that scenario. In fact, I can’t think how anyone could argue against it…

    …Except for the but, but, but’s and they have no answer! 🙂

  6. Johnny
    Ignored
    says:

    Yes, agree with this article. This is the correct way to go about things because a) whether unionists accept it or not, there has been a material change since indyref and we should be consulted on whether we accept it (the evidence being that we might not, since Scotland voted remain and b) it’s correct to start off on a democratic footing by asking again what Scots think of the EU if we voted Yes, which would be another material change that may have some bearing on how some people would vote in any EURef 2.

  7. Sue Varley
    Ignored
    says:

    Up to a point, I agree with this, but I see two problems:

    1) If we went with the timing you outline (EUref whilst still negotiating terms of membership) we would not know what EU deal we were voting for;

    2) We would need to have a very clearly spelled out, enforceable definition of what a vote to leave the EU would mean.

    We might have to have a three-option ballot (EU membership, EEA membership, Brexit-like guddle with ad-hoc deals for different sectors). I don’t like this idea at all, but then I suppose better brains than mine could work out a clear, decisive question that could avoid all confusion?

  8. Andy MacNicol
    Ignored
    says:

    This is what I have been saying since June. The EU referendum was about the UK leaving or staying. We need Independence first, then argue the points in favour and against EU membership for Scotland.

  9. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    A good plan for an essentially two dimensional problem – membership of two Unions, four possible outcomes. Reducing it to a single two option vote ignores the views of a lot of people.

    So yes, I’m for it. A straight vote on Indy from the UK with no preconceptions about the EU. Then a second vote on iScotland’s relationship with the EU.

    A vote on whether the UK should be in the EU is a quite different thing from deciding whether iScotland should be in.

    Puzzled about the timing in relation to the UK’s Brexit timetable. The plan, as set out by The Rev implies IndyRef2 after the Brexit date. I assume that to be March 2019, two years from A50. It does therefore imply leaving the EU, then voting to rejoin.

    It does however, have the massive advantage of us knowing exactly what Brexit is at the time of IndyRef2. That should result in a firm Yes, I have little doubt. Add to that a promise of an iScottish EU vote and the overall outcome becomes even more positive,

  10. Grouse Beater
    Ignored
    says:

    Good piece as usual, excellent analysis based on statistics, but couldn’t disagree more about loss of EU membership having ‘very little negative effect on people’s day to day lives’, a statement too glib to overlook.

    The repercussions from the rise of fascist groups and attitudes together with Trump creating a cabinet of war mongers – each disliking a unified Europe – is horrendous to contemplate. And that doesn’t take into account ‘Brits’ treated as aliens every time we step on European soil, or the loss of co-operation in all walks of life.

    Westminster’s idea of the UK always sitting at the top table will have us eating grass from a stool.

  11. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    Timing is Key

    It all depends when we achieve independence, that we will is a forgone conclusion to even the most impartial observer.

    If we have the independence referendum prior to actually leaving with the UK then we in every probability would get continuing membership, then given the vote to remain was so high there is no reason to put it to the vote again so soon.

    Once we leave its a case of fast track, or debate individual agreements like CAP. In that case it should go to the vote.

    Final, once we get brexit hard, and we will, then the economic damage to Scotland will result in a overwhelming clear majority for independence, think Thatcher, poll tax, and de-industrialisation on acid!

    Timing is everything, looks like end 2017 early 2018 for indeyref 2.

  12. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “We would need to have a very clearly spelled out, enforceable definition of what a vote to leave the EU would mean.”

    I address this by pointing out that by then we’d know what the UK’s Brexit looked like, which is about as much as you can ever know about anything in advance of negotiations.

  13. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Timing is everything, looks like end 2017 early 2018 for indeyref 2.”

    Not a hope in hell.

  14. Lollysmum
    Ignored
    says:

    Sorry for O/T
    Proceedings of the Supreme Court live

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

  15. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “couldn’t disagree more about loss of EU membership having ‘very little negative effect on people’s day to day lives’”

    That’s the opposite of what I said. I said the EU has very little negative effect on people’s day-to-day lives, meaning being in it. It’s a bit annoying when you can’t buy a sufficiently powerful lightbulb or vacuum cleaner, but unless you’re a fisherman that’s about it.

  16. alba
    Ignored
    says:

    Not often, to the point that this might be a first time, I disagree. I believe in the EU dream insofar as it’s the biggest source of humanitarian aid relief & have no doubt its prevented European countries from tearing each others throat out. But in practice I admit that it sucks eg Greece.

    So for someone who held there nose and voted simply to piss off London, the thought of going through it again is unappealing. For despite any economic arguments. next time round I know it would invariably be based on simply trying to piss of racists.
    Now if you had said that the SNP should reaffirm Scottish sovereignty; mechanisms would be implemented whereby ‘popular’ topics would be debated and, if sought, a referendum held; and that no subject would be deemed too much, then ‘hell yeah!’

    Instead of ‘Vote for independence and there will be another EU referendum’, I would rather see ‘Vote for independence and there can be another referendum on anything YOU want; NATO membership, EU membership, second senate and constitution, republicanism, copyright infringement, drug penalties….anything. First control, then direction.

  17. louis.b.argyll
    Ignored
    says:

    A gambit indeed..but..
    Are you, Stu, calling for an early, pre-brexit-trigger announcement of scotref2?

    Before UK negotiations are complete?

    False hopes (AND BACKROOM DEALS) could be made by UK ministers (backed up by their establishment counterparts in ie, Spain etc) to give ProjectFear2 ammunition.

    Smaller/poorer EU members could be ‘bribed’ by UK MINISTERS..to threaten ‘blocking’ Scotland EU succession.

    But waiting too long..will allow Brexit damage to be fudged by deflecting the reality of no growth with new devolution of fisheries and farming etc.

    Personally, I’d wait..until England’s bubble of self importance bursts.

  18. Mike Lothian
    Ignored
    says:

    Couldn’t they have two questions on the ballot

    1) Should Scotland be an independent country

    2) Should an independent Scotland seek to remain a member of or join the EU?

  19. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    Personally I think there is a good chance that that is probably the SG’s plan. But they can’t say that now. If that IS their thinking then they would probably be better, in the long term, to come clean about such a plan. It would be fairer to everyone, including our European friends, that they do so.

    And what happens if a second EU ref is held (in Indy Scotland) and Nicola loses? Does she resign like Cameron did?

  20. CameronB Brodie
    Ignored
    says:

    galamcennalath
    I would have hoped our EU club privileges would be kept warm for us, ready to hand back if we chose to re-join.

    —-

    I definitely see independence and EU membership as distinct of each other. I also think it essential for Scotland to be independent before considering what style of independence we feel comfortable with (NATO, etc.). Independence enables Scotland to direct policy towards the best possible outcome. This is not possible within the UK, where the economy of the south east is overheated and Westminster defines ‘national’ interest.

    I know the world looks exciting and we’ve been kept in for a very long time, but lets make sure our laces are tied before we go running off into the sunshine.

  21. liz
    Ignored
    says:

    I think this is the sensible way to go.

    I also think that’s why we have had the National Survey.
    The SG just have to provide the option in say 5/6 years post indy.

    Have also been conversing with some/few Yes who are very unhappy about EU membership and it is about immigration.
    They have def been brainwashed by the Mail & Express

  22. Fred
    Ignored
    says:

    The big picture is to escape Westminster’s clutches then a negotiated settlement with the EU which might or might not involve a referendum after a suck it n see period. Mebbes best not to appear too desperate! 🙂

  23. CameronB Brodie
    Ignored
    says:

    I would have hoped our EU club privileges would be kept warm for us, ready to hand back if we chose to re-join voted for independence..

  24. DaveB
    Ignored
    says:

    I can see a lot of sense in this although also foresee certain parties (i.e. all the unionist ones…) really going off the deep end if the SNP say they are holding an independence referendum due to Brexit and then proceed to announce that they are going to hold an EU referendum straight after should we vote for independence.

    What might be a better option is to frame the EU referendum as a way to accept the membership deal we get from the EU, whether that is as continuing state from the UK, a new bespoke deal or something else all together. That way it keeps the anti EU folk happy with it not being an automatic entry in, keeps the pro EU folk happy that they have a chance to stay in and should be a perfectly suitable point for the EU to accept as well.

  25. peekay
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ve long held the belief that upon an indy yes vote there should be a snap referendum of EU, Nato, monarchy and any other of the assorted ‘memberships’. It could all be done’n’dusted in a single day and starts everything out on an even keel!

  26. Sue Varley
    Ignored
    says:

    ” “We would need to have a very clearly spelled out, enforceable definition of what a vote to leave the EU would mean.”

    I address this by pointing out that by then we’d know what the UK’s Brexit looked like, which is about as much as you can ever know about anything in advance of negotiations. ”

    I don’t think we would know that for sure – particularly with respect to EEA – at the moment we are being signalled that Scotland would be a welcome member whereas UK would not. Also, if it came to an exit for Scotland, I think our negotiators would do a far better deal for Scotland than the three brexiteers are doing for the UK, and without needlessly aggravating the other 27 members.

  27. tartanfever
    Ignored
    says:

    I think the Brexit argument has not been capitalised on enough by the Yes movement and it’s media, and the polling reflects that. There are countless blogs from people south of the border and in Europe that daily put out great content on the mess of Brexit and those arguments are not discussed up here.

    The unionist media has played a blinder – the discussions here are the same as 2014 – ‘black hole’, ‘oil price’ etc etc, they haven’t moved on, and nor will they be allowed to.

    The next referendum will see an increased grass roots ‘No’ movement, the Yes movement will not be allowed to dominate as it did in 2014.

    It’s been said so many times, but if the SNP/Yes movement don’t change tactics, especially with the BBC, adopting a harder, less consensual approach then they will continue to be an easy target.

    You don’t get into a boxing ring with a bunch of flowers hoping to quell your opponent with symbols of love when they are all geared up ready to beat the living daylights out of you and the crowd are baying for blood.

    Unfortunately that seems to be the way with the SNP’s comms department and frankly if it continues, there will be little point campaigning again.

  28. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Instead of ‘Vote for independence and there will be another EU referendum’, I would rather see ‘Vote for independence and there can be another referendum on anything YOU want; NATO membership, EU membership, second senate and constitution, republicanism, copyright infringement, drug penalties….anything.”

    Um, that’s pretty much implied by independence. I’m not saying all other referendums should be banned.

  29. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Are you, Stu, calling for an early, pre-brexit-trigger announcement of scotref2?”

    I’m calling for indyref2, if and when it happens, to be conducted on an explicit promise to hold an EU referendum in Scotland in the event of a Yes victory.

  30. Iain
    Ignored
    says:

    I have the usual doubts about the YouGov poll – for one thing, no matter the weighting applied, how do you find a sample of the Scottish population with 27% born outside Scotland, when the 2011 census found the percentage to be under 10? We need to see more polls before we can make any judgements.

    Whatever the changes in pace, the course of events is irrevocably in our favour. When political affairs are in a state of flux – as they are – the group with an unwavering and clear objective is at an advantage, and what we have now is flux verging on chaos amongst the unionist parties. The delight which they took in that poll indicates their desperation to believe that enough present supporters of independence can be coaxed to love the UK, or at least give up, to wither the movement to irrelevance. Given the serious consideration required by so many to acquire the conviction that Scotland should be independent, that mass apostasy not going to happen and, as it was the older generation which provided the ‘No’ victory in the 2014 referendum, time is on our side. We keep snapping at the Union’s heels, tripping it up, jamming sticks in its spokes, poking it in the eye, testing its strength, interfering, straining its resolve, making it work, work, work to justify its existence – for as long as it takes.

  31. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “I don’t think we would know that for sure”

    You can’t ever know the future for sure.

  32. Thepnr
    Ignored
    says:

    “Now, we can hear a lot of people sighing already. FOUR national referendums in the space of about five years (we’re not including the AV one, which nobody cared about) would be an awful lot of democracy and an awful lot of campaigning.”

    I don’t believe four referendums in five years is too many. The Swiss have a system where changes to the law are subject to the approval of the electorate. In the five years between 2011 and 2016 they have had 55 referendums.

    https://www.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/vab_2_2_4_1.html#

    In total ” More than 550 referendums have occurred since the constitution of 1848 (legislative or constitutional).”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland#Legislative_referendums

    If the road to Independence can be smoothed by offering Yes supporting Leavers another chance then I would be all for a further referendum on the EU specific to Scotland even if it meant losing.

    I want to remain in the EU but other than Independence everything else is small beer to me really.

  33. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Couldn’t they have two questions on the ballot

    1) Should Scotland be an independent country

    2) Should an independent Scotland seek to remain a member of or join the EU?”

    Theoretically that works, I just think you end up with a very messy and voter-confusing campaign. Half the Yes campaigners are campaigning Yes Remain, half are campaigning Yes Leave. Yes campaigners will knock on your door in the afternoon arguing one thing, then more Yes campaigners will knock on your door in the evening arguing something totally different. (And much the same goes for the No campaigners.) People won’t know what the hell’s going on.

  34. louis.b.argyll
    Ignored
    says:

    Mike Lothian, that’s two and a half questions..

  35. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “I don’t believe four referendums in five years is too many. The Swiss have a system where changes to the law are subject to the approval of the electorate. In the five years between 2011 and 2016 they have had 55 referendums.”

    A valid point, but they’re used to it.

  36. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Great read. Just the thought of the nation state of Scotland not being told what to do by planet toryboy, makes the old ticker skip a beat.

    England’s heading off down a very hard core conservative road. The future belongs to UKIP, no matter how hard or soft their Brexit turns out to be. Actually the softer Brexit really is, the better it gets for UKIPers. And the BBC will be with them all the way.

  37. louis.b.argyll
    Ignored
    says:

    Thank you Rev, you said..
    ..I’m calling for indyref2, if and when it happens, to be conducted on an explicit promise to hold an EU referendum in Scotland in the event of a Yes victory..

    Sounds FAIR to me, and shuts up meddling EU establishment figures..jolly good.

  38. Peter A Bell
    Ignored
    says:

    I hear the suggestion that the SNP should “commit to a second EU referendum in the event of Scotland becoming independent” and I immediately deploy that most basic and essential tool of political analysis, the question, “Why?”. Why would the SNP do that?

    They have no mandate for such a commitment. Not only has Scotland just voted on the matter of EU membership, returning a decisive majority for remaining in the EU, but the party has just won two elections on manifestos that explicitly stated a commitment to remaining in the EU. Why would the SNP turn its back on this commitment now? What message would this send to our friends in Europe? What would it say about the party’s respect for the will of the people?

    What the SNP cannot do, of course, is rule out a referendum on EU membership post-independence. It is absolutely implicit in the very concept of independence that it involves the power to freely negotiate the terms on which Scotland associates with other nations. Just as it is absolutely implicit in the concept of democracy that the people are the ultimate arbiters of those terms.

    But it is not for the SNP, or any other party, to impose a referendum on the people. The way it works is that people must first campaign to win support for the holding of a referendum. Only once a significant level of public demand has been convincingly established does it become necessary for the government to respond to that demand.

    The onus is on the Leavers to establish a persuasive case that another vote on EU membership is justified. It is not for the SNP, or any other party, to simply assume that the case has been made. Especially when there is such abundant solid evidence to the contrary in the form of recent polls.

    That campaign for a referendum on Scotland’s membership of the EU can only sensibly take place in the context of an already independent Scotland where all decisions are ultimately a matter for the people of Scotland and where there can be no direct interference from the British state. We cannot have that campaign now, when it would necessarily involve British political parties which won’t even exist post-independence.

    Why would we allow parties that are avowedly committed to denying Scotland’s independence (and even our right of self-determination) be part of a process that is relevant only to an independent Scotland?

    Rather than pandering to the foolishness of individuals making a vote for independence conditional on something that can only be decided after independence, we would be better occupied challenging such folly.

    Why would the SNP commit to a referendum on EU membership after independence? Why would the SNP allow itself to be herded by UKIP in the way that Cameron’s Tories were? Why would we allow the issue of EU membership to muddy the waters of the coming #indyref2 campaign when that matter has been decisively dealt with already?

    The bottom line is that Yes/Leavers must make up their minds NOW whether they want decisions relating to such issues made in Scotland and by Scotland, or whether they want to join with British nationalists in handing that power to the Westminster elite – to do with as they please.

  39. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t know if I can take so much common sense at one sitting. I’m not used it in one place and all at the same time like that.

  40. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    It would be a disastrous step to combine considerations of anything else with an independence referendum, since it simply opens up infinite possibilities for futile nit-picking and fissure. A field day for Unionist smokescreens and distractions that would inevitable sink indy. We should not forget the success of the EU Leave campaign in keeping the focus sharp: “bring back control”.

    It is difficult to understand the position of “Yes-Leavers”, not all of whom BTW are necessarily what they publicly claim to be. Not only for the very obvious reason that Stu mentions, that WM control is considerably more oppressive upon us (Trident, foreign wars, etc.) than the light touch of the EU but also because the result of the recent EUref in Scotland was so (truly) decisive.

    It seems to me the height of hypocrisy to claim to be a democratic supporter of independence but beg the imperial master in England to impose upon Scotland a decision to which the country is firmly opposed, before they can feel free again to proceed!

    A pathetic and self-defeating echo of St. Augustine: “Let me have independence, Oh Lord, but not yet”.

    Such an argument would be prime fodder for Unionist derision in a future indyref, a great crack in the independence side that they could and would ruthlessly exploit.

    A promise to have another visit of the EU question immediate upon inependence would also fatally undermine the precious support that we are currently receiving from the EU, who can protect us from any threats of revenge from a spurned rUK.

    However, the future direction of the EU itself is to some extent uncertain. It would also take at least a year or two for an independent Scotland to “find its feet”, at which time any other consideration would be an unwelcome distraction. We need a degree of stability first before being able to properly and fairly attend to wider matters.

    So a reasonable compromise might be to offer the prospect of a Scotland-only EU referendum within a period of 5-8 years after independence. This would give time for everyone to judge how the EU itself is reacting to widespread public concerns about neo-liberal policies, and equally to weigh-up how the fully-detached England+ has been faring.

  41. Hoss Mackintosh
    Ignored
    says:

    Nice analysis, Rev Stu.

    Indy First then we decide on EU membership – but not at the same time!

    Simples.

    You have finally managed to square the Venn diagram circles – or something like that…

  42. JohnG
    Ignored
    says:

    I voted Yes and Remain. But I am trying to look at this from the point of view of a Yes voter who voted to Leave. The Yes/Leave voter must weigh up what they feel more strongly about. If their prime motivation to vote Yes was because they believed independence would mean Scotland would be prevented from staying in or rejoining the EU by countries like Spain, then surely they would not go for an independence referendum followed by another EU referendum. The fact is Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and so the Yes/Leave voter would surely not fancy their chances of an Independent Scotland voting to leave the EU. They probably think that to ensure Scotland leaves the EU they have a better chance of achieving that by voting no to independence.

  43. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Why would the SNP do that?”

    To win.

  44. Clootie
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree fully that the comparison of Westminster impact on our daily live and that of the EU should make the vote for Independence a “no brainer”

    I also think that people have forgotten the benefits of the EU denied us by Westminster. Instead of the designed targeting of funds to Scotland the Westminster government argued for a refund on the block grant in order to keep more money in England.

  45. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    The Telegraph today threatening the Supreme Court, tell them not to defy the Brexit vote: so much for the rule of law and UK Courts making legal decisions for the UK.

    Then the Times claiming EU chaos when Italian PM resigns but in reality the Italian Referendum wasn’t about being in the EU, and Italian support for the EU is still a solid majority. (Support for the EU in Europe has gone up since Brexit).

  46. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Such an argument would be prime fodder for Unionist derision in a future indyref, a great crack in the independence side that they could and would ruthlessly exploit.”

    No, that’s the whole point of separating the two things.

    “So a reasonable compromise might be to offer the prospect of a Scotland-only EU referendum within a period of 5-8 years after independence.”

    The problem with that is that it’s more than a Parliamentary term, so the government that made the promise could be out of office by the time it came to keep it, and no government can bind the hands of its successor. You could say 1-2 years, assuming we’re talking about indyref2 being in spring 2019, but no more.

  47. CameronB Brodie
    Ignored
    says:

    liz
    Folk have all sorts of reservations over the EU but I’ve always accepted there are small minded little Scotlanders in the movement Liz. Fear, intolerance and racism are all elements of the human condition. I wouldn’t know what to do other than suggest they read a bit of Znaniecki.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Znaniecki

    I think you are correct though, that this is largely an effect of right-wing bias in the media. It is an outlook that is alien to Scotland’s historically outward looking approach to the world and our cultural identity, our (p)resbyterian inheritance, which has established the principles of inclusive local democracy in to the Scottish psyche. I see this as a national characteristic that will inevitably diminish over time, without our independence.

    Presbyterian and Anglicanism offer different perspectives and have historically shaped very different cultural attitudes, IMHO.

    of inclusive local democracy. .

    Race and Race Theory

    ABSTRACT

    Race has always been a significant sociological theme, from the founding of the field and the formulation of the “classical” theoretical statements to the present. Since the 19th century, sociological perspectives on race have developed and changed, always reflecting shifts in large-scale political processes. In the “classical” period colonialism and biologistic racism held sway. As the 20th century dawned, sociology came to be dominated by US-based figures. Du Bois and the Chicago School presented the first notable challenges to the field’s racist assumptions.

    In the aftermath of WWII, with the destruction of European colonialism, the rise of the civil rights movement, and the surge in migration on a world scale, the sociology of race became a central topic. The field moved towards a more critical, more egalitarian awareness of race, focused particularly on the overcoming of prejudice and discrimination. Although recognition of these problems increased and political reforms made some headway in combating them, racial injustice and inequality were not overcome.

    As the global and domestic politics of race entered a new period of crisis and uncertainty, so too has the field of sociology. To tackle the themes of race and racism once again in the new millennium, sociology must develop more effective racial theory. “Racial formation” approaches can offer a starting-point here. The key tasks will be the formulation of a more adequate comparative historical sociology of race, the development of a deeper understanding of the micro-macro linkages that shape racial issues, and the recognition of the pervasiveness of racial politics in contemporary society. This is a challenging, but also exciting agenda. The field must not shrink from addressing it.

    *paragraph breaks added.

    http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/Race_and_Race_Theory.html

  48. mr thms
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ve just heard the BBC commenter on BBC News refer to the ‘devolved’ governments will be making submissions to the Supreme Court. This is quite clearly incorrect since in Scotland under The Scotland Act 2016 the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are now permanent.

  49. Andrew Coulson
    Ignored
    says:

    …. Or we could drop all this referendum nonsense and get back to good,if old-fashioned,representative parliamentary government.

  50. One_Scot
    Ignored
    says:

    My quick summary on the Supreme Court on Brexit.

    Can’t have Scotland having any leverage, so Government has to win. They don’t care if IndyRef2 is called, because according to the Queen, ‘There are powers at work in this country of which we have no knowledge’, and are therefore confident of a win.

    Don’t you just love being part of a destructively corrupt union.

  51. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    getting out of the eu at any tie going forward would be infinitely easier than getting out of the uk.

    I voted remain, but because i believed if the dice fell in the right order it would precipitate indyref2, and that is what is happening.

    until we get our independence, our opinions and votes count for nothing.

    but once independent, at any time going forward, whether we stay/leave in the eu is a decision we can take at any time.

    opting for the Norway model, which nicola is doing at the moment, is a roll back from the position the u is in at the moment, indeed any leavers suggested this was what the uk position should be, so many of the scottish leavers will be swayed by this position. It is already a sweetner to them.

    a commitment/legal requirement for any future sg for another referendum for any further move towards greater integration in the eu than the norway model to be introduced into scots law

    after a yes vote in indyref2, the sg will need to negotiate a settlement with the uk and the eu, followed by a holyrood election. another referendum and/or the next holyrood election will be seen as a plebicite on the result of those negotiations. It might be wiser to separate the two, somehow,

  52. Peter A Bell
    Ignored
    says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    5 December, 2016 at 12:33 pm
    “Why would the SNP do that?”

    To win.

    Pandering to UKIP didn’t prove to be much of a winning strategy for David Cameron. It isn’t looking like a winning strategy for Theresa May either. Why believe it would be different for the SNP?

    The EU question has to be parked until after independence. We should no more be making it a part of the #indyref2 campaign than we should be rolling the monarchy into the mix.

  53. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    Andrew Coulson,

    I like the idea of representative parliamentary government.

    Only possible, of course in an independent Scotland, free from the starkly obvious unrepresentitive tyranny of Westminster.

  54. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    The SNP/SG are pushing single market / EEA membership. This is primarily because Brexit probably going ahead so their first two options are, keep the UK in the EEA or get a special arrangement for Scotland to retain membership of the EEA. The third option of strategy once the first two fail is IndyRef2.

    None of that says what IndyRef2 will be, beyond achieving independence and getting WM out of the equation. It does not imply (as far as I understand it) that iScotland will be fully in the EU or in the EEA.

    There is a strong possibility the UK will have a hard or dirty Brexit, that of course would provoke IndyRef2. If the UK is totally disconnected from the EU it might be sensible for iScotland to be in the EEA which would allow us to have an open border with iEngland.

    So The Rev’s plan for two votes would seem to be in line with possible SNP/SG plans regarding out relationship with the EU. A second referendum would settle things.

  55. Phil Robertson
    Ignored
    says:

    ” there’s only one acceptable democratic way of sorting it out.”

    The problem with many referendums is that the lack the option to reverse the decision. The Brexit vote, as with a vote for independence, tends to be a one-way valve. Once the dissociation is complete, it is difficult to see how the process could be reversed even if it were the wish of the majority.

    One of the nonsenses of stark yes/no questions such as the EU referendum is that it is almost certainly not the democratic way to settle complicated issues. If there is a referendum it should at the end of the exit process, not at the beginning.

  56. John McCall
    Ignored
    says:

    I think Governments should propose referenda to support a change they wish to make. The Brexit confusion largely stems from the fact that WM Government had no plan for it. They did not support it and did not believe it ws going to happen. (The same appears to have been true for some leading Brexiteers!).
    The Scottish government support independence and staying in Europe and they are trying to build a consensus round that opinion. The political truth is that the two referenda would inevitably become conflated: “if you vote for independence you could still be dragged out of the EU and where would poor wee stupid Scotland be then?” etc.
    It’s much simpler to just argue, “Material change since last time, Scotland supports EU membership, we’ve exhausted every other option but independence to do that, and we have always argued anyway that independence will be good for Scotland. ” That may not be good enough but again it will happen once a fulll WM-led Brexit deal has become clear. As things stand, that looks like WTO rules for everything with a special deal for the City of London with someone else, probably fishermen again, thrown under the bus to achieve that. If we can’t get indy with that, we never will.

  57. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “The EU question has to be parked until after independence. We should no more be making it a part of the #indyref2 campaign than we should be rolling the monarchy into the mix.”

    Um, that’s exactly what I just argued for.

  58. MorvenM
    Ignored
    says:

    I have to say I don’t agree with this.

    Unless we get close to a guarantee that an independent Scotland would be allowed to stay in the EU (and I’m hoping the EU will help with this nearer the time), the No Remainers are not going to switch to Yes. We’ll also antagonise our allies in the EU.

    I’m bothered by the 27% sample, as voters from rUK are surely likely to be more anti EU than the general population in Scotland. I believe YouGov now include 16 and 17 year olds, but do they include EU citizens who live here?

    YouGov seem to pre-select the participants, as they don’t ask screening questions. I’ve been a member for a year and have never been rejected for any survey I’ve attempted to do but, like many others on this site, I’ve never been offered a survey which includes a question on Scottish independence. I think we’re giving too much credence to this poll.

    Until Article 50 is triggered, we won’t start to see the terrible effects that Brexit is going to have on the UK economy and the true weakness of the UK government’s position. I can’t believe that Yes Leavers won’t be influenced by this.

    Independence in Europe has been the SNP’s policy since the 1980s and I can’t see a reason for them to change it now.

  59. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “The political truth is that the two referenda would inevitably become conflated: “if you vote for independence you could still be dragged out of the EU and where would poor wee stupid Scotland be then?” etc.”

    I don’t know if you’ve been watching the news, but Scotland IS currently going to be dragged out of the EU. So that argument would meet with hysterical laughter.

  60. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Independence in Europe has been the SNP’s policy since the 1980s and I can’t see a reason for them to change it now.”

    Nobody’s asking them to. But if they’re willing to put the first one to a vote – rather than just saying “We won the election and that’s a mandate so that’s that” – why not the second one?

    The bottom line is that “independence” and “Europe” are two separate things, as we’ve just had demonstrated in the clearest way possible. Tying them together is a recipe for failure.

  61. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Nice analysis, Rev Stu.

    Indy First then we decide on EU membership – but not at the same time!

    Simples.

    if we win indyref2, then the subsequent holyrood election would be fought over the uk and eu settlement. that would happen anyway. it might be better to separate the issues, that way, the next holyrood election would deal with the uk settlement only. The Norway type deal satisfies nicola’s mandate but it does roll back scotlands position in the eu from where it is now, indeed, norway isnt even technically in the eu. A multi question eu referendum might be an answer

    1. leave the eu altogether
    yes or no
    2 accept the new negotiated norway type status
    yes or no
    3. apply for greater eu integration, eg use the euro
    yes or no

  62. DerekM
    Ignored
    says:

    We will need to hold another EU referendum anyway in an indy Scotland if we intend to write a new Scottish constitution and that will not be the only thing we will have to decide as a people,the real big one in my book is how we are represented through elections at the moment we use a UK system foisted upon us that has to go.

    I think some folks find it hard to grasp that an indy Scotland will not do things like the UK,once we get indy that British UK trash can politics will be history.

    Yea the EU might not be very pleased but hey it will not be for their benefit that we hold an EU referendum it will be for the new independent Scottish constitution they will just have to like it and maybe up their game if they want one of the richest European countries to stay in the club.

    So i say to all you yes anti EU guys lets get indy so we can debate this,talking about it inside the UK is pointless.

  63. Soutron
    Ignored
    says:

    I wonder if Nicola’s been getting her EFTA/EEA ducks in a row as a way of satisfying both sides of the yes movement without the need for a 2nd EU ref?

  64. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Peter A Bell @ 12.24
    Why the SNP should offer another EU referendum?
    Well in my case when I am seeing how difficult it is to get out of that Union (EU)… I am for the first time not sure I would vote remain anymore.
    I liked being an EU citizen and that my kid’s were too.
    It has always came across to me as a Union I would want to be a part of,and that Scotland could have a positive influence within it.
    So that what happened with Greece couldn’t happen again and a bit of input into not winding up other countries,stuff like that.
    But not anymore…you shouldn’t risk your whole economy and be under these threats that the UK needs to be seen to suffer because it’s leaving.
    That’s just plain wrong.
    If they want to go the they should just be able to get on with it.
    I think I would be very wary of joining another Union where it’s very difficult to leave.
    I mean it’s not like we in Scotland don’t know what that’s like.
    Some of the stuff coming out of the EU sounds to me a lot like better together.
    We will know by the time we are Independent what Brexit looks like and are then in the best position possible to make a judgement on Europe.
    I still think it is a good project to be a part of but I would be looking at how much damage getting out would do and my vote is no longer automatic.

  65. John McCall
    Ignored
    says:

    “I don’t know if you’ve been watching the news, but Scotland IS currently going to be dragged out of the EU. So that argument would meet with hysterical laughter.”

    From my limited understanding, the Scottish government would be arguing for independence in order to stay IN the EU. Following that up with a second referendum that could reverse that position, meaning we’d be out of BOTH unions (NOT the current status quo) is illogical. The Scottish Government do not support that and is it is hard to argue from their position that there should be an automatic EU ref.

  66. ArgyllAtheist
    Ignored
    says:

    One particular angle of this that could work and defuse concerns of the EU..

    If the SG could receive some form of agreement from Europe that an Independent Scotland would be placed into an EFTA/EEA “holding position” while the final details of it’s EU membership were being negotiated – things like the number of MEPs, any division of prior treaties and so on…

    Then we de-fang all of the Unionist “you will be out of the EU” arguments. Yes, we would, but as part of a process. It becomes a non-argument.

    Once EU negotiations are completed – second referendum… on whether we agree to the negotiated position, and adopt full EU membership, or whether we remain in an EU/EFTA bucket. A Smart position that keeps the door open for the future.

    In that way, EU naysayers see an exit to an EFTA/EEA position – which would happen, and pro EU voices (such as myself) see a path to full EU membership. Both sides can agree that we would know exactly what we were signing up to, before signing on the line.

  67. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    “Or we could drop all this referendum nonsense and get back to good,if old-fashioned,representative parliamentary government.”

    Problem is WM very rarely ever represents my political views (and those of most people north of the border).

    Historians of the future will look back on these years as the most tumultuous in the history of the UK. It is teetering on the brink for reasons and those reasons stem from WM NOT being representative of the views of most people in Scotland and that WM simply does NOT respect Scotland as an equal signatory partner to the Union. That is simply not a sustainable situation. And I suspect there will be a lot of perplexed yoon faces in January after the SC’s gives its judgement.

    Yes–WM tried to resolve some of these issues with the creation of devolved administrations. That they believed Devolution would help matters was just plain stupid. It was NEVER going to resolve the deep-rooted problems that afflict the UK. WM treats the UK as an incorporating union and it was NEVER thus. Only when they allow that fact into their thick heads might they have any chance of saving their pathetic union.

    Though I doubt it. The traffic is all one way now. Scotland doesn’t just want its independence returned–it NEEDS it returned. The best people to fully take care of Scotland and its affairs are the people closest to it. And that is NOT WM. It is THAT simple.

  68. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    Rev Stu replies:

    No, that’s the whole point of separating the two things.

    But your suggestion is essentially to formally couple them, not separate them.

    …so the government that made the promise could be out of office by the time it came to keep it

    I take the general point, but the prime difficulty with that applies more fundamentally: no government exists prior to an independence referendum to guarantee that promise. There will only be one elected on a manifesto after independence. Which may even be a coalition. So there can be no guarantee given prior to independence that can be enforced in any time period thereafter, whether in 1-2 years or later.

    A period of 1-2 years is far too little time to establish sufficient stability for other considerations to receive the full attention due. We may still be far too preoccupied by more pressing considerations within that time scale.

    Let’s face it, any further referendum can only really come from the realisation that there is genuine public demand for one. All we can do beforehand is declare a willingness to be open to that within a reasonable timescale.

  69. louis.b.argyll
    Ignored
    says:

    Er..no..Scotland didn’t just vote to stay..we voted for the UK to stay- very different.

    As a FULL INDEPENDENT EU MEMBER Scotland will thrive..we have world beating food and drink products which the Europeans crave.

  70. Socrates MacSporran
    Ignored
    says:

    Some discussion in this thread about single-question, or multi-choice referendums.

    Since, by dictionary definition: “a referendum is the process of referring a political question to the electorate for a direct decision by general vote”, we have to consier if a multi-question referendum can work.

    The first referendum question therefore has to be:
    Yes or No to independence?

    Once that is settled, the waters become somewhat muddied; does the government of newly-independent Scotland then ask us: EU or EFTA EEA?, or ought that be two separate single-question referendums?

    I think, while I acknowledge, were the UK Government to insist on this, it would make Indpenedence a lot harder to achieve; referendums should – for the avoidance of prolonged argument – be subject to a set majority being reached, probably two-third in favour.

    Something to think about when we get round to writing the constitution for Independent Scotland.

  71. Joannie
    Ignored
    says:

    @liz g – nobody’s threatening that Britain will have to suffer for leaving, that’s a Brexiter whine which isn’t impressing anyone in the EU. The reality is that when you leave a club you lose the benefits of membership. That in no way means that the EU won’t negotiate a fair trade deal with the UK.

  72. Muscleguy
    Ignored
    says:

    Basing all this on one flawed, as you admit, YouGov poll is rather kneejerk of you Rev. It is by no means clear to me that Yes voting Leavers won’t vote Yes again when it comes down to it.

    We recently chapped the door of just that sort of person. When pressed he averred that when and if it came down to it he would very likely vote Yes again. But we had to press him.

    So I think it is rather premature to be muddying the waters and potentially pissing off our rather more supportive this time European Partners. Also here in Scotland Remain did not just win, it won big AND won in every single part of the Scotland.

    If you concede the right of a revote after a result like that then even if Yes wins 75%-25% (In my dreams!) the Yoons would be justified in constantly revisiting the issue.

    Do you really want to hand them that sword? I know you have promised to move back here if we vote Yes but we already do so you need to be a bit more careful in what you set up as a that.

  73. orri
    Ignored
    says:

    The key result in that poll is that 44% of those who replied after weighing and removing the undecided said they’d still vote Yes.

    Another point is that if the number of Don’t Knows is high enough the result would still be in the balance. Given no one really knows what kind of Brexit is on offer there might be some who can’t weigh up their support of the UK against that of the EU. There might also be some who seriously don’t want Scotland to be part of the EU.

    Then again there might be some who see now that an independent Scotland would be welcomed with reasonably open arms in to the EU post independence and don’t want us tied in to some deal where our membership is so tightly bound into it being a remnant of the UK’s that we’d risk losing it if we became independent.

  74. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    schrodingers cat @ 13:01:

    A multi question eu referendum might be an answer

    Or not. The difficulty is it’s hard enough to get people to focus on the real issue behind even a single-question referendum. People vote for all sorts of disconnected reasons. That is really the justification behind the fair point that Andrew Coulson made.

    A multi-question referendum multiplies that difficulty manyfold to the point where really no coherent decision is being taken at all.

  75. Muscleguy
    Ignored
    says:

    Not to mention that last time whenever I met a Eurosceptic Yes or DK my reply was always that I would support their right to campaign for an EU referendum after Independence but let’s get a Yes first I NEVER got an argument back. They were always perfectly happy with that.

    Yes Leavers are still rational, reasonable Scots. We can bargain with them, thrash out the principles in person and online.

    You are ready to concede without having the argument. If we are campaigning and polling and it is showing up as a big problem the solving of which will get us over the line then we have a fucking Vow of our own promising it. Otherwise let us try to argue it out first and see what we can do.

  76. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t think there would be a problem with a multi-question referendum. Afterall, the 1997 Devo Ref was such a case:


    Q1:
    I agree there should be a Scottish Parliament

    I do not agree there should be a Scottish Parliament

    Q2:
    I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers

    I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers

    YES-YES won.

  77. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    poll, with a massively disproportionate number – over 27% – of its respondents born outside Scotland, mostly from the rest of the UK, but it was weighted so that shouldn’t have been much of a factor

    That rings alarm bells about the other 73%.

    Yes, weighting should adjust the results to be more accurate. However, if their methods of choosing people were so poor that they got that wrong then they could just as easily sampled too many older people, too many Unionist voters, too many Leave voters.

    What that would do is obviously reduce the samples of SNP/Yes/Remain people. Smaller sub samples will decrease the accuracy of assessing how popular those opinions are.

    Weighting can only go so far to making samples reflect the overall population. It can’t extrapolate opinions from too small samples accurately.

  78. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    snap pc

  79. Daisy Walker
    Ignored
    says:

    Very interesting analysis, got us all thinking.

    It’s a rare thing, but I disagree with the conclusions you’ve come to Rev and am in agreement with Mr Bell and Sutherland.

    An Independent Scotland can hold Referendums on anything it damned well likes, that’s the point of it. I seriously doubt the passionate EU Leave voters will risk their chance to get out by trusting the Scottish electorate given their 62% voice.

    That leaves the IndyYES/EU Leave voters… and they really have to work out their priorities. I know one couple in this group and when it comes down to it they’re for Yes.

    I’m very dubious of the polls at the moment, everything is on hold till S50 is called and we know what we’re dealing with.

    Some anecdotal stuff if I may… Tayside is major Berry Farming country, 25/30 years ago it was a 6 WEEK season and that depended on the weather, a cold wet one destroyed it, and the berry pickers … school children, the unemployed and Mill/Factory workers from Dundee and Glasgow, coming through for a working holiday.

    Since the advent of the Poly Tunnels its a 5 MONTH season and for Tayside about 24,000 eastern europeans staff it up, in addition to the full time jobs created staffed up by locals. They’re not taking any jobs from Scottish people – thats one myth busted.

    I spoke to a farmer a couple of weeks ago and asked him how the whole Brexit thing is affecting them. A lot of their produce is being exported, so the devalue of the pound is helping, but the potential loss of staff for next harvest is causing them deep concern.

    Perth has one of the larger prisons on its doorstep, Medium to High security with a prison population of about 800 – the Conservative idea, that the prisoners can pick the berries is beyond laughable.

    I think the farmers will be with us this time, I don’t see how they can not be.

    Again, anecdotal, but the EU Nationals living here, for Indy 1, I hear they voted 70% No. Canvassers are reporting its 90% Yes now.

    Speaking to a lorry driver recently, he was not the kind of person you would have expected to be politically clued up… says Brexit is a complete Cluster ..uk, and we need to get Indy or bust.

    And lastly 2 working colleagues, recently moved up from England, both ex-army. Really decent, lovely people, but understandably Unionist. Given them their due, they are at least open to debate. They now say (once they’ve lost all the debating points) ‘I’m not against an Independent Scotland, I just wish they’ get it sorted’. Not a conversion, but I think their heads have dropped. Movement of a kind.

    We said first time out that every Yesser was an Ambassador for Indy, well I think we’re reaping what we’ve sown. Civic, Responsible, Inventive… Keep doing what your doing folks, you are an inspiration. Big thanks to all as always.

  80. Douglas
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t agree with setting things up for a second referendum on EU to happen automatically after Independence. I do think a clear constitutional mechanism is needed.

    The SNP has a well established policy of Independence in Europe, we have not yet begun to see the ill effects of Brexit. That is why this very suspect poll is showing what it shows. These polls are notcto discover opinion but to shape it to a unionist agenda. If we get blown off track towards something that appeases a ScotKIP (I just invented a new party, the K is silent) agenda then we will end in a divided muddle. This is exactly what the unionists want.

    I think it would be best to campaign:

    -Scotland will be Independent
    -Decisions about the future relationships and rules will be made by those living in Scotland

    I think an explicit draft constitution should be presented with mechanisms for referendums on key issues. I would favour these having a low threshold for triggering (?signature numbers). This would give a general approach for settling several issues (Monarchy, NATO, EU, constitutional changes…) without setting a new hare running.

  81. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    Who Controls Scotland…

    http://imgur.com/8FTJcQE

  82. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Joanne @ 1.16
    Maybe a poor choice of words Joanne.
    Also a bit of an over generalisation but there does seem to be a view that Brexit will do damage.
    That’s what I am looking at,if it turns out that leaving the EU is as bad as the worry around Westminster seems to indicate then I would think again about being involved with it.
    But I am also aware that the reason for their panic is quite possibly related to their profits and in that case I pretty much don’t care.
    Just as I said it’s more to do with getting into a Union it’s difficult to leave that’s giving me pause for thought.

  83. Al Dossary
    Ignored
    says:

    Strange survey indeed from pUkeGov.

    At the very end it asks “Have you been asked to take part in the ‘National Conversation’ survey ?” – 82% reply NO, 13% reply YES and 6% NOT SURE.

    For a survey that claims to have received 2 million responses (47% of the registered voters for Indy Ref 1) these are indeed strange figures.

  84. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    Daisy Walker says:1:41

    well said!

  85. Adam
    Ignored
    says:

    There are (many, I believe, including myself) who would grudgingly vote to leave the UK if it meant staying in the EU.

    These people (again, myself included) would NOT vote to leave the UK without knowing that doing so will mean staying in the EU.

    So saying that the EU question will only be decided after independence would move people back to “No”.

    And the same goes for all of the EU nationals leaving in Scotland. They wouldn’t vote to leave the UK without knowing that the EU question is settled (i.e. Scotland stays in EU).

    What you are offering will tank the “Yes” vote.

  86. Joannie
    Ignored
    says:

    @liz – I think the problems of leaving the EU are equal to the problems of being outside it in the first place. I can see why you would be once bitten, twice shy though.

    Maybe EEA membership would be better for an indy Scotland, at least at first. That gives you access to the single market in a looser arrangement with the EU.

  87. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    after a yes win in indyref2, the next holyrood election would be seen as a vote of confidence/no confidence on the snp settlement, this is why it would be better to remove the eu issue from this election

    a commitment to euref2 in the 2nd half of the next holyrood government would be a sop to yes and no voting brexiteers, I could justify another euref after indy on a number of grounds, but the point being made is that doing this might be the way to ensure indy 1st and the eu 2nd, otherwise the next HE might be seen as plebicite on both.

    we need to win indyref2, negotiate our independence from the u, then ensure that an snp majority or pro indy majority win the next HE election to ensure there is no going back, a unionist majority could run indyref3 if it wanted.

    what do yes brexiteers on this site think? would the certainty of another eu ref in the next HE parliament, make you ore likely to vote yes in indyref2 and snp at the next he?

    I think this the point the rev is trying to make?

  88. bjsalba
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t see that going solo straight off the bat is feasible.

    We would be in the same position as Westminster trying to make Trade Agreements with lots of countries from a position of weakness and in a rush.

    We know that Westminster under the Tories means to make us suffer. We can see that they are trying to bully and bluster the EU27 into rewarding them with a “good deal”. If you get your information from other sources than the tabloids and broadcast media, you will know this is not going to happen.

    It may not be perfect, but the EU is our best bet for the forseeable future. Once in the EU as an Independent country, we could work with other like minded member states to improve the EU.

  89. K1
    Ignored
    says:

    I can see your point Stu. But like a few have already expressed I don’t see the ‘need’ for a firm commitment to a second EU ref after a yes vote as a persuader to that ‘fabled’ 27%?

    I simply do not belief that number. If it is accurate we would be directly pandering to that minority and the Leave/stay UK unionists would throw everything at indyref2 to keep those Leave/Yessers on board. In essence totally backfiring.

    We can’t underestimate the air power that the BT2 would still have to shower down upon those who are obviously still influenced and feart, this would be a gift tae them.

    Also canvassing Remainers during indyref2 with the possibility of an EU ref2 to follow is totally counter intuitive, sure we voted tae remain in the EU as part of UK but we also voted to remain in the EU in Indyref1?

    Why would I as a Yes/Remainer vote Yes2 with the prospect of an EU2 on the immediate horizon after Indy? A 620 odd page white paper was produced during indyref1 and remaining in the EU was central to that ‘vision’. The very fact that a 2/3rds majority just voted to Remain in the EU, is testament to an indisputable majority in Scotland that wants to remain in the EU?

    This is/would be pandering to the ‘right’.

    Don’t get me wrong I think we’d ‘win’ an EU2, but I think we can’t leave ourselves open to having our faces rubbed right in it for literally fighting like bastards on the one hand against ‘being dragged out of the EU against our will’ and setting up Indyref2 as a sop tae those who don’t mind at all ‘being dragged out’ as they don’t see it that way?

    Whit’s whitepaper2 gonnae be? A vision of two half’s?

    Naw. It would undermine the SNP if they attempted this…there’s listening and understanding differing views and there’s selling out yer principles. As someone above pointed out, referendums aren’t sweeties tae be handed oot for the minority in our polity. We need look nae further than England right now for the truth of that. There was no demand. It was politicking.

    If the SNP start down that road, then they’re no better than their hypocritical politician cousins in the unioinist parties.

    Not a ‘gamble’ worth taking.

  90. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    An Independent Scotland can hold Referendums on anything it damned well likes, that’s the point of it

    thats the point being made, if there was a commitment to another referendum on the eu, by the snp, would that help convince brexiteers to vote yes, then snp at the next HE to get another bite at the cherry?

    Douglas says:

    I don’t agree with setting things up for a second referendum on EU to happen automatically after Independence. I do think a clear constitutional mechanism is needed.

    we are not, the promise is an euref2 after indyref2 yes result and another snp win at holyrood.

    a manifesto commitment by the snp in the next he for euref2, is the clear constitutional mechanism needed, indeed this is how indyref1 and the euref came about?

    The point that is being made is that if this “idea” was brought into indyref2, it would separate the eu and uk questions, help convince yes and no brexiteers to vote yes etc

  91. Robert Peffers
    Ignored
    says:

    @CameronB Brodie says: 5 December, 2016 at 12:01 pm:

    “I definitely see independence and EU membership as distinct of each other.”

    The thing is that if Scotland is independent then Scotland can make up their collective democratic minds whatever Scots decide to do.

    It has been my opinion, for many more years than I care to remember, but it is also my opinion that by far the most important thing that needs to come before all else is the realisation by all that the Treaty of Union is a bipartite agreement and has formed a union of kingdoms. It has not formed a country of any sort.

    That may seem over simple to many Scots but consider this.
    If that is not a recognised fact then there actually has not been a United Kingdom since day one of the Union and if there has not been a legal union then it is long past time The Kingdom of Scotland withdrew.

    There is absolutely no doubt that in 1707 the Kingdom of England was composed of England and the English principality of Wales and the Monarch of England had been King of Ireland from 1542 and Lord over Ireland for a lot longer than that so Ireland was legally had dominion over Ireland. i.e. Ireland was an English Dominion and the Treaty of Union introduction does lay down conditions in relation to English dominions.

    There is also no doubt that the three country Kingdom of England was formed before 1688 and thus subject to being a constitutional monarchy as formed then. That was thus the only change in the laws of divine right that prevailed in the Kingdom of England at time of signing the Treaty so it cannot retrospectively be applied to Scotland.

    So the sovereignty of England, Wales and Ireland have only changed by Southern Ireland becoming a republic and the sovereignty of Scotland remains with the people of Scotland.

    The conclusion can only be that the Westminster Parliament being also the Parliament of the country of England is contrary to the treaty. That the Parliament of England assuming over-lordship of the Kingdom of Scotland is contrary to the treaty. Splitting the union up along country lines is contrary to the treaty and these are all reason enough for Scotland – kingdom and country – to withdraw and thus end the Union of Kingdoms but has no effect upon the longer lasting union of three countries in the Kingdom of England.

  92. Andrew Coulson
    Ignored
    says:

    Proud Cybernat says:
    5 December, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    ‘Problem is WM very rarely ever represents my political views (and those of most people north of the border)…..’

    Candidates for Scottish (Westminster) parliamentary seats could stand on the basis of ‘don’t vote for me, if you don’t support independence’.

    If there were a bloc of 55 MPs who had been elected on this basis, the ‘will of the people’ would be perfectly clear: no need for a referendum, even……

  93. Angus MacAlister
    Ignored
    says:

    The missing piece of the jigsaw is what the EU team is going to say about Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. If for instance they say that an Independent Scotland and Northern Ireland would be the continuing state and would automatically retain membership then the need for the membership question would be negated. This as with much of Brexit is unknown although Guy Verhofstat has been making encouraging noises over independence.

  94. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    Somebody correct me here if I’m wrong but the Westminster government has the power at any time to repeal the legislation that makes the Scottish paliament permanent, in effect making it not permanent

    The “We don’t have enough information brigade”
    There are folk looking for guarantees on stuff can I just say, that’s never going to happen about anything

    In exactly the same way as people say “I don’t know” could I also just suggest they’d better decide to know something because the “I don’t knows” are of no use to any side in a referendum, it’s not a get out of jail free card for folk who don’t want to make a decision it’s a damaging waste of a vote and causes dissent amongst the folk who do make the decisions

    Referendums only work if people take part in them, if they don’t then they can’t blame the rest of us, but they can blame themselves

    The Republic of Ireland has loads of referendums on stuff they don’t have a problem with it, how much more democratic can you be although as a general rule Politicians don’t like folk voting on stuff because for the most part the general population doesn’t inform itself as it should and much of the time votes on whether they like the individual politician or not and go deaf when they talk pish

    Excepting people from sites like Wings and others who at least make efforts to get information, most ordinary punters might as well stick a pin in a candidate list or a choice and then forget it or blame somebody else
    There’s too much apathy covered up by the “I don’t know enough about it” brigade who are very similar to the “We don’t have enough information” brigade

    So if there are any lurking folk out there who fit into these categories, whenever a vote comes round gonnae please cast a vote and no leave the rest ae us in the dark aboot whit yer thinkin

    As long as it’s yes to Independence that is, one thing at a time
    everything else comes later

  95. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Why would I as a Yes/Remainer vote Yes2 with the prospect of an EU2 on the immediate horizon after Indy?

    to ensure yes2 wins, to ensure the snp win the next holyrood election and put to bed the idea of the uk ever getting back together. a confusion between the uk and eu settlements might let a unionist majority back in. If we win indyref2, i dont want the chance for indyref3 to be even a remote possibility. do you?

    A 620 odd page white paper was produced during indyref1 and remaining in the EU was central to that ‘vision’. The very fact that a 2/3rds majority just voted to Remain in the EU, is testament to an indisputable majority in Scotland that wants to remain in the EU?

    true, but 62% voted to remain as we are vis a vis the eu, with the best will in the world and even if scotland is considered the successor state to the uk, the deal we get wont be the same as before, eg, we wont get to keep the uk rebate etc.
    the snp position at the moment seems to be to adopt a Norway type solution, Norway isnt even in the eu, 62% didnt vote for that either. The Norway option was put forward by some leavers in the euref, so it is already a sop to them. ,I also voted remain, but so that it would precipitate indyref2, and it looks like i was correct to do so. I am not the only one

    the point about the euref2 is that it is a sop to get brexiteers to vote yes in indyref2 and the snp in the next HE.

    the subsequent euref could offer more than 1 option,
    1. further eu integration, eg adopt the euro.
    (a promise by the snp to offer an euref to scotland to do this after eu negotiations ight be a good tactical ploy in the negotiations)
    2. accept the Norway solution
    (the snp and my preference and most likely result of eu negotiations after a yes2, and the most likely winner in euref2)
    3. Leave the eu
    (i doubt this will win, if you are so certain scotland is so pro eu, what are you afraid of?)

  96. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “I don’t believe the polls” is a really, really terrible argument against this idea.

  97. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    People suggesting complex multi option referendums. Beware.

    “… not including the AV one, which nobody cared about”

    Fair point. However, I would propose it, like most referendums worldwide was conducted properly.

    By properly, I mean the choice was a straight choice between status quo and a change. The choice was clear. We voted for the status quo, in terms of voting system, and we got exactly that. No change.

    Contrast that to the last two, IndyRef1 and EURef.

    In IndyRef1 it began as Indy (change) versus status quo, but by the polling it had evolved into Indy versus fuck knows what!

    In EURef it was even worse. It was Cameron’s renegotiate of EU membership versus a completely undefined Leave. Leave to what? Leave how? Leave how much?

    In both cases the winning option meant different things to different people. No prospectus, no manifesto, no plan. Those with power then went ahead and interpreted the nebulous result in a way which suited their ends.

    IndyRef1 was indecisive because the vague NO package was never delivered. EURef is now in the courts.

    A referendum MUST have a firmly defined proposals for anything other that status quo. If a referendum has, say two possible change options, then each must be fixed in tablets of stone well before the vote. However, the ideal referendum has to be change versus status quo. Then you get clarity.

    A referendum has to produce a clear result. Anything else will just cause a constitutional crisis.

  98. Derick fae Yell
    Ignored
    says:

    There is precedent for a two question referendum. Namely 1997. Worked fine then.
    Q1
    I agree there should be a Scottish Parliament
    I do not agree there should be a Scottish Parliament

    Q2
    I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers
    I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers

    2018
    Q1
    Should Scotland be an Independent Country Y/N
    Q2
    Should Scotland be
    part of EFTA (as Norway/Iceland)
    part of the EU (as Denmark/Sweden/Finland)please vote
    please vote for your preferred option by placing a cross in the box)

  99. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “There is precedent for a two question referendum. Namely 1997. Worked fine then.”

    It worked then because it was relatively uncontroversial, especially within the two camps. There was no YES/NO campaign that I’m aware of. (I wasn’t in Scotland then, so I might just not be aware.) That wouldn’t be the case with a double indy/EUref.

  100. Rev. Stuart Campbell
    Ignored
    says:

    “Candidates for Scottish (Westminster) parliamentary seats could stand on the basis of ‘don’t vote for me, if you don’t support independence’.”

    That’s a great strategy if your objective is to get a lot more Tory and Labour MPs elected in Scotland.

  101. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    A referendum has to produce a clear result. Anything else will just cause a constitutional crisis.

    the euref did produce A clear result, england wants to take back control of its borders, It is clear simply because westminster already has the power to close borders already, it doesnt need to negotiate this with anyone. however, what relation the uk would have with the eu regarding trade was not A clear result from the euref, folk didnt know what they were voting for, they still dont.

    indyref1 and2 are clearly defined results, we become independent. lie norway or ireland, free to chose what relationship we have with other countries or the eu.

    the euref2 in scotland could only happen after independence, indeed indy is a prerequisit.

    we will know by then what voting to leave will mean, we will see this played out in england in the next few years

    we will now exactly what a norway type settlement will mean, we just need to look at norway

    we will also know what further eu integration, ie adopting the euro, will mean

    everything very clear.

    what wont be clear after a yes or no in indyref2 is what people are voting for, the eu or the uk. thats why it is important to separate the issues

  102. Patrick Roden
    Ignored
    says:

    Al Dossary says:
    Strange survey indeed from pUkeGov.
    At the very end it asks “Have you been asked to take part in the ‘National Conversation’ survey ?” – 82% reply NO, 13% reply YES and 6% NOT SURE.

    For a survey that claims to have received 2 million responses (47% of the registered voters for Indy Ref 1) these are indeed strange figures.

    strange indeed!
    But if you add 27% (the number who are from other areas of the UK) to the 13% who say Yes, it is 40%.

    Hmmm, what’s 40% of the population of Scotland? not much under 2 million!

    Are YouGove at it again?

  103. K1
    Ignored
    says:

    The No/Leavers will never be convinced to vote Yes. It’s the Yes/Leavers that would ensure indyref2 Yes. If BT2 campaign during indyref2 on ‘SNP will promise anything to anyone even ‘jeopardising’ EU membership after a Yes vote’ that could affect the ‘solid yes’ that we currently have?

    All I’m saying is this can be used against the SNP until all ye hear is that ‘noise’ over and over again.

    I’m aware we can vote on anything we wish after independence. That’s a given. Just don’t ‘feel’ pandering to Leavers is the way to go to achieve that.

    The SNP are currently fighting for us tae stay in the EU…lobbying all over EU to have our case recognised, for them to then caveat ‘we’ll now have another EU ref’ immediately following our successful ‘partly due to EU member states backing Scotland’ in achieving said independence, would just be embarrassing to say the least, not to be trusted to say the most.

    Cat, I am sure we’d win EU2, I’m not convinced that an EU ref on the back of indyref2 as part of gaining our independence is the way to go. I’m also not convinced as I’ve stated that this tactic wouldn’t backfire on the SNP.

    ————————————-

    People could be forgiven for not trusting polls…hardly an argument against but certainly a valid observation given the ‘fatally flawed’ analysis of all polling companies in recent times. We’re correct tae be sceptical and factor in that this poll may in fact not reflect the true picture.

  104. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    That wouldn’t be the case with a double indy/EUref.

    i wasnt suggesting that, i suggested separating the 2 referendums

    indyref2 with a HE to confirm the result of post indyref2 uk negotiations

    a multi question eu referendum to confirm post indyref2 eu negotiations.

    although a single question euref wouldnt be a deal breaker, aslong as we all knew what a yes or no actually meant

  105. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    soz, i didnt see Derick fae Yell’s previous post

    but i think we need to separate the uk and eu issues

  106. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Independence first: Then we can have referendums galore afterwards.

    Lets not hurry things and keep Queenie out of it too, that’s a whole new ball game things will play out in the not too distant future.

    Court case:

    ‘Joint effort’ says Supreme Court Lord Wilson going into Europe 1971 to 1973 so do we not need a ‘joint effort’ to withdraw from Europe?

    (whole parliament procedure – acting government)

    Aye but… err…No! says the UK lawyer and waffles on.

    Going well there then if I’m getting that right 🙂

    Popcorn still pending.

  107. Fred
    Ignored
    says:

    Folk keep dragging Greece into the EU-bad case. That country was engaged in an unaffordable arms-race with Turkey & its finances were chaotic (a bit like somewhere else we know!)but the EU is a handy scapegoat! eh no!

  108. Callum
    Ignored
    says:

    as the token capitalist yesser, it is my belief that to promise second EU referendum would be a terrible strategic move.

    If Scotland does manage to exit the UK and stay in the EU, then I know (through chatting with colleagues in London etc) there will be a disorderly queue of large businesses wishing to relocate HQ’s and (if it goes well) core business functions to Scotland against an insignificantly small queue of businesses wishing to leave Scotland. Promising a second referendum would also re-ignite many of the lazy BetterTogether isolationist arguments about too wee/too poor that would easily resonate with previous No voters.

    If Scotland attempts to get through Brexit with any hint of an 2nd Scoxit referendum then all of that potential trade will simply go to Dublin and Frankfurt. It’s a massive missed opportunity.

  109. Seumas
    Ignored
    says:

    Why would we need a second EU referendum when a possible second Indyref would answer whether we left the UK or went our own way to decide our own future remaining Europe ? Why should we even bother pandering to Leave voting Yes voters when they would prefer to stick with Westminster and its move to the extreme right wing of politics ? With so called friends like these…..

  110. orri
    Ignored
    says:

    In theory Westminster could repeal or amend the Scotland Act. The elephant in the room is that part of that act delegates advice on the use of Royal Prerogative to the First Minister as far as it involves devolved matters. Repeal of the Scotland Act would surely fit that bill. Next up is the fact that whilst granting Royal Assent isn’t necessarily a Royal Prerogative withholding it most certainly is. So any attempt to repeal the Scotland act or amend Scots Law without Holyrood’s consent could be, in effect, vetoed. Obviously the Queen might choose to pay no heed to that veto and let the ongoing constitutional chaos ensue. I’d certainly want her removed from even ceremonial duties in Scotland if she didn’t act (or in this case refuse to enact).

    Other RPs the Queen has include the dismissal not only of a government but ministers of states including the Prime Minister.

  111. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m also not convinced as I’ve stated that this tactic wouldn’t backfire on the SNP.

    I agree about no leavers (and yes remainers)not being convinced to change, regardless

    but I dont think this is a zero sum game, yes may have lost as many supporters over the eu as no have lost over the eu.

    the point about this article is what tactic gives yes the best chance to win indyref2, stu merely suggests that an euref2 might do this

  112. Ian
    Ignored
    says:

    Many people are utterly sick of referenda and the associated division. I think that is largely why the polls aren’t moving strongly towards indy – many soft nos are just tired and don’t want to think about it. This group will only really engage with it when they absolutely have to. To loads of us here, this ostrich attitude, is pretty frustrating. But if there is a grain of truth in this point, then saying to this group that there will be ‘yet another big vote, if you vote yes next time’ is not a good move to make.

  113. bjsalba
    Ignored
    says:

    Sort of O/T
    People who think the EU rules on vacuum cleaners deprive them of a machine fit to do the job might want to read this.

    http://www.coolproducts.eu/product/vacuum-cleaners

    This is the sort of information the MSM never puts our way.

  114. starlaw
    Ignored
    says:

    Do not complicate things. Independence first then take it from there once the country has settled, we will have all the time in the world to choose if we want to leave EU, right now staying in is the first priority. This will pave the way to withdrawing from the UK

  115. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Just don’t ‘feel’ pandering to Leavers is the way to go to achieve that.

    if we dont we might not achieve that, if we dont then pandering to leavers is all we have got to look forward to.

    an indyref victory is all i really care about, if offering scots brexiters (any who were yessers) an option of a future referendum on the eu negotiations too much of a pandering exercise to help win indyref2, and an snp victory in the next he to ensure there is no indyref3?

    sturgeon could also use the euref2 as a means of promoting further integration into the eu as a negotiating tactic with the eu, the norway style settlement as only an interim position

  116. mr thms
    Ignored
    says:

    Not watched the afternoon session.

    But I have been thinking of possible outcomes.

    I read that negotiations with the EU could take place until after the German GE in October next year, and that until then it will be the UK constitution that will need to be sorted..

    With that thought in mind, The Supreme Court could decide regardless of whether the UK government is right or wrong with regard to its use of the Royal Prerogative, that the governments of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland each have a veto or, strangely enough,for their own leaders to have the Royal Prerogative.

    The parliaments and governments are permanent after all.

    So if in the unlikely event Scotland does get to have a say for whatever reason, and that say is incompatible with the decision the UK government has made, the only solution maybe to end the deadlock between the two parliaments and the two governments by finally introducing a UK Bill of Rights.

    However, since the Scottish Parliament and Government is now permanent it would be up to the people of Scotland to abolish it in a referendum,

    The next referendum question that would be put to the people of Scotland could be a choice between independence, or abolishing the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government and, under the new UK Bill of Rights, replacing them with a federal Scottish Parliament and a federal Scottish Government.

    That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

    In a bit of a rush to go out, and hope I have explained my thinking clearly and there are not too many spelling mistakes

  117. Andrew Coulson
    Ignored
    says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    5 December, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    ‘That’s a great strategy if your objective is to get a lot more Tory and Labour MPs elected in Scotland…..’

    No, my objective would be to reinstate representative parliamentary democracy. Not because, as it’s operated here in the past, it is such a wonderfully efficient and benign system, but because the institutional anarchy that we have now is a damned site worse.

  118. John Armstrong
    Ignored
    says:

    Scotland has already voted on membership of the EU – it was 62% in favour.
    Indiref2 MUST concentrate on separation from the UK – and base the campaigning on who decide’s on Scotland’s future.
    The Brexit outcome will be mired in spin and double-spin. For every obvious bad outcome, there will be umpteen alternative interpretations that will confuse the hell out of ordinary citizens. The establishment are good at this – in fact, its all they know. Even if they finally held their hands up and said, “Y’know what, we have seriously fu-ked this up”, nobody would know if they meant it or not.
    The SNP lead Scottish Government have been returned 3 times and their performance has been met with approval by the majority of Scots. This is astonishing, considering the restraints and blatant obstacles they have to negotiate on a daily basis. Officially, there are four opposition parties in Holyrood, but in reality, there are really only two. The Greens and the rest (a coalition of Unionists following a hate-fest policy against the SNP and independence).
    This speaks volumes for the kind of society and governance we would see in an independent Scotland (although the current Unionist cause would be replaced with an opposition that would have to address valid Scottish issues).
    There would be no hidden agenda – just a desire to enable Scots to have their voices heard and to shape our destiny based on that – for better or worse.
    The Westminster style of government and priorities are at odds with the wishes of most Scots.
    Despite returning 56 SNP MP’s out of 59 to Westminster, our voice is still drowned out by around 600 Unionist MP’s. We are on a hiding to nothing in Westminster.
    We have ammunition in spades – all we have to do is start firing.

  119. Angus MacAlister
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree with Callum staying in the EU offers huge possibilities for relocation of jobs from Canary Wharf to the banks of the Clyde or Edinburgh Park and would be a strong argument in Indyfef2. However as I said above until the EU lets us know what they will give an Independent Scotland in terms of membership all this is conjecture.

  120. Bob Mack
    Ignored
    says:

    I cannot envisage how the government can win this case. Everything they claim is implied even if not worded. The law cannot operate on implications. Either it is ,or it isn’t. So far all the QC for the government is saying is that everything seems implied even if not written

  121. Taranaich
    Ignored
    says:

    Muscleguy brings up an extremely important point:

    @Muscleguy: Yes Leavers are still rational, reasonable Scots. We can bargain with them, thrash out the principles in person and online.

    The vast majority of Yes Leavers understand this: the problem is useful idiots like Jim Fairlie take the 1 million Leave voters, and the third or so of SNP voters, as evidence of a gargantuan split in the independence movement that simply doesn’t exist. Why wasn’t there one at the last SNP conference for Edinburgh West’s motion explicitly affirming Scotland’s place in the EU like there have been in the past for fracking, NATO, even things like giving public schools’ charitable status? All we got was Jerry Silver and a handful of others kicking up a fuss: the motion was passed easily.

    If Yes Leavers want a Scottish referendum on EU membership, then the only way to do that is with a Scotland outside the EU. That is all Yes Leavers need to know. If being outside the EU is more important to them than being a sovereign nation, then that’s fine – just don’t pretend you’re pro-independence.

    The only reason anyone would vote No because of the EU is if they don’t believe an indy Scotland would vote to leave the EU – and their hatred of the EU overcomes their desire for Scotland to become independent, to the point where they propogate the uber-British Nationalist myth that the SNP are proposing “a false choice” between two unions.

    No, we can’t just shout at them and say they’re stupid – but neither can we indulge them when they’re talking complete balderdash. To me, the Scottish Government offering ScotEURef following indyref2 simply confirms what Jim Fairlie and the likes are actively criticising the SNP for, and what you’re trying to avoid – tying independence to the EU, instead of the constitutional question itself.

    As you say, it’s tricky – but this is one of those rare occasions where you’re much more patient than I am!

    Theoretically that works, I just think you end up with a very messy and voter-confusing campaign. Half the Yes campaigners are campaigning Yes Remain, half are campaigning Yes Leave. Yes campaigners will knock on your door in the afternoon arguing one thing, then more Yes campaigners will knock on your door in the evening arguing something totally different. (And much the same goes for the No campaigners.) People won’t know what the hell’s going on.

    Alternatively, there could be one main Yes campaign that concentrates only on the first question, leaving Yes/Remain and Yes/Leave to smaller campaigns. A taster, if you will, of the possibilities of an independent Scotland.

    This leaves the No Campaign in an awkward position: they can only logically campaign for a No vote, and that’s it. There’d be no point in a No Remain/No Leave, becaue we just had that referendum. So do they just campaign for a No vote and leave it at that, or do they support an indy Scotland remaining/leaving as the “least worst option”?

    @Andrew Coulson: Or we could drop all this referendum nonsense and get back to good,if old-fashioned,representative parliamentary government.

    Not a big advocate of regressing back to the days when our elected representatives sent millions of our budget back to the Treasury, our First Minister colluding with the Prime Minister to hand thousands of miles of Scottish territory to England in secret, and actively working to prevent the most popular party from enacting its manifesto commitments. That’s what tended to happen in the “good, if old-fashioned” days.

  122. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    Of course, there is a fair possibility that Scotland could vote YES to Indy and then and find itself outside the EU anyway (mostly due to timing).

    The EU may keep Scotland in a ‘holding pen’ situation until Scotland decides what it wants to do (as we are technically then OUT of the EU). We would need an EU Ref to decide if what EU future best suits our needs (EU, EEA, EFTA).

    In short, this outcome of needing two separate Refs may actually happen anyway and especially so if the timing isn’t spot on. And, personally, I think the timing would be problematic for all manner of reasons.

    So, two refs it will probably have to be.

  123. JamesCaithness
    Ignored
    says:

    I wonder if Robert Peffers is following the Supreme Court Brexit case. I have been listening to some of the Gov case, while I am waiting to hear how Scotland comes into it. Still a bit early yet though.

  124. geeo
    Ignored
    says:

    Not sure the EU would be too upset if Scotland were to have the OPTION of holding an EU referendum AFTER a Yes vote.

    I am pretty sure Scotland would be made welcome as a continuing member, taking the Uk place.

    However, the EU, up to now, have been unable to give a definitive statement on an independent Scotland’s status.

    After Article 50 is finally invoked, as far as i can understand it, the Uk can no longer vote on EU issues, influence policy direction etc, so surely there is no reason why the Scottish Government cannot ask the EU for the Post Indy EU status of Scotland ?

    We would then be going into the indyref knowing if we COULD stay or not.

    The Scottish government can then say to the EU, that while we (Scotland) are clearly predelicted to remaining IN the EU, it is only right that the Scottish people have the final say, in a Scottish only referendum.

    So the Indy question can be asked, full in the knowledge that Scotland COULD, if it WANTED to, Remain in the EU, but full membership would NOT be taken up unless/until the Scottish people mandate it via a referendum.

    With a previous 62% Remain result, i doubt the EU would have an issue with such a plan.

    If the EU referendum post indy is a No to the EU, we simply thank the EU for the offer and decline it.

    That is how i see Stu’s post, and seems straightforward to me.

  125. brewsed
    Ignored
    says:

    While the Scottish Government (SG) talks about the 62% who voted to stay in the EU and the democratic mandate this gives them to pursue the means of staying in the EU, it also talks about the desirability and benefits of staying within the single market which is not necessarily the same as staying in the EU. Possibly the main political benefit of remaining within the single market but not within the EU, through EFTA perhaps, would be SG control of fisheries – not that fisheries contribute hugely to the economy but, where they do, they do in the more remote and rural areas. So, while using the chaos of Brexit to leverage Indyref2, there may be other considerations taking place which would have to be decided upon post-independence.

    Meanwhile, back to the popcorn and deckchair while Mayhem ensues darn sarth.

  126. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    Oddly enough, it may not be the issue of continued EU membership that is the first major one we might have to face post-independence, despite the Kipper-Tory obsession with that which is currently impinging upon us all.

    What do I mean? Well, our current monarch is a nonagenarian…

    Think of all such issues which might divide potential yes-voters. Things that people feel quite strongly about on either side. Why should any one issue take precedence over the others, just because UKIP thinks so? Add them all into some formal promise to consider them by one or more referenda shortly after independence, and what do you get: chaos! And a certain lose, as everyone gets diverted on the inessentials and loses focus on the one single thing that makes any of them possible: independence.

  127. gus1940
    Ignored
    says:

    Re mr thms

    This guy has repeated in several comments on both this and other threads that The Scotland Act 2016 made The Scottish Parliament/Government permanent.

    Nothing could be further than the truth.

    Although permanence was included in the list of requested powers our colonial masters specifically refused to include it in the Act meaning that they can abolish Holyrood at the stroke of a pen as they did to the Stormont government in the 70s. with the introduction of Direct Rule.

  128. donnywho
    Ignored
    says:

    The YouGov Pollsters actively recruit from the Scotsman Online.
    This is as we all know a nest of vipers, UKIPERS and others from the South who feel it necessary to inform Scots of their failures.

    It explains the 20% RUK vote and the Brexit friendly point of view.

    I think that if you fill your jug from a stagnant pool, no amount of corrective flavouring is ever going to make it lemonade.

    But I think they knowingly do this now, so they can claim that nothing has changed.

    That Scotland has decided to sup the Koolaid acid trip and embrace Brexit. Why … well because, because you are told, because we don’t want you free…just because.

  129. K1
    Ignored
    says:

    Ahve jist loast ma supreme court link, could someday kindly repost link…ma laptop’s doon and it’s a bloody nuisance trying tae find things on this tiny HTC screen…much appreciation in advance 🙂

  130. Onwards
    Ignored
    says:

    Proud Cybernat says:
    5 December, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    I don’t think there would be a problem with a multi-question referendum. Afterall, the 1997 Devo Ref was such a case:
    ish Parliament should have tax-varying powers
    ..
    YES/YES won

    ————-

    That is a precedent, and a double, conditional question has to be considered.

    Having 2 questions, one way or the other, is the only way we can maximise support for independence.

    It’s true that the EU influence on sovereignty is insignificant compared to devolution within the UK, but campaigning for independence while automatically staying within the EU is trying to fight a battle on 2 fronts.

    The problem is that a lot of people will actually believe the simplistic line: “The SNP want to leave one union and hand over control to Brussels”

    And we would get the right wing English tabloids whipping up the bigots with front page stories of an independent Scotland being flooded by a million muslims.

    Splitting up the questions is the only way.

  131. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    brewsed says:

    “remaining within the single market but not within the EU, through EFTA perhaps, would be SG control of fisheries – not that fisheries contribute hugely to the economy”.

    We don’t really know how much fisheries, or farming, contribute to the economy or how it could developed, because we don’t control the policy or revenues. We do know it could feed us and we do know it’s not safe with Westminster.

    We don’t really know what our industries and assets contribute for the same reason, we only know bits of what the Treasury tells us.

  132. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    I think its probably inevitable that post independence, Scotland should look at the EU again in our own right and at a future date. For me its always been a conversation we should have as a nation and not as an appendage. A conversation based on first hand experience of full membership (unlike now).

    I’m also pretty much 50/50 on the subject, but that’s because I perceive the real and immediate problem with our constitution and our politics to be a damn sight nearer to home. I’m sure there are a lot of folk whose vote on this issue is there to be won for one camp or the other with the right argument and with more relevant facts and experience to hand.

    Its enough for me to know that we can have discussions and referendums aplenty about anything we so choose, but it really is a case of first things first.

  133. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    gus1940,

    As someone else usefully pointed out in a previous thread, you also have to factor into that issue Fluffy’s justifications to the HoC for retaining the word “normally” in the Scotland Act 2016.

    The poor unfortunate poodle may well have in effect conceded permanence unintentionally by his assurances. Words such as “hoist” and “petard” come to mind.

    Hee hee. Unintended consequences…

  134. Tam Jardine
    Ignored
    says:

    Watching the supreme court, zoning in and out of consciousness. Section 3, section 5 and 6… The presentational style is somewhat lacking… not so much building a case as reading lists of sections and points made.

    This layman thinks Eadie has a pretty narrow case and is overly reliant on a single point which is by no means certain. He seems to be getting it pretty tight from time to time but maybe that is par for the course.

  135. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Link I’m using is this: 🙂

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

  136. Dan Huil
    Ignored
    says:

    First things first: an end to the union with England.

    The SG, like the rest of us, is watching the whole up-in-the-air EU situation and waiting for things to fall into some kind of order – good or bad. Again, like the rest of us, they will make decisions on the evidence in front of them.

    I think it would be wise of the SG to consider offering the people of Scotland a EU referendum within the first parliament of an independent Scotland. But that depends on the “fall”.

    Many things can happen it the next few months, as commented by WOS posters above. If we thought 2016 was a heck of a political year just wait for 2017.

    Brexit will cripple England politically; a good time for Scotland to take matters into its own hands.

    As far as I’m concened things are ticking over nicely in our favour.

  137. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    For those not watching, the governments case is crumbling already, HMGuv getting skelped

  138. manandboy
    Ignored
    says:

    While the legals are arguing the UK Government’s case in the Supreme Court, the Norwegian company Statoil are drilling for guess what – yup, Scotland’s oil. Treeza says “shhh, don’t talk about it. The stupid Scots think the oil’s nearly done.”

    “ENERGY firm Statoil has started drilling in the Mariner oil field, its biggest project on the UK continental shelf, which lies 95 miles east of Shetland.

    The Norwegian firm said in a statement: “Mariner is one of the largest projects currently under development in the British continental shelf. Contracts worth over $1.3 billion have been awarded to date to the UK supply chain by the project.”

    The move to drilling heralds the shift in development from planning to active offshore operations. Five wells are being planned before the first oil production is expected in 2018.

    The Norwegian energy company has opened an office in Aberdeen to build a stronger footprint in the regional waters of the North Sea. The Scottish government expects Statoil to add 700 full-time jobs to the economy by 2018.

    Scottish Government data said the North Sea remains the largest oil producer and second-largest natural gas producer in Europe. The government says the industry is depressed, but production is expected to increase by as much as 17 per cent by 2019.

    The Mariner announcement comes less than a week after BP said it was taking a stake in the Jock Scott reserve basin from Statoil and, working alongside the Norwegian company, was planning new drilling in the North Sea next year. Statoil said Mariner holds an estimated 250 billion barrels of oil and peak production should be around 55,000 barrels of oil per day.”

  139. K1
    Ignored
    says:

    Brilliant call me dave, thank you! 🙂

  140. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    Court adjourned!

    Anyone tell me what they were talking aboot?

  141. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Supreme Court is an acquired taste… 🙂

    However I feel content in as much that nothing I heard was a game changer that might alter the lower court’s decision.

    Mind you, it’s a treading treacle sometimes trying to keep up.

    End of round 1.

  142. bill taylor
    Ignored
    says:

    Why not just one ref. Options leaveUk/ leave eu, leaveuk/ stay eu, stay uk/ stay eu and stay uk/ leave eu. Could even have preference voting. Our electorate are smart enough to deal with this

  143. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ve been pondering the fair comment about referendum fatigue among many that Ian made back at 15:05.

    Maybe the way to win indyref2 is to promise constitutional stability and guarantee no further referendum on anything whatever for at least 5 years!

    Vote “yes” and you’ll be left in peace for a decent while. No more UK-sponsored disruption of your life and plans.

    I jest, of course, but there is a core of sense in it. Give some time in order to allow everything post-indy to bed-in.

  144. K1
    Ignored
    says:

    Gov’s side in essence believe that article 50 of the treaty was never ‘positioned’ to be implemented through parliamentary motions or other forms ‘species’. So triggering article 50 using royal prerogative is not unlawful?

    There are another couple of points around that whole area of how EU laws are implemented in terms of their interaction with English law, gov’s position is that: it’s no written doon that we cannae dae it. So we can dae it.

    That’s ma feeble attempt at unerstaunin the wee bit ah heard. I’m up for a mair legal interpretation, and other’s input about the upshot after day 1?

  145. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Filthy rich swamp drainer doesn’t like what his drainage job’s dredged up. Poor old Eddie Hitler. Could he been any worse than Farage, or our UKIP nutcase Coburn.

    http://archive.is/gB4Ci

    Meanwhile, Nuttall has tried to brush off a controversy about the truthfulness of his CV on the LinkedIn website which suggested he had a PhD. It states: “Liverpool Hope University PhD, history.” But he never completed his doctorate, his mentor at the university has told the Guardian.”

  146. Chic McGregor
    Ignored
    says:

    @Holebender

    You probably remember these pages from our Independence First web site from 10 years ago when we were still fighting for an indyref1.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/h119tzp6z68ds49/Page2.jpg?dl=0
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/xl8p3iof7nspllf/page2a.JPG?dl=0
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ruj8q94f1fwqkwq/page2b.jpg?dl=0

    I well remember having a slightly warm ‘debate’ with our current FM on that very subject. She came into the audience to emphasise her position and we literally ended up nose to nose and I didnae hae a handbag 🙁 .

    However I still disagree regarding the timing.

    The second EU ref should be an appropriate number of years in the future say 5 to 10.

    Why?

    Several reasons.

    1. It time-distance desensitizes the issue for both the Scottish electorate and the rEU.

    2. It is completely justifiable on the simple basis that that kind of period would be a sensible one in terms of allowing the Scottish electorate time to fully assess the impending new Scotland-rEU deal.

    3. While that time-distance would help remove some of the resentment the rEU would have because they would more clearly see the sense of it, it nevertheless would feature in the immediate Scottish-EU negotiations and I suggest in a very positive manner in terms of the deal Scotland would get.

  147. Legerwood
    Ignored
    says:

    Heedtracker @ 4.58

    “”Meanwhile, Nuttall has tried to brush off a controversy about the truthfulness of his CV on the LinkedIn website which suggested he had a PhD. It states: “Liverpool Hope University PhD, history.” But he never completed his doctorate, his mentor at the university has told the Guardian.”””

    Now who does that remind you of?

  148. Capella
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree with Peter Bell on this one. Keep the Indyref2 vote focus on getting out of the UK.

    The Scottish Government post independence could introduce a system of referendums similar to that used in Switzerland. There, decisions can be made at the Canton level over e.g. whether to allow a nuclear power station to be built.

    I wonder if the YES/Leavers are such a problem. That Yougov poll certainly sounds suspect. It may be that if they recruited people from areas with a large forces population they would have a group of people born outside Scotland and committed to the Union. Moray was the closest area to voting Leave, possibly for that reason.

    Perhaps it’s time Wings conducted its own poll?

  149. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Now who does that remind you of?

    The world is full of embellished CV’s Legerwood. You could do a PHD on the vast array of political CV’s that didn’t stand up, with one phone call.

    Humanities PHD’s are pretty much the realm of younger uni arts lecturers going for the Dr title. Science PHD’s are usually government funded so they’re much more like three year contract jobs, with interview selections.

    Nuttall’s history research probably isn’t anything north of Carlisle, where we take and take and take and take and take and take and take…

  150. Peter McCulloch
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m bemused by the yes leavers, just what kind of independence is it they want to see for Scotland?

    Because as an independent country Scotland would still have to make to alliances, treaties and trade deals with other countries which would have there rules and regulations we would have to follow.

    Let’s get independence first and then, as a nation decide whether we want to remain part of the EU or not.

    Anything else is simply self defeating.

  151. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree largely with the article, but not the timing of the EU Referendum. What I said in Indy Ref 1 is that Scotland should stay part of the EU as that’s no change, and then when we’re Independent, give it 5 years to see how Scotalnd does as a small Independent member state, that engaged with the EU rather than fought it at every turn. I think we would do well.

    Then the EU referendum on leaving. But yes as others have siad, there would need to be a solid Leave plan, and this should be put together WITH Government support, even if the Government itself supported Remain. That’s open and free choice in democracy.

    And that plan and timing should be made very clear during the campaign for Indy Ref 2 – that there will as a promise, be am in-out EU Referendum within 5 years from the date of Independence. I think the SNP missed a trick in Indy Ref 1 – there were a lot of people posting that they’d support Independence if it meant leaving the EU.

  152. Orri
    Ignored
    says:

    Supposing there were a significant number of voters who only voted Remain as a least worse option. As long as we are stoill part of the UK then at least being in the EU affords some protection from Westminster excess. That means the answer to a second EU question in a referendum is never going to be clear. Of course the game the unionist were playing last time was there may also have been some who only want independence as a member of the EU.

  153. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    We’re a hardy bunch, immune to propaganda against Indy in the media, on the TV and radio. That’s because we care deeply about Indy. But for the EU, it really isn’t that important to most people, and when something isn’t important, we just absorb what the media throws at us – becaue we don’t really care about the issue. And so, with a mostly anti-EU media, many of us become anti-EU. It’s undemocratic, ruled from Brussels, heading for total political unity and total loss of national sovereignty. How do we “know” this? Because Barroso and Van Rompuy tell us it is, the Express / DM / DT / BBC tell us it is.

    I thought the same, and for me too it was 50-50 for the EU Ref, but since I was in two minds I thought about what was best for the kids, still 50-50, and then for Scotland – which was fairly clearly best to stay in the EU. So I voted Remain.

    Since then I’ve done a lot of research on the EU, and have boringly posted my blog on it. The thing is now, that I would enthusiastically vote Remain now I actually know what it is all about. Yes it needs reform, well, that is actually happening. Before 2009 (I think) for instance, the EU Parliament didn’t get to vote, now it does. And the Commission can not enact one single piece of legislation on its own, it needs the approval of the Councils both of heads of state, and ministers, and also of the EU Parliament to do so.

    Not a lot of people know that.

    https://yesindyref2.wordpress.com/

  154. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    In the EU Ref EU citizens and 16/17 could not vote. Less number of electorate. Less possible turnout as a % of Indy Ref electorate. Less as a proportion of the population.

    In the Scottish Indy Ref, 16/17 year olds (EU/Commonwealth citizens?) could vote.

    Different circumstances. Are polls reflecting the difference? Including relevant % of voters in the polling analysis.

  155. Fireproofjim
    Ignored
    says:

    Ref the Mariner field being developed by Statoil in the U.K. Sector and estimated at recoverable 250 million barrels.
    Meanwhile Hurricane Energy has been quietly exploring the West Shetland basin and has proved over 440 million barrels in the Lancaster and Lincoln fields with the adjacent Halifax field to be drilled in January. They expect to start production in 2019/20.
    Oilfield expectations are a possible billion barrels over the adjacent fields. Lifting costs are down to $26/barrel and with today’s oil price at $55 that leaves a nice profit of $30 for taxation.
    Don’t believe the oil fields are worthless!

  156. manandboy
    Ignored
    says:

    http://www.crystolenergy.com/assessing-future-north-sea-oil-gas/

    For the past forty years, successive UK Governments have implemented a long term strategy against Scotland.

    It involved the political manipulation and suppression of calls for devolution and Independence, to make sure they came to nothing approaching having any real power. This UK Government strategy continues to this day. The reason for this plan of oppression is of course Oil and Gas. Consistently, Scots have been brainwashed into thinking that there wasn’t very much of it and that what there was, wasn’t worth much.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. But the Scots fell for it and have been robbed by Westminster ever since, by both Labour and Conservative.

    Now, the UK Government are planning to do it all over again, only this time they plan to take all the oil and gas from the Shetland oilfield and the West Coast – as well as the 22 billion barrels estimated to remain in the known North Sea fields.
    Millions of barrels of oil EVERY DAY, will be taken by Westminster for the next 30-50 years minimum, with Scotland getting none of it. Then there’s the Gas.

    It is to ensure once again, that England gets to keep all Scotland’s oil & gas wealth for decades to come, that Westminster is continuing it’s plan to suppress Scottish hopes of Independence.
    Hence the unending brainwashing about ‘too wee, too poor,too stupit’ and our black holes of debt, and our need of England’s support. Brainwashed, rendered afraid and browbeaten into political submission and dependency.

    Why did we never figure out why Scotland didn’t have it’s own TV and Radio stations?

    Why did we never twig that Labour were a Unionist Party and secretly allied with the blue and yellow Tories.

    Why does Westminster regularly tell us about reports and forecasts from the IFS, the OBR and the Fraser of Allander Institute, all showing bad news about Scotland’s future prospects, but NEVER broadcasts reports about the massive oil finds around Scotland’s shores.

    Why did 2 million vote No in IndyRef14? Was it any wonder.

    But now, soon, we’re going to have another opportunity to put things right. But, in spite of popular opinion, Independence is not going to be handed to us on a plate. Voting isnt going to be enough. No, we’re going to have to fight for our Independence. England certainly won’t give up control of all that Scottish oil & gas without a struggle.

    Scotland has paid a massive price for being in the Union these past 40 years. Please, let’s not get conned twice in a row by Westminster.

  157. mr thms
    Ignored
    says:

    #gus1940 @ 3:52 pm

    “Although permanence was included in the list of requested powers our colonial masters specifically refused to include it in the Act meaning that they can abolish Holyrood at the stroke of a pen as they did to the Stormont government in the 70s. with the introduction of Direct Rule.”

    ………………………………………………

    Thanks for your post.

    I did check before posting. It’s there in the legislation.

    You can read it here.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/part/1/crossheading/the-scottish-parliament-and-the-scottish-government/enacted

    This is the link I posted previously to what the Lords Committee thought..

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldconst/145/14506.htm

    It’s covered in paragraph 62,

  158. scottieDog
    Ignored
    says:

    I would keep it simple.
    Indyref 2 based on staying in common market, free movement etc
    Added caveat that ruthie and Co are welcome to campaign in Scotland under a manifesto of taking scotland out of the common market etc – since she seems so keen to do so..

  159. gerry parker
    Ignored
    says:

    My objection to multiple referendums is that they give greedy council CEO’s the opportunity to nominate themselves as returning officers thereby trousering an additional 60 grand- sometimes more.
    They also nominate a couple of their heads of council departments as deputy returning officers who also share a place at the trough.

    If the job of CEO is so easy that they can do both that and returning officer at the same time, then the job of CEO is overpaid. If the job of returning officer is so easy that it can be done in conjunction with a council CEO job, then it cannot be worth 60 grand.

    Smacks of greed I’d say.

  160. Marie Clark
    Ignored
    says:

    Well it’s not often that I tend to disagree with Stu, but on this one, I’m with Peter Bell.

    I reckon Indy ref 2 should be just about that, independence. Once that happens, we are free to please ourselves what we want to do on any subject at all.

    Why give the yoons a big stick to keep beating us with by commiting to an EU ref.

    Hope this posting makes sense guys. I’m a bit under the weather at the moment, so not firing on all cyinders.

  161. scribblerdubious
    Ignored
    says:

    The only thing alternative view I’d raise is in light of the line

    “If we can’t win it then, we’re never going to win it.”

    Given the age range of the yes/no split, it’s far from inconceivable that (yet) another indyref way down the line wouldn’t be as difficult to win through simple demographic change. The 2003 Iraq generation are pretty much the ones who’ve come of voting age just in time to throw Labour on the bonfire. The 2014 generation might very well come of voting age just in time to put an indyref through in 2030+ once a sizeable portion of the 2014 no vote has shuffled off. It’d be long-game tastic and that’s something the nats, for all their foibles, seem to be able to do pretty well.

    But, realistically, I doubt we’ll ever be as close again and if we don’t go for it now-ish after the last two years, I’m really not sure we deserve it.

  162. Glamaig
    Ignored
    says:

    The odd thing about Yes Leavers is, they obviously didnt fall for Project Fear. But Project Fear included the threat that they would be out of the EU if they voted Yes. So did they believe that one threat out of the many (seems illogical), for example were they happy to lose their pension just to get out of the EU, or did they think, on balance, they would prefer independence even if it meant being in the EU?

    If the latter, hopefully they will do the same again despite what they say now. I really cant get my head round this ‘I voted Yes but this time I’ll vote No because I want out of the EU more than I want out of the UK’.

    Part of the problem is lack of understanding of how the UK and the EU both work – the media have fed us so much shite over the years about the EU, and failed to highlight how the UK works politically, they should seriously be taken to court or something.

  163. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Article 50 appeal: royal prerogative is crucial, attorney general tells court

    https://archive.is/tvk8y

    Online backlash as English chemists bans Scottish banknotes

    https://archive.is/Cr5mO

  164. louis.b.argyll
    Ignored
    says:

    Ruth Davidson on BBCRuthDavidson just spoke for 30 seconds..

    AND SAID NOTHING WITH ANY MEANING WHATSOEVER..whilst nodding to seem engaging.

    .. obviously, the BBC thought they’d show it to us anyway.

  165. Bunny Daft
    Ignored
    says:

    I am one of those Yes/Leave voters, and I think a lot of people on this site would do well to stop talking about us as if we’re the enemy here. I’ve lived abroad, speak three EU languages, and have three university degrees. I’m not a bigot, a racist, a xenophobe or any of these other lame insults that Team EU use to try and stifle debate.

    I am extremely concerned about the political machinations of the EU, whose Commission have openly stated on record that it is better to lie to electorates than trust the little people to make their own decisions, and who have tried to foist ‘ever closer’ political union on unwilling electorates by the deliberate, manufactured instigation of a financial disaster (the euro was always meant to fail, as anyone who knows anything about sovereign bonds understands).

    I would always choose independence for Scotland, but if the price tag was membership of the Euro, you have to understand that the independence on offer would be in name only. Go and ask the Greeks about that.

    Pretending these things aren’t issues means your side starts to lack credibility. We need some honesty about the EU, it is not going to ride to Scotland’s rescue here, and there’s a 50% chance it will have imploded completely by the time indyref2 comes around.

  166. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    When rUK has finally Brexited, just think of all those companies down south who want a foothold in the EU. If not England then Scotland is their best bet.

    And if we then have–in, say, 5 years after Indy–our own EU Ref, it owuld put all that (potential) investment at risk. So why have another EU Ref and put all that investment at risk? Do some Scots hate the EU so much that they would rather all that (potential) investment disappeared? It will be like winning the lottery (our Indy) then winning EuroMillions (rUK investment in EU Scotland) to then chuck it all away with a punt on Red and it comes up Black. Just like Cameron Did.

    For sure plenty of IFs, Buts and Maybes. But I’m sure you get the general idea.

    Where’s Mystic McTernan when you really need him?

  167. Orri
    Ignored
    says:

    Having voted so readily in favour of remaining part of the EU it’s arguable that the opinion of Scots is that the rights afforded us within the EU is desirable.

    If, as now seems evident, this does go towards a requirement for legislation then the Articles of Union 18 kicks in and the lack of evident utility to us in Scotland means we are exempt from any such laws. How Westminster solves the conundrum of being able to issue a notification under A50 that doesn’t apply to Scotland is going to be interesting. Bearing in mind that A50 requires that the notification be legal.

  168. Maria F
    Ignored
    says:

    I am very sorry Rev, but I am not convinced at all by your argument today.

    I have seen quite a few people around me changing their minds about independence (from NO to Yes) specifically because of Brexit. They feel very strong about it. They want to remain in the EU and they see that the only way to achieve that is by independence of Scotland. These people will be firm Yes voters as long as that means that Scotland will remain in the EU or will commit to join the EU as an independent country.

    If I understood you correctly (my apologies if I didn’t), what you propose is that these people, who voted to remain in the UK once and have already voted to remain in the EU, will have to vote for independence without knowing if they will remaining in the EU after all because another EU referendum will take place. These people may well turn round and say, why bother with independence if we may leave the EU after all? We may as well remain in the UK. Remember that their motivation to vote yes is remaining in the EU. You take that out of the equation and the motivation quickly fades.

    I am sure you have also thought that there will be a fair number of people who voted for independence in 2014 that did so believing that Scotland will regain EU membership at one time or another because they did not believe the crap from the BT that the best way to remain in the EU was to remain in the UK (I happen to be one of those). Perhaps some of those (not me) would not see that tempting the possibility of Scotland permanently out of the EU and with a potentially hostile ‘ex-partner’ resentful because we left them.

    Others, without the motivation of a certainty of being able to remain in the EU, may become completely apathetic and may lose motivation in voting one way or another. You may find that some of the EU citizens could quickly lose interest and motivation in voting for independence if the possibility of remaining in the EU will have to be discussed a posteriori.

    Put it simple: remove the EU out of the equation and you may dilute the commitment to indy by quite a few.

    I am of the opinion that the EU referendum result was perfectly valid and indicates that the majority of the electorate in Scotland who voted in June wanted to remain in the EU. I do not see why it has to be discarded for another one. To be honest, I see no much difference between doing that and the stance of the yoons, that we have to leave the EU because ‘the UK voted to leave’. No it didn’t. One kingdom voted to leave and the other voted to remain. So are we going to admit now that the Kingdom of England’s view is more important than that of the Kingdom of Scotland? I am not prepared to do that.

    Besides, it is precisely the high number of voters in Scotland wanting to remain in the EU what justifies another indyref, because it completely changes the Status Quo that we were sold in 2014 by the unionists.

    If we say that people will need to decide again if they want to remain in the EU or not, what firm reason are we giving NO voters to justify voting for independence?

    Proposing another EU referendum is the LibDems’ stance. The other two unionist branches propose to leave the EU holding hands with England. I believe our stance must be different and the only scenario left is that of remaining in the EU at all costs.

    No matter what anti EU crap the BBC is attempting to sell with Dumblebore and the QTs from hell, there is a lot of people in England who want another EU referendum too. Brexit has just costed the Tories a seat that the LibDems have pocketed. Do we want to risk the chance that the remainers among the NO voters may chose to listen to the LibDems rather than SNP/Greens? Personally I don’t.

    Why not seen things the other way round?
    What is so bad about getting the 27 EU members to help us becoming free of Westminster and in the future, if deemed appropriate, leave the EU on our own terms, rather than those of England?
    We may see that things improve signficantly in the EU once the Kingdom of England leaves.

    The FM is working hard speaking and taking the message to important people from all over Europe. While the idiots at Westminster were still attempting to drag their jaws back up from floor after the Brexit vote shock, our FM was already on a plane heading to talk to the big wigs in the EU. She gave a powerful speech to the Seanad in Ireland and to the Greens Convention in Glasgow and her message is always the same: we want to stay in the EU.

    Forgive me if I misunderstood, but what you suggest seems to go completely against the bridges with the EU countries she is trying to build. I believe we should be building upon her efforts, not attempting to throw them down so we have to start from scratch again.

    I am of the opinion that indiref 2 is not so much about the Yes voters who voted to leave as it is about the No voters that want very strongly to remain in the EU and are willing to vote for independence to achieve that.

    Yes voters who wanted to leave the EU will have to decide how strong their desire for independence is. If it is strong enough, they should consider this as a second opportunity. If they don’t, well good luck to them.

    By the way, I have come across several Yes voters who rejected the EU and they said they did so because they thought it was the quickest way to get another indiref2! Those will be voting Yes no matter what REv! Is there any study of how many Yes voters voted to leave the EU for the same reason?

    Sadly, I do think that we will lose indiref2 again if the EU is removed out of the equation.

  169. louis.b.argyll
    Ignored
    says:

    I’d vote for Scotland to remain part of the EU and obviously the single market- with our votes counting towards creating progressive and efficient future living systems.

    With improving education across Europe clashing with global automation which is sweeping away workers, never mind workers rights – new ‘norms’ must be truly shared with our trading partners.

  170. North chiel
    Ignored
    says:

    ” Manandboy” absolutely spot on in your post at 0556pm.
    The ” ongoing massive oil con” by the London government .
    The current oil price ( currently above 50 usd ) is circa TWICE
    the average Brent price over the past 40 years. In fact between 1975 and 2000
    for 13 of the 25 years the oil price was BELOW 20 usd per barrel . The price
    never endingly quoted recently by the ” con men” of 100 usd plus , was only ever
    attained for three years only over the 40 plus year history of
    North Sea production.
    Together with the ” myth” that the oil is ” running out” , the Scottish people are being
    duped by this London propaganda . The oil companies have made massive profits, and the London treasury has received billions in revenue . Is this gigantic con going to continue for another 40 years ?? Or do we vote for Independence and salvage something for Scotland ?

  171. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    What Maria F said.

  172. t42
    Ignored
    says:

    Using brexit as a wedge has failed.
    Expect any day now, the FM will be asked if she loves or hates Marmite.
    I guess that currency is to be their last stand, since they have the masses staring excitedly at £5 notes for the past 2 months.

  173. Orri
    Ignored
    says:

    Curiously that specific Article doesn’t specify where Scots exercise those rights. So the right to work in other EU countries being lost as a consequence, however delayed, of an act within Westminster would still be covered even though they’re granted by the laws of other nations.

  174. K1
    Ignored
    says:

    Precisely Maria F!

  175. Robert Peffers
    Ignored
    says:

    @Derick fae Yell says: 5 December, 2016 at 2:32 pm:

    “There is precedent for a two question referendum. Namely 1997. Worked fine then.”

    Oh! Come on! Derick!

    What you are saying is daft.

    The question :-

    “Q2
    Should Scotland be
    part of EFTA (as Norway/Iceland)
    part of the EU (as Denmark/Sweden/Finland)please vote
    please vote for your preferred option by placing a cross in the box)”

    You are proposing that we vote upon a question that is totally outwith the Scottish Government’s powers to do.

    All Scots are currently full paid up EU citizens and the EU has no rules, laws of mechanisms to remove EU citizenship from EU citizens. In fact it would be totally against the very idea of citizenship if it had.

    As UK citizen we are able to ask help or shelter from any EU members Embassy in any World country as if we were a citizen of that country we ask for help from.

    So Scots are EU citizens and we cannot be thrown out. Just as the UK cannot be thrown out. The only way out as a citizen or as a member state is to formally request to leave and even then the EU makes that a difficult thing to do.

    Yet you propose we choose to vote to be members of EFTA.

    Would not the choice of that membership be up to the EFTA member states all considering us welcome?

  176. Clootie
    Ignored
    says:

    …you have to be a NATION in order to execute ANY of the options being discussed. If you do not vote for Independence then you accept that the majority (England) will dictate every political choice as regard the direction in travel……..as they have done for over 300 years.

    Social injustice
    WMD
    A growing gap between rich and poor
    Illegal wars
    A continuation of a move to right wing politics
    Etc,etc

    The EU is the least of our worries if we stick in this Union ruled from London

  177. Glamaig
    Ignored
    says:

    MariaF

    ‘By the way, I have come across several Yes voters who rejected the EU and they said they did so because they thought it was the quickest way to get another indiref2!’

    I also know someone who did that, on the grounds that Scotland was going to vote Remain and he felt he could use his Leave vote to help tip the overall UK vote to Leave.

    Not something I would do, what if too many people did it?!

    Overall, I agree with what you wrote. By bringing Scotlands commitment to the EU into question, we potentially lose the soft-No/Remains, and the EU citizens, and I think they are in greater numbers than hard-core Yes-Leavers, large numbers of whom in any case I think will fall on the Yes side especially if Brexit economic problems grow. Also if we are committed to the EU, we have a good chance of overt support from EU countries and large businesses – that’s going to be the game changer this time.

    The real fear I have BTW is that the UK gets some sort of EEA deal (technically out of the EU) and rides out the anger of the anti-immigration crew. That would undermine us.

  178. Labhrainn Macfhearguis
    Ignored
    says:

    Would it not be possible to have both referendums at the same time?

    I am in favour of self determination for Scotland: YES / NO

    An independent Scotland should be a member of EU: YES / NO

    Is it really more difficult than that?

    Alternatively, then the first act of iScotland would be to hold a referendum om EU membership….this is something that the YES side could easily bake into it’s campaign.

    Either way it would also negate the unionist, “some independence staying in the EU” arguement

  179. Breeks
    Ignored
    says:

    Have Scotland’s historic sovereign legitimacy legally recognised domestically by the Court of Session, have that adjudication duly recognised internationally by the UN and EU, then formally suspend Scotland’s existing constitutional status pending a multi option plebiscite on what the sovereign Nation of Scotland should do.

    Sovereign state and EU member.

    Sovereign state and UK member.

    Sovereign state and EFTA provisional member. (They may not want us).

    Sovereign vanilla state and no affiliations.

    Note there is no Status quo option since that has just been proven by the Court of Session to be legally incompatible with our legitimate sovereignty. However if (for some pointless reason) the plebiscite was not binding, but fact finding, include the status quo option, but pending the formal resolution of the constitutional quandary about sovereignty. That allows Unionists to squabble over the divisive option of UK membership with or without the protection of sovereignty, while the rest of us romp home with a fat majority and prepare to embrace our ongoing EU membership.

    Scots law says we are sovereign. It is a binary option; either we are, or we are not. There should be no grey area, whatever your preferred viewpoint, Unionist, Independentist, or Kezia Dugdale.

    Cut to the chase, and get the job done legally, properly, and all under our own steam and inside our own remit. No BBC involved. Job done.

  180. mealer
    Ignored
    says:

    What a great post,Stu.I’m not entirely convinced by your argument but it is very well put.Concise.It has generated an excellent response from the readership.Top quality comments and debate.Well done everyone.

    As for the yougov poll,I don’t know how they managed to find a sample with 27% born outwith Scotland,but it must raise serious and genuine questions about their methodology.

  181. Bob Mack
    Ignored
    says:

    @Maria F,

    I agree with you. Excellent post. There are no end of possible permutations and we cannot cover for them all. Time to have courage and belief.

  182. Ruby
    Ignored
    says:

    These people (if they acutally exist) who would go from YES to NO to keep Scotland out of the EU are very strange.

    In view of there being such a high % of remain voters in Scotland I can’t see how the SNP promising a referendum on the EU would satisfy them.

    Surely they can figure out for themselves that in an iScotland if the majority want to leave the EU then they would vote for a party proposing an EU referendum.

    Leave the EU referendums to the likes of UKIP something I think David Cameron should have done.

    Any party that proposes an EU referendum should be in favour of a leave vote. Remainers like Cameron having a EU Referendum is not unlike the Scottish Tories promising an Independence referendum.

  183. Juan P
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t see how this idea would help us win indyref2.

    I’ve met plenty no voters who voted remain but are now tempted to vote yes in the next indyref. I’ve yet to meet a yesser who would now vote no for fear we would rejoin the eu.

  184. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    interesting thread, i think stu was just bouncing ideas, he also stated that he had never been a strong leaver or a remainer wrt the eu.
    we have succeded in ensuring that the political landscape is now only occupied by constitutional politics, ie the eu and indy. and thinking and discussing about how we run indyref2 is a good idea. the yessers who voted leave maybe a small minority 10% ? i dunno the exact figure, but a 10% swing wins us indyref2.I think this is why Nicola is aiming for a Norway type solution to subsequent eu negotiations after a successful indyref2. That in itself will satisfy many yes/leavers,

    many here have said correctly, indy 1st and after we can have as many referendums about anything we wish. But i think we should think about what that actually means, we need to win the indyref2 and ensure an indy majority (snp) win the 1st Holyrood election after the negotiations are completed. That will ill unionis in scotland for at least 5 years and probably for good. I dont want to go through indyref2 and find that after negotiations and the 1st holyrood election that we have a unionist majority in holyrood who will do anything to reverse the process. ???

    we need to keep the yes movement onboard until after the next holyrood election, only after that can we be certain that the union is finished for good and the yes movement retired into the history books. offering a sop to keep hard brexit yessers onboard till then by promising another eu in the last year of the next snp majority could do that, but by then the uk would be over and at that point I wouldnt care if Nicola decided to keep commitment or not.

  185. cedric
    Ignored
    says:

    An independent Scotland leaving the EU is not the same as the UK leaving the EU. The most catastrophic parts that are applicable to Brexit are not applicable to an Indy Scotland not being in the EU. Namely that the Scottish government does not have some sort of intrinsically racist problem with freedom of movement. Therefore there is no barrier to trade between the EU and an Indy Scotland like there is between the EU and the UK. This is not only a notable argument in showing that this article’s idea is not threatening to the Indy movement, but also for rabid yoons who refuse to accept any rational debate and are fanatically sure that an independent Scotland will be cast out from the EU: Even if an Independent Scotland were to be forced out of the EU it wouldn’t actually matter that much whereas the UK out of the EU is apocalyptical.

  186. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    This does say a lot about the QT audience selctionerising, BBC style. She’s a fascist.

    http://www.thecanary.co/2016/12/05/fresh-scandal-erupts-bbc-might-explain-question-time-became-right-wing/

  187. Ealasaid
    Ignored
    says:

    What Maria F said

  188. Robert Peffers
    Ignored
    says:

    @JamesCaithness says: 5 December, 2016 at 3:29 pm:

    “I wonder if Robert Peffers is following the Supreme Court Brexit case”.

    Not yet James. I’m very busy just now but I’ll catch up when it begins to get really interesting.

    There is only one thing more confusing than a Philadelphia Lawyer.

    Two Philadelphia Lawyers or alternatively, an English QC representing the Westminster Establishment and paid for with the people they are trying to scam’s tax money.

  189. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    had the unionists given this even a little bit of though after the no vote, they might not now be facing a reverse in indyref2.

    I happy for the pressing of the a50 button to be delayed a few months fro spring to autumn next year, it enables us to get the council elections out of the way (party political elections damage the yes movement) but also the situation in europe, re the french german and perhaps now italian elections to clear.

    once the brexit button is pushed, indyref2 to be declared shortly after. scotlands future 2 will be published stating that an indy scotland will continue with a Norway type relation with the eu after a yes vote and this time we WILL get clarification from the eu. also a constitution stating that after this, any further moves to integrate further with the eu will require a referendum in an indy scotland.

    1. brexit button autumn 2017
    the effects of brexit will have time to bite
    2. indyref2 autumn 2018
    after a yes vote, a movement of financial services and other businesses north of the border will ensure a
    3. snp majority in 1st ever independent holyrood elections

    at which point, those who wish can hold a wake for the union, i might even attend to gloat, either way britain will be history

  190. Free Scotland
    Ignored
    says:

    These Yes-voters who would now vote No in order to stay aboard the sinking ship Britannia exist only in the fantasies of desperate unionists and Tory-sponsored polling organisations.

    Years ago, Boris Johnson was sacked from the Times for making up quotes. That same newspaper now pays significant sums to polling organisations for making up results.

  191. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Looks like rancid the Graun liggers are WoS readers too. Just a discussion out with, or excluding, England freaks them out.

    http://archive.is/zDTMt

  192. Graf Midgehunter
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m still playing catch-up again here but as a practising European I’m in agreement with most of what Peter Bell says. It’s imperative we keep Indy 2 and an EU Referendum as far as possible separate. Sorry Rev.

    Indy 2 is only about getting our independence, the ability to design and run our own country as we see fit.

    It’ll be a hard battle and we need all the help we can get from our friends in Europe. We campaigned for remain – 62% – Alyn Smith held an impassioned speech in Brussels, Nicolas done her successful tours of European capitals – standing ovations in Dublin. Etc, etc.

    Could you imagine the signal we would send out if we said Indy now and while we’re at it let’s have an EU Ref a short time later about whether we will actually stay in your club or not. We might even go for EEA or EFTA..!

    The Europeans would probably ask themselves if we are taking the p**s and suddenly go “neutral”. And who could blame them.

    As for the YES/Leavers, IMO most of them are baseing their objections on the present situation where the circumstances and needs of WM dominate the agenda. Scotland is a small (forgotten?) part of the UK membership in Europe.

    If Scotland wins a YES Indy vote before the Brexit deadline everything changes. The circumstances and needs of Scotland will take immediate priority. E.g. Fishing, CAP, defence, industrial programmes, MEPs etc, etc.

    This entails (re)-negotiating the membership deal for Scotland as the continueing new “Member State”. Our membership should then be more in line with our needs and satisfy the great majority. I believe that many of the YES/LEAVERS objections will then disappear and reduce the demand for another EU-Ref.

  193. Ian McCubbin
    Ignored
    says:

    Seems to simple a set of options for many. But certainly will make the better together crowd struggle with credible arguments.

  194. ben madigan
    Ignored
    says:

    in my view scotland should hold its indyref2 well within the 2 year time period of the UK triggering Art 50.
    If it’s successful Scotland will remain a member of the EU as an independent country. It then has to write a constitution, hold elections and allow its parliament to bed down and its people to get used to the new dispension – all the while taking its place among the nations of Europe.
    Scotland may well find full member status of the EU is very different to its hitherto backwater status as a “northern region” of the UK.
    Only once full EU member status has been explored and understood, will the Scottish people have the info they need to make a rational decision as to whether they want to leave or remain within the EU. And that’s when the EU referendum should be held – if there is a demand for it.

  195. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Juan P says:
    5 December, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    I don’t see how this idea would help us win indyref2.

    I’ve met plenty no voters who voted remain but are now tempted to vote yes in the next indyref. I’ve yet to meet a yesser who would now vote no for fear we would rejoin the eu.

    Juan, there is an entire gamut of positions held by many voters wrt to indy and the eu, even the blindingly ignorant who now think we have already left. we can never satisfy all of them, only come up with a stand point, a position which wins us a majority in indyref2. i think this article atempts to stimulate debate in this direction, i not convinced that promising an euref2 is the correct policy to hae during indyref2, but i am willing to listen and consider the arguements.

    nicola proposing a norway type settlement for scotland, (ie, technically out of the Eu) is a big departure from where we are at the moment, indeed, had cameron proposed this idea instead for the uk, it would still have needed a referendum

    I suppose it depends how we sell the idea, for brexiters in scotland, a norway deal would mean we were technically out of the eu, ( i believe it would also give us some level of control on free movement of eu citizens should the scottish government wish to exercise it, Norway also has this power but to date has not used it)
    If Norway and scotland had the same status, they could together block spanish fishermen from “joint norway and scottish waters”

    for remainers, it ensures free access, as we have now, to the single market, no tariff barriers to our goods, but it it would allow scotland to subsidise its own producers goods, at least in scotland, in a way other full eu members cant

    I think Nicola is playing a blinder, if she pulls this off, the brexiteers down south will be spewing. snigger

  196. solarflare
    Ignored
    says:

    Yeah, I think I am in the “not seeing it” camp with this one as per others.

    The stark differences in polling in the EU referendum between Scotland and England are the whole crux of why there needs to be an indyref2. Without that material change there isn’t much left but “let’s repeat the same arguments as indyref1 and see if anyone’s changed their mind either way (not likely)”. It would be a straight action replay without Brexit.

    It might well be the case that indyref2 is still lost even with Brexit, but I think you can safely say either way it will be a very different ballgame.

    Therefore I personally can’t see how anything, anything at all, that appears to play down the existing EU referendum result won’t then ultimately end up being harmful for a Yes vote in indyref2.

    But that’s not to say it isn’t worth talking about this sort of thing. It is clear that every conceivable angle needs to be, well, conceived of.

  197. Onwards
    Ignored
    says:

    Juan P says:
    5 December, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    I don’t see how this idea would help us win indyref2.

    I’ve met plenty no voters who voted remain but are now tempted to vote yes in the next indyref. I’ve yet to meet a yesser who would now vote no for fear we would rejoin the eu.
    ——

    Try looking at the comments under any Sun or Daily Record facebook article regarding the SNP or independence.

    There are a lot of bigots and racists out there, and Scots aren’t immune. The photo of Sturgeon in a headscarf is everywhere. Separating the questions neutralises the attack about Sturgeon seeing Scotland flooded with migrants.

    Make no mistake, that is what one major line of attack will be in a second indyref amongst working class voters.
    I want to remain in the EU or at least the EEA, but we need a separate Europe vote to argue that it will be up to Scottish voters, not the SNP.

  198. Tam Jardine
    Ignored
    says:

    I still don’t follow why we need another EU referendum up here having been such a shoe last time round. What does it prove?

    Is the reason being because the polls are suggesting some yessers would now vote no because of the pro EU stance? I just don’t buy it. More like a few soft yessers having cold feet. Is that anti EU yesser who would vote no really a thing or are we inventing people using polling data?

    How a person voted in the past and how they intend to vote in the future is two things, and what they tell polling companies is not necessarily the same two things.

    My opinion of how you make progress is by taking a strong proposition (an independent Scotland in the EU) and running with it. This proposition, consistent SNP policy for ages will be reinforced once article 50 is triggered and the economic damage focuses minds.

    The choice right now is clearly between in UK out of EU and in EU out of UK whilst the 3rd proposition mentioned is very much a minority yes-only interest.

    The pro Yes anti EU voters are discussed on here sometimes like they are not part of our movement or are some kind of bizarre sect. Apart from those ambivalent or down-right hostile to the EU there were all kinds of reasons including tactics I have heard for yes voters voting leave. Pushing the UK leave vote up was one such reason (and in a sense the Yes voters who voted leave assisted us in reaching this favourable tactical outcome).

    There were those who could not stomach voting alongside Darling, Cameron, Brown etc. And there were no doubt those who voted leave in order to destabilise the UK.

    When we all knew the vote would be decided elsewhere was it such a surprise that so many yessers voted leave? I think this vote carried out as it was in a miasma of voter fatigue and disillusionment as Scotland’s fate was essentially decided elsewhere should not be extrapolated into something that should derail the whole strategy.

    As before- if a political party goes to the polls on the back of a pledge for another referendum as the SNP have done recently- lets have another EU referendum but why we should go through all this when there is really zero appetite is beyond me.

  199. Fred
    Ignored
    says:

    “What are we going to do about Maria?” coz she’s right!

  200. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    Basically, we had two referendums, one voted stay in the UK and one voted stay in the EU by a larger margin, but the UK of which we are a part voted to Leave and we’re getting dragged out with it. This leaves us with two unreconcileable referendum results.

    The whole justification for a second Independence referendum is to resolve that difference – which is more important to us, to stay in the UK or stay in the EU?

    So it’d be quite illogical if at the same time, or anywhere near, we had another EU referendum of our own. It’s clear – 62% wanted to remain.

  201. Dan Huill
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s always another way: Holyrood holds a vote to end the union with England with the SNP and Greens winning and declaring the union finished.

  202. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    EU Nationals after Brexit will be required to carry ID and students will be included and treated the same as immigrants

    Says Amber Rudd

  203. Robert Peffers
    Ignored
    says:

    @geeo says: 5 December, 2016 at 3:30 pm:

    ” … I am pretty sure Scotland would be made welcome as a continuing member, taking the Uk place.”

    Let’s knock that one on the head, Geeo.

    If the EU were to accept Scotland as the successor state I would hope that it was not by taking the UK’s place as the Member State. In the first place because that would make a nonsense of the continued EU citizenship of every person in Scotland as we would all be ex-UK/EU citizens and thus new EU citizens.

    The ideal situation is the EU Parliament accepts the United Kingdom is exactly what it actually legally is. A bipartite union of only the two equally sovereign partner kingdoms that signed up to the Treaty of Union that Formed The United Kingdoms.

    That is, The other partner of the former United Kingdom does not get to keep the title of, “The United Kingdom”, as it cannot be a united kingdom of any sort as it only consists of the three Kingdom of England countries that signed up to the Treaty in 1707.

    If it gets to remain as the United Kingdom it introduces a lot of legal argument as to what are and what are not United Kingdom assets and debts. Remember, just for starters, that Westminster has laid clam to the 98/95% of the North Sea revenues that come out of Scottish Territorial waters as UK Extraregio revenues and another 600Sq Mls of Scottish territorial waters.

    Then there are the, “National”, assets in London they built but class as being national assets not to mention a great many works of art, along with the National Galleries, Theatres, Ballert, Opera,et al. Oh! And the National Civil Service, Armed forces and security services.

    If Scotland remains in the EU it should be as a former full legal partner with the Kingdom of England that really is the United Kingdom. It also means we have equal claim to such United Kingdom assets like the pensions many of us have paid for all our working lives. If they get away with remaining as the United Kingdom then they can claim all the assets and dispute the debits as they do already.

    I just do not understand those people of Scotland who are so ready to let Westminster away with being the actual parliament of the Country of England that has relgated their former partner in the union to being a just another country of The Kingdom of England, (like N.I. and Wales), that were English annexed countries long befroe the Treaty of Union.

    ” … However, the EU, up to now, have been unable to give a definitive statement on an independent Scotland’s status.”.

    There is very good reason for them doing so, geeo.

    The Member State is, The United Kingdom, and the EP has plainly made it well known what the EU Rules are. Neither an individual EU Citizen nor an EU member State has any other means of leaving the EU than to formally request to do so. Even when they do so it is not made easy and it is not quick.

    The UK says it is going to leave as the UK but they think they can spin it out until it suits them while attempting to blackmail deals out of the other member states. This was the con trick attempted by Cameron.

    He was attempting to blackmail the EU into giving the UK special privileges. I do not believe he had the slightest intention of dragging the UK out of Europe. He was bluffing and the EU called his bluff – he is now an ex-PM of the UK. Meanwhile the EU is sticking to its guns and there will be no special deals for the UK.

    To spike the UK’s guns, all that is required is for the EU to take the United Kingdom for what it legally is – a bipartite union of Kingdoms. By doing so they put the bit that remains right were it actually legally is.

    It is exactly what Fluffy Mundell claimed it was during the Scottish Indy referendum when he quoted a Westminster commissioned paper.

    Mundell claimed, on TV, “The Treaty of Union , “Extinguished”, The Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”.

    Anyone reading the Treaty, or either Act, of Union knows that claim is total balderdash and downright lies and just Westminster Wishful thinking.

    The truth then becomes glaringly obvious that Westminster is acting as the Parliament of the Country of England and it has consigned both its former annexed countries of Wales and Ireland to being separate countries in thrall to England but not parts of the Kingdom of England.

    Worse still it has relegated its former full partner kingdom in the Union to being just another cast off English annexed country.

    There is actual proof of all this as they have no Parliament of England but they fund England directly as, “The United Kingdom”, when they do the books and then they decide the level of limited funding they dole out as block grants to their subservient servants while retaining controls over that funding by Barnett Consequentials.

    Then, to rub salt into the wound, the introduce EVEL, (English Votes foe English Laws), yet there is nothing that is only because it is all funded by United Kingdom taxes.

    “After Article 50 is finally invoked, as far as i can understand it, the UK can no longer vote on EU issues, influence policy direction etc, so surely there is no reason why the Scottish Government cannot ask the EU for the Post Indy EU status of Scotland ?”

    If the EU recognises the truth that the United Kingdom is not a country but a partnership of two kingdoms and one wants out while the other wants in then the correct decision is that the Kingdom of Scotland stays as the member state and the Kingdom of England leaves the EU and the United Kingdom ends when Scotland and England end the Treaty of Union.

    England, (the three country Kingdom), leaves the EU and is no longer part of the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Scotland remains as the continuing member state but can no longer claim to be the United Kingdom either.

    We would thus never have left the EU but have ended the United Kingdom. Think about it. If France decided to leave the EU there would still be an EU because it is NOT a bipartite union but if one kingdom leaves a bipartite union of kingdoms there is no united kingdom left.

  204. Tam Jardine
    Ignored
    says:

    Onwards

    I’m not sure if I really understand where you are coming from. Some folk who vote yes or potentially would vote yes in indyref2 are racist or bigoted so we need to think about them when formulating strategy? Maybe a little dog-whistle to keep them on side or what?

  205. Adam Black
    Ignored
    says:

    Your analysis ignores the fact that for many the key motivation for voting “Yes” would be to preserve our EU membership. Without this link (i.e. a clear notion that voting “Yes” means remaining), their votes will be lost.

    We’re talking millions of voters. EU nationals living in Scotland, for example. And many, many, Scots, including yours truly.

    I voted “No” in 2014, but would vote “Yes” this time, to stay in the EU. Take this promise away, and you lose many Remain voters like me.

  206. silver19
    Ignored
    says:

    @schrodingers cat

    I hope brexit is delayed as well, especially with the Council Elections next year, Because we know that Tories will be really ramping up offering more vows lies with powers back from EU back to UK and given to Scotland rubbish on top most devolved Parliament in the world lie.

    No doubt some of the Red Tories Councillors will be standing down before they are pushed next May, And no doubt the Red Tories will be telling there members either not to vote or vote Blue Tories to make sure the maximum vote goes to the Blue Tories to make sure the SNP don’t have a clean sweep at Council Elections.

  207. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    dads
    what is clear from the eu ref is people, in england, want to take back control of uk borders, what isnt clear is what deal, relationship etc they will have wrt trade. indeed, months after the result, we are none the wiser on this point

    The whole justification for a second Independence referendum is to resolve that difference – which is more important to us, to stay in the UK or stay in the EU?

    getting out of the uk, i thought that was obvious, I dont think either of us doubt each others resolve on this point. i not even sure it needs to be asked

    the discussion here today is “how best to achieve this”?

    im open to suggestions

    but just for clarity, nicola’s norway type solution, will mean we are effectively outside of the eu in the same way that norway are?

    i think this is a brilliant tactic by the snp, it appeals to the low iq rightwing brexitters in scotland, it appeals to the middle of the road remainers and satisfies the demains of the main stream remainers in scotland, ie it ensures free access to the single market, it doesnt stop eu students fro attending university here, it ensures the rights of eu nationals here etc,

    perhaps the promise of an euref2 isnt for the leavers, maybe its for the remainers who want further eu integration….

    either way, we are only discussing what the best platform to fight indyref2 is, but the snp seem to have already decided on the best course of action wrt to the eu is, a Norway type deal.

    I agree with this, even if i unsure about the euref2 option. but bear in mind, we could paint the euref2 as a sop to remainers as well ?

  208. Stoker
    Ignored
    says:

    WOS archive links for June 2012 now over on O/T.

  209. Joybell
    Ignored
    says:

    Agree with Marie F. Good post.

  210. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    silver19 says:
    5 December, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    @schrodingers cat

    No doubt some of the Red Tories Councillors will be standing down before they are pushed next May, And no doubt the Red Tories will be telling there members either not to vote or vote Blue Tories to make sure the maximum vote goes to the Blue Tories to make sure the SNP don’t have a clean sweep at Council Elections.

    the stv elections in may are unlikely to produce an snp landslide due to the actual system we use. the snp will increase their control massively, but wont control more than half the councils in scotland. thewn again, the ore i focus on council elections, the more cynical i am about councillors and their reps i am, with all parties.

    ie, the snp winning big would be nice, im just no longer sure it matters that much

  211. boris
    Ignored
    says:

    Mundell’s own backyard gave their opinion about a second referendum

    A consultation has been launched to reconsider the question of Scottish independence before the UK leaves the EU. Now, the Border Telegraph and Peeblesshire News want to find out if you’re in support of another referendum following the announcement from Holyrood. The Scottish Government claim the draft bill has been prepared to protect Scotland’s interests in light of the UK vote to leave the EU and the overwhelming vote across Scotland to remain. By having the bill available, the government says it will allow all options for the Scottish Parliament to protect Scotland’s continuing relationship with Europe. The draft bill proposes that any referendum would be run in a way similar to 2014, with technical adjustments to reflect recent changes in elections law and procedures such as individual registration.

    Do you want another independence referendum? Readers voted: Yes: 82% No; 18%

    http://www.cumnockchronicle.com/news/14816361.Would_you_like_another_independence_referendum__Vote_in_our_online_poll/?ref=ar

  212. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    ID documents can be faked. There are faked documents. Fraud is committed with them every day. How much is it going to cost to hassle people and round them up. How big a force will be needed?
    Teresa May as Home Secretary cut the Borders Forces. She appointed a new Head. Eventually the queues were so long at Heathrow etc they had to let travellers through unchecked. It was chaos. May blamed the Head. The Head resigned and called her out for cutting the staff. A complete shambles.

    They are manipulating the migration figures. They are not considering the affects the illegal wars and the displacement of people is having on migration in Europe. The higher borrowing and spending and debt pro rata in the UK. By comparison with the EU. Unemployment figures are falling and would fall further. If it was not for the flawed Westminster Unionist Gov policies. Unequal taxation. Especially in Scotland. Depopulated by Westminster policies. Until Devolution 2000.

    The reason the Tories and their associates want out of the EU is so they can tax evade and misappropriate public money. Illegal wars, banking fraud and tax evasion.

  213. shug
    Ignored
    says:

    Indyref2 will need to consider that the BBC will be bashing out strong messages about the immanent collapse of the EU

    They are already preparing the ground – watch the subtle tone of voice in call Kaye and any news about the EU

    By the time Yes 2 is ready a good proportion of the public will believe that the UK is better out, and Scotland will be better to stay in the UK rather than risk life run by the Germans.

  214. Thepnr
    Ignored
    says:

    A thread with a bit of passion thrown in. I like very much, lots of good comments and opinions.

    My view? Let’s settle the Independence issue first then everything else is up for grabs. Baby steps, learn to walk before trying to run.

  215. One_Scot
    Ignored
    says:

    ‘Scotland will be better to stay in the UK’

    There is no conceivable scenario in an infinite number of parallel universes that would ever give rise to that being the case.

  216. JamesCaithness
    Ignored
    says:

    I found this on facebook, any thoughts?

    David McGuinness
    14 mins ·
    As everyone knows that the supreme Court case is underway, how many of you understand the implications of this case?
    Let me explain, by Thursday this week one of our oldest laws will be put to the test.
    Our claim of right as sovereign Scots will be placed before the supreme court and if they rule against one of our oldest law something they have always backed away from doing then the supreme court will rule that the crown and Westminster are sovereign and not the Scottish people.
    They will rule that Scotland either dose not exist or that we are a colony to be treated as they see fit.
    They will be saying we are not in a union but that rather we are a subordinate people and property of the crown.
    Our claim of right has always been our safe guard even before the Scottish parliament was reconvened even Thatcher and the supreme court have recognised it in the past .
    Tony Blair was advised when he tried to get around allowing devolution that to deny that Claim of right was to end the union.
    James when he headed off to London recognise that at some point an impasse would be reached that is why Scots law and the Church two of the main stays of state at the time were keep separate.
    Actually Jame left Scotland a separate state the need for union had to do with the crowns great debts from the wars they were engaged in.
    Later when the treaty of union was forced on us in the terms of that treaty the law and church stayed separate so consent would be needed to enact UK law into Scots law.
    That situation remains the same today .
    The supreme court could be about to take away that need for consent it could be about to tell Westminster ignore the Scots go ahead use the royal prerogative.
    They could also be about to say that the will of the Scottish people and Scots law does not mean jack shit.
    I see a shit storm brewing.
    Why? Because no matter how you voted in the either referendum the one thing we all agree on is that Scotland does exit as a nation and that we the people are sovereign it is also recognised in international law.
    Keep an eye on the supreme court.
    David McGuinness. LVSS.

  217. Ian M
    Ignored
    says:

    The EU is a an opportunity that currently looks to be the best bet for Scotland to advance itself
    If things change we can always move to an open market.

    The lies and propaganda will be staggering when Indy 2 comes along
    We will need facts in the hands of the people
    Also a list of the broken promises since Indy !

    Westminster promised to paint the Barn
    And they did they made one brush stroke on one side
    “Hey We painted the barn” “Naw ye didnae”
    Dumb Scots we never said we would paint the whole thing
    Suckered again Jocks?

  218. Jim McIntosh
    Ignored
    says:

    schrodingers cat says@
    5 December, 2016 at 2:45 pm
    “A referendum has to produce a clear result. Anything else will just cause a constitutional crisis.”

    Absolutely true, and there’s the rub. if we go for Indy2 without a clear position on Europe the naysayers will cause havoc by screaming we’ll lose access to the rUK market and have no access to the EU single market.

    The SG would need to secure a deal beforehand that guarantees our position in the EU. Perhaps explains Nicola’s whistle stop tours around Europe.

    It’s possible a 2 Q referendum could work.

    Q1. Should Scotland be an Independent country.
    Q2. If Scotland votes to be an Independent country should it join/remain in the EU.

    Q2 only becomes relevant if Q1 is a vote for independence.

    The main concern would be if the overall response is YES/Out, but as we’ve just voted 62% to stay in, and the larger YES campaign organisations would be promoting ‘In’ it’s not likely.

    To appease previous YES voters who might be contemplating voting NO because they don’t want to stay in the EU, part of the deal could be a mandatory referendum after lets say 10 years, when the country will decide whether to remain in the EU is still in our best interest.

  219. shug
    Ignored
    says:

    one_scot

    I agree but the BBC will be getting the message in place and out there making sure they have reinforced the WWII message of better we stand together with England is these troubled times!!

    Europe is doomed!!

    It is total sh… but there you go

    With a compliant BBC and Herald easily sold

  220. Robert Louis
    Ignored
    says:

    Marie F at 717pm,

    Very, very good, well argued post. I agree with every word. In particular I very strongly agree with this;

    QUOTE “I am of the opinion that indiref 2 is not so much about the Yes voters who voted to leave as it is about the No voters that want very strongly to remain in the EU and are willing to vote for independence to achieve that.

    Yes voters who wanted to leave the EU will have to decide how strong their desire for independence is. If it is strong enough, they should consider this as a second opportunity. If they don’t, well good luck to them.

    By the way, I have come across several Yes voters who rejected the EU and they said they did so because they thought it was the quickest way to get another indiref2! Those will be voting Yes no matter what REv! Is there any study of how many Yes voters voted to leave the EU for the same reason?

    This is the point. I have simply lost count of the people I have known and met, who want to vote for independence just to make sure we stay in the EU.

    Let’s get independence. Any notion of other votes for the EU as part of it, are just, well, daft.

    Anyway, no doubt tomorrow, we will once again watch the QC for No. 10 literally dance on the head of a pin, whilst trying to make a most convoluted rationale for royal prerogative. Never seen such tenuous nonsense.

  221. Big Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    I think the leave switchers will back indi when it comes near referendum day. Most will not want to back Westminster over Scotland. At least half will vote yes to indi and that’s enough.

  222. Juan P
    Ignored
    says:

    I still think the idea is pap.

    If being out of the EU was such an important issue then why would you risk voting for independence knowing that 62% of Scotland (higher in fact as we would let eu nationals and 16yr olds vote in any equivalent ref) are likely to vote to remain or join the EU after independence?

    If you’re opposition to the eu is based on xenophobia and concerns about free movement then you would stick with the UK.

    If you’re opposed to the EU for some of the reasons put forward by socialists then you’re still better voting yes as at least you’ll be governed by people Scotland voted for rather than tories.

    Also, the last comfort blanket a lot of soft no voters had was the ‘i’m an internationalist not a nationalist’ spiel.
    That was torn off them as a result of brexit.

    If the SNP are seen to soften their pro EU stance then a lot of decent no voters will think we’re heading in the same direction as the little englanders and won’t support indyref2.

  223. Jimbo
    Ignored
    says:

    I was yes remain. I could be convinced to be yes leave on a Scots-centric debate.

    Seems a good debate, I quite like referendums.

  224. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @cat
    Yeah, I don’t doubt your resolve for one single second, we may have disputes about the way of doing things, but not the cause of Indy behind it all.

    Yes, the SNP are being clever doing the EFTA / EEA thing. I think they’re floating the idea to see how it goes, but also for those anti-EU who may be prepared to go along with it. It’s also the fallback in case there’s no staying the EU, well then, we join EFTA / EEA which is a bit easier, and think about the full EU afterwards. I’d say the EU members wouldn’t be upset if we went the EFTA way, it does still keep us in the single market, and freedom of movement.

    ———————

    Saw LPW on STV earlier, saying the ScotGov submission fairly weak. I think he misses the point it got an angry response from Keen, and that it’s very well and carefully put together. As we may well see by the end of this week.

    It was also noticeable Wright who seems to be the lead, had Keen sitting at his right hand in court.

  225. Meg merrilees
    Ignored
    says:

    shug@10.39

    Re the BBC putting out selective news I noticed today that they spent sometime reporting the outcome of the Italian vote and its possible negative consequences but never a mention of the Austrian result.

    Deliberate ploy to make us think that Europe and the EU is struggling and the writing is on the wall. Can’t have Joe public thinking that other countries want the EU to continue and don’t support this populist, right-wing, fascist surge!

    Re the earlier discussion of Scotland being the successor state wasn’t there some worry that there is a large debt attached to our EU membership and as a successor state we would have to be careful not to inherit it as England and Wales walked away?

  226. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @Meg merrilees
    Ah well, if we take all the debts, we take all the assets. Hey, we’d have the 4th biggest navy in the WORLD! Wha daur meddle wi’ me!

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/bulletins/nationalbalancesheet/2016estimates

    The total net worth of the UK was estimated at £8.8 trillion at the end of 2015. This was equivalent to an average of £135,000 per person or £327,000 per household.

    I can live with that.

  227. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    @cat

    I’ll bet there’ll be a fair amount of “Independent” candidates standing for the cooncil elections

    Will the locals fall for it?

  228. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    Mmm, Indy Ref 2 – Thursday November 30th 2017.

    Nicola Sturgeon Monday 26th November 2017:

    As already proven, the United Kingdom was formed as a Union of two equal partners, Scotland and England. With our Independence both States, Scotland and whatever the rest of the former United Kingdom wishes to call itself as Michael Forsyth said in the House of Lords, will be Successor states, and therefore Scotland is entitled to half the assets, and would take half the debt.

    However, we feel this is unfair to the Rest of the United Kingdom and would of course be prepared to swiftly negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement after a YES vote with the Rest of the United Kingdom. But make no mistake, Scotland will have the upper hand in these negotiations and will not be prepared to countenance for one single solitary second, any intransigence or unreasonableness on the part of the rUK.”

    Press release ends.

  229. Swiss Perspective
    Ignored
    says:

    I see two problems with the proposal made in the article. One is that the two referenda are still linked: Some Yes/leavers may still vote no because they might fear that they will be dragged back into the EU against their will if they vote yes. The other is that it destroys the SG’s case for Indyref2. If an independence vote is on the cards because Scotland is being dragged out of the EU against her will, then you do not strengthen your argument by saying that having won independence you will then go back and double-check whether the premises for having the referendum in the first place was in fact true.

    There may be different ways of slicing it, but that is where the counter argument is going to come from.

  230. Chic McGregor
    Ignored
    says:

    Maria argues her case very well.

    As a very strong EU supporter myself, I do believe and hope that we could still win an indyref2 with a backdrop promise of remaining in the EU.

    As Brexit looms, depending on how much the rUK is going to suffer, could well guarantee an indyref2 victory. That is a reasonable expectation. Here’s hoping that is how it pans out.

    However 1, it is possible, and with little required imagination, to see potential pitfalls with that approach.

    For a start, as Maria admits later in her post, we lack hard polling data which might tell us with more precision how many are likely to go from yes to no or from no to yes based on continuing EU membership.

    I would have liked to have seen hard polling on this and suggested that here for Wing’s polling strategy way back during indyref1.

    But we are where we are and must, in the absence of such data and I did not see specific questions which addressed it in the national survey either, rely largely on anecdotal evidence of the kind Maria cited herself at the start of her post.

    The problem with that, is that we are all yes supporters here (by and large). Think what that means. Due to the indyref1 campaign, virtually every acquaintance you have will (or should) know you were pro yes. So what does that mean?

    Well, those who were soft no’s but strong remainers who have switched to an intention of voting yes in indyref2 will have absolutely no problem with volunteering that change of heart to you.

    OTOH, hose who were soft yes’s but are strongly anti-EU and have switched to an intention of voting no in indyref2 are NOT going to volunteer that information to you.

    The collective anecdotal evidence from this group of contributors is BOUND to be that more people are moving from no to yes because of the EU referendum.

    You all know that must be true.

    Meanwhile, the sample polls are telling us that there is actually not a lot of net shifting on an indyref2 voting intention even though we know lots of people have changed in both directions, which kind of implies that Brexit influenced yes/no switching is about 50::50 in either direction. It is balancing out. Like the Rev said.

    So what do we hope for in terms of securing a yes vote for indyref2 with continuing EU membership understood? Ideal scenario would be something like hard Brexit leading to very obvious economic disaster for the UK combined with an EU that has sorted itself out, looks strong and is welcoming to a newly independent Scotland. Great! I really, really hope that is the scenario going into indyref2.

    However 2, other optional futures are available, and on present evidence, at least as likely. Worse case scenario, the impending EU elections demonstrate a paradigm shift towards the populist right. Increased unrest in the EU. EU economic issues with the Euro zone in crisis. Erdogan carries out his threat to opens the border gates for 3 million plus more Islamic refugees into Europe. Anti UK rhetoric may arise which builds a siege mentality fully exploitable by the MSM in the UK.

    Now, I desperately would prefer the former option, the EU sorts itself out, welcomes Scotland in with open arms and we get our independence.

    But, at this moment in time, the runes do not seem to be lining up that way.

    The next possible pitfall for indyref2 is that by putting all your money on a hard brexit being unacceptable to most Scots, what if it doesn’t happen? What if the rUK manages to get a reasonable deal, access to the single market etc.? It could happen, however unlikely it looks at the moment. Where indyref2 then?

    So what would a deferred EUref to say 5 to 10 years post indy achieve?

    Well, yes it may annoy EU politicos a little, but I am sure most would understand that a newly independent Scotland which has just brokered a new deal with the EU for membership would be quite entitled to test its acceptability with a referendum after a few years. Also, given Scotland’s already demonstrated majority for EU membership, they would have little fear that it would result in a remain vote. Indeed, they may well decide that Scots be given a good deal just to ensure their remain vote at that second plebiscite.

    For that crucial yes to indyref1 but anti EU voter, it says, they will have a second chance to have their say. And many of them might well think it sensible to see how Scotland’s new relationship with the EU pans out before having that second campaign. So they may well then decide to vote yes again for indyref2.

    Also, given the ongoing turbulance with unpredictable outcomes at the moment I think many, an both sides of the EU argument, would not object to a future final decision on this.

    Finally, especially given what seems to be a move towards protectionism as a natural reaction towards the failing neoliberal/globalisation experiment, we should be emphasising that Scotland is a viable country in terms of resource to population ratio. We could, even if everything does go belly up on trade, survive on our own, in or out of the EU. Not at all an ideal scenario but infinitely better than how the rUK would fare.

  231. Still Positive.
    Ignored
    says:

    Agree, Chic. But I really hope the National Survey throws up answers to where we are.

    Hopeful of a hint next Monday at our local branch meeting.

  232. manandboy
    Ignored
    says:

    It appears that the Westminster government has embarked on a propaganda campaign to brainwash the UK population into thinking that the EU has become unstable and has an uncertain future.
    The purpose of this propaganda is to strengthen the Leave voters, to demoralise the Remain voters, and to weaken the resolve of the 62% in Scotland who voted remain.

    Meanwhile, as we heard on Newsnight earlier, the truth is that in the 27 member countries of the EU, SUPPORT FOR THE EU IS GROWING IN STRENGTH.

    Yet again, treachery from the English Establishment, stabbing Europe in the back even before they have triggered Article 50.
    The good news is that the Europeans know full well what the English are up to and are well prepared. I just wish I could say the same for Scotland, where that might be true of the Scottish Government, it won’t be true of the Scottish Electorate, 50% of whom continue to live in a constant state of British brainwashing.

    There has to be a solution to the BBC. It must be neutralised if we are to attain Independence.

  233. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @manandboy
    BBC1 used to have some good programs on at around 2-3 am, with news from the EU. That stopped. Now it’s only really BBC2 that makes some attempt at presenting current affairs in a reasonable way, and that’s severely curtailed, strangled even.

    It’s not just on our Independence that the BBC is very poor and biased, it’s on practically every single issue it covers. And even its “straight” news reporting is very poor, doesn’t present the story in any competent fashion, and doesn’t follow up weeks, days or even hours later, to update a “breaking” news story – like a fire or crash for instance. And there are people who say the BBC is great. It’s not, it’s amateur hour.

  234. Still Positive.
    Ignored
    says:

    The British Establishment and the BBC and the MSM have been talking down the EU for over 40 years. I am old enough to remember De Gaulle vetoing UK membership 3 times in the 60s, I think, saying the English weren’t European enough, and he was right.

    The BBC are going to continue that to thwart Scottish Independence. I don’t know how we can neutralise them except by a grass-roots movement to persuade the doubters that the EU is not collapsing and remaining is good for Scotland, which it is.

  235. Chic McGregor
    Ignored
    says:

    “they would have little fear that it would result in a remain vote.”

    That should of course have been –

    they would have little fear that it would result in a leave vote.

  236. Chic McGregor
    Ignored
    says:

    Still Positive
    “The British Establishment and the BBC and the MSM have been talking down the EU for over 40 years”

    Aye. Basically “If it’s not inside the M25, its CRAP!. Except of course for our Love Child across the Pond.”

  237. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    One thing about remaining in the EU through indyref2 and immediately afterwards that hasn’t much been mentioned is that it totally neutralises any threat from the rUK that they would wreak economic revenge on we vile rebels if we dared to break away.

    (This threat made sotto voce during indyref1 from the very people who also claimed to be our “kith and kin” and who “love bombed” us with promises to be nicer to us from now on. Huh! Talk about the iron fist inside the velvet glove.)

    Well, even if Tory rUK were inclined to try it, it wouldn’t dare against the economic might of the whole EU. Which also incidentally offers a far bigger market for iScotland to expand into, and is an institution willing to back rather than strangle renewable energy, because it’s their secure future too.

    The EU, for all its current faults, is still our insurance policy in many more ways than one.

  238. Kevin Cargill
    Ignored
    says:

    How about just waiting until we’ve left the EU before having the next Indyref. Once the inevitable (imho) economic chaos ensues then Indyref2 would be in the bag. The SNP no longer a party for Independence could rebrand itself as the Scottish Social Justice in Europe party (or something catchier!) and campaign on a manifesto of joining the EU as a newly formed Independent Nation.

  239. Ghillie
    Ignored
    says:

    Excellent article Rev Stu, though:

    ‘If we can’t win it then, we are never going to win it’ are words that would never pass my lips. Come what may, I will never stop believing in and working towards an Independent Scotland = )

    Yes I do agree and had actualy always assumed that our Independent Scotland would have a series of referendums on our national issues as presented to OUR Government by the People of Scotland.

    The Swiss have referendums on all sorts of questions and it seems to work very well. Not onerous at all. Civic duty, everyone has a voice and of course can continue campaigning if they feel they weren’t understood.

    Jings, it’s not rocket science and means OUR politicians and civil servants would have to properly pay attention to the very people they serve.

    I would like Scotland to give our being full independent members of the European Union a good chance, to see what being a Nation Member can feel like, before a referendum is called.

    The same can be said for the other questions we would like to address.

    Independence first. Then lets have a good look at the lie of the land.

    And hear the voice of the people of Scotland = )

  240. ScottieDog
    Ignored
    says:

    @yesindyref2
    “I’d say the EU members wouldn’t be upset if we went the EFTA way, it does still keep us in the single market, and freedom of movement.”

    To me, that’s the ideal scenario, however, the typical leave voters I have spoken to voted leave BECAUSE of free movement and so it doesn’t address their greavence.

    Anything that keeps us outside of the crazy stability growth pact rules dreamt up in an afternoon is massively beneficial to Scotland. We need to run the necessary deficits to get Scotland back on its feet.
    Anyone who rails against running deficits should watch this…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57M6ATPZIE&feature=youtu.be

  241. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @ScottieDog
    Ah well now, if I was a totally merciless Finance Minister of iScotland, and only caring about the bottom line of my economy, these are the things I would do if able to:

    1). Extra borrowing of £30 billion over 3 years to be split £10 billion on current account, and £20 billion capital investment.
    2). Extra spend on NHS, including dieticians my favourite but also allergy testing on tap. No point in having us worker ants off sick or working unproductively.
    3). Take efforts to reduce stress, worry – so unproductive
    4). Debt – make it totally manageable for all, that takes money from the current account
    5). No point in having the worker ants in poor housing
    6). Welfare. Happens to a lot of people. Be sympathetic!
    7). Transport – accelerate all programs for improvements
    8). Pensions – triple lock. Pensioners spend money.
    9). Leisure and sport, make them affordable.
    10). Well you get the picture

    Basically reducing the state decreases GDP and productivity, how dumb Osborne was is beyond belief. A happy healthy workforce is a productive one.

    And if I was EU dictator for a day or even a minute, that 3% deficit of the SGP would instantly double to 6%. The debt to GDP of 60% would stay in principle, but with a plan for growth, member states could happily run up to 120%.

    I commend this budget to the ants nest!

  242. Smallaxe
    Ignored
    says:

    Nana:Good morning

    Great stuff this morning,links for breakfast.Kettle’s on.

    Peace Always

  243. Jock McDonnell
    Ignored
    says:

    The way to deal with the BBC is to stop pretending they are an objective observer.
    They are stakeholders in the union & the audience should be reminded of that regularly.
    No need to be agressive about it, just say we understand the BBC is in a difficult position, we understand it is a creation of the union & depends on the UK government for its charter & funding.
    Just say we understand, but we cannot pretend it has no dog in the fight, it is a stakeholder pure & simple.

  244. Stoker
    Ignored
    says:

    A wee word on the EU, guess who wrote this:

    “It’s not Scots who want to “separate” and isolate themselves from our friends in Europe, it’s the rest of the UK. Scotland is the most pro-European region of Britain.”

    Our very own Rev, almost 4 and a half years ago, long before any referendums. http://wingsoverscotland.com/revealed-at-last-the-positive-case/#comments

    It’s a bit too late for some, take note McTernan, betting against the Rev is futile. Now pay up ya plonker!

  245. asklair
    Ignored
    says:

    Last time I posted on brexit here with my valid opinion, some excessive posters here thought they knew better. At that time not even myself foresaw the Scottish people having a say on it in a court room in a foreign country.

  246. Nana
    Ignored
    says:

    Torrance writing in the Irish times, Not archiving just in case anyone wants to comment.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/nicola-sturgeon-has-no-clear-plan-for-brexit-1.2893959

  247. orri
    Ignored
    says:

    I very much doubt that there will be any real mention of whether Scotland is sovereign in it’s own right or not. Never underestimate the ability of people to simply set aside part of an argument if it suits them.

  248. Brian Doonthetoon
    Ignored
    says:

    People, generally, are conservative with a small “c”. We don’t like change. Hence, indyref1 produced a result that preserved the status quo, ie no change from the current position at that time.

    The EU referendum produced, in Scotland, even stronger support for no change, ie to remain in Europe, which was the status quo at that time. 62% of Scots wanted to preserve the status quo.

    However, Scotland faces having change imposed, by the E&W “leave” vote. We have an opportunity to preserve the status quo by voting for only one thing in indyref2, that is Scottish independence to preserve the status quo of EU membership for the Scottish nation. After all, more Scots voted to remain in the EU than voted for independence in 2014.

    Any other potential change to Scotland’s status in the world can wait, as many have pointed out, until our newly independent nation has bedded in and we have the power, in our own hands, to change anything that the majority of Scots want to change.

    As I typed, conservative with a small “c”; one step at a time.

  249. sassenach
    Ignored
    says:

    Don’t you just love the BBC website ‘papers review’!

    Shows National front page about “HOLES”, but in the ensuing BBC comment it simply says:-

    “The UK government must be able to use the royal prerogative as it is a “fundamental pillar of our constitutional state” the Supreme Court heard on the first day of the so-called Article 50 case, says The National”.

    Talk about ‘misdirection’ – squirrels over there, nothing to see here!!

  250. scottieDog
    Ignored
    says:

    @yesindyref2

    Just watch the link I posted above and then tell me sgp is a good idea..

  251. carjamtic
    Ignored
    says:

    Yesindy2 @ 7:52

    Agreed,plus if you add in,after these (any initial) adjustments have been made, an iScotland could be the ‘richest’ country in the world (in terms of GDP).

    All the ingredients are here,size (it matters,small is good),natural resources (with or without oil),well educated people (as in smart).

    What is there not to like ?,the potential is right here right now….(the vast majority of countries in the world,would give their eye teeth to have our ‘triple lock’ ) importantly there would be a huge reduction in inequality,we would be a ‘smart power’ that is,yes we would have the ability to defend ourselves,but would not risk the entire planet to do so…..(or indeed be the aggressor).

    However we cannot change bitter/entitled people into mindful ones with the flick of of a well chosen phrase,so facts it is then…thankfully we have WoS.

    #TheFuture’sOors

  252. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    The UK Gov will collapse. There will be another GE. The Tories will lose. .

    The Tories could not make a bigger mess of the economy,especially in Scotland

    Scotland has lost £Billions because of Tory mismanagement. £10Billion+ a year.

    The Tories (Osbourne) taxed the Oil sector at 60% to 80% when the price had fallen 75% losing thousands of jobs. It is only picking up now because the tax is 40% from Jan 2016. Losing at lest £4Billion a year £24Billion. Plus the cost of importing more Oil & Gas over that period. £Billions. Untaxed fracked Gas is being imported from the US. Gas from Norway.

    Scotland has to pay on average £4Billion on loan repayment not borrowed or spent in Scotland. .

    £1Billion could be saved on Trident. . £1Billion saved with a tax on ‘loss leading’ drink.

    £3Billion a year?on tax evasion. Whisky Companies pay not tax.

    = £13Billion – the so called Deficit.

    Scotland can’t borrow and spend 10%? To invest in the economy for growth. (Gain) £7Billion = £20Billion a year.

    Westminster Unionists would rather spend (£Trillions) on illegal wars (causing mass migration) banking fraud and tax evasion. HMRC not fit for purpose.

    Train journey time from London to Birmingham 1.30 hour. Train journey time from Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen comparable distance. 2.30 hour. 50 years of Labour. Too long to make comparable journey times throughout Britain. Or comparable flight to rail times.

    HS2 will make it worse. A total waste of money with no business case, £100Billion. Hinkley Point a total waste of public money, £100Billion. There are cheaper, safer, more productive alternatives. Trident an obsolete waste of public money £200Billion. Scotland doesn’t have boats to patrol it’s shores. Heathrow expansion will be obsolete before it is finished.
    .

  253. Peter A Bell
    Ignored
    says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    5 December, 2016 at 12:58 pm
    “The EU question has to be parked until after independence. We should no more be making it a part of the #indyref2 campaign than we should be rolling the monarchy into the mix.”

    Um, that’s exactly what I just argued for.

    It may be what you think you argued for. But not really. If the SNP commits to a post-independence EU referendum the whole issue of EU membership immediately becomes inextricably bound up with issue of independence.

    Or do you imagine everybody is just going to ignore this commitment? Do you suppose British nationalist will simply look at that commitment, shrug their shoulders and conclude that there’s now no point in even mentioning the EU in the course of the campaign?

  254. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Brian Doonthetoon says:

    The EU referendum produced, in Scotland, even stronger support for no change, ie to remain in Europe, which was the status quo at that time. 62% of Scots wanted to preserve the status quo.

    However, Scotland faces having change imposed, by the E&W “leave” vote. We have an opportunity to preserve the status quo by voting for only one thing in indyref2, that is Scottish independence to preserve the status quo of EU membership for the Scottish nation.

    except even if we do vote yes in indyref2, this wont preserve the status quo, even if we are considered tobe the successor state, it is doubtful scotland will retain the uk rebate etc. Indeed, Nicola is talking about a Norway type deal for scotland, which isnt the status quo, is it?

  255. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @scottieDog
    Thanks but sorry, I’m afraid I’m one of these people who, if there’s a speech on at some event, you’ll find me in the bar having a great blether with other speech avoiders, or failing any, the bar staff or security. If there’s a transcript or an article though I’ll scan it.

    @carjamtic
    Our potential is enormous, and I don’t buy in to this “short-term pain” idea either. Tourism, HQs, country offices, movements of staff buying houses or flats, business, investment – there’ll be NO short-term loss, in fact it’ll start even before Independence Day, as companies and people scramble for reducing resources.

  256. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    Heh, Torrance at his usual disingenuous best.

    Apparently the SNP bad and failing on … pretty much everything, up to and including a Bexit they had no hand in creating. You couldn’t make this rubbish up.

    Oh wait. 😀

  257. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Pete says
    Do you suppose British nationalist will simply look at that commitment, shrug their shoulders and conclude that there’s now no point in even mentioning the EU in the course of the campaign?

    possibly, but then the hard britnats will complain and lie regardless, the point is to create a platform which appeals to the largest majority, we can never please all of the people all of the time

  258. Robert Kerr
    Ignored
    says:

    O/T

    The execrable Torrance has a piece in the Irish Times.

    https://archive.is/8Juxr

    Archived to let them know we don’t support this sort of garbage.

    Obviously Nicola’s visit to the Republic has stirred things up.

    Perhaps Cadogan can Enrighten us as to the IT’s reasons for publishing.

  259. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    Some people should read a few Irish history books. Their notion of Irish History is extraordinary, An insult. Quite surprising for the Irish Times. Trying to be controversial?

  260. Jomry
    Ignored
    says:

    While the analysis of the issues and dilemmas in the article is thorough, I do not think the solution advocated is the right one and I agree with Peter Bell that it would conflate issues in a way that would not be helpful. That said, it does no harm to state when the issue arises that in an independent Scotland, should there be evidence of a groundswell of opinion opposed to EU membership, then of course a referendum would be considered as a way of determining forward moves in this area. This, after all, is the rationale underpinning indyref2.

  261. orri
    Ignored
    says:

    An additional complication might be if, as some have hinted, May hopes to achieve some transitory period where rather than simply ceasing to be part of the EU over night there’s a phased withdrawal. However if that does come about then it actually makes it easier to go for independence as Scotland would have time to get it’s shit together before having to make a final decision on it’s relationship with the EU. A bit like the “holding pen” scenario mentioned by others.

  262. EricS
    Ignored
    says:

    It would be interesting timing. Assuming a ‘Yes’ vote, a subsequent ‘Scottish EU’ referendum would happen whilst Scotland is still a part of the UK, and is simultaneously negotiating with the rUK on the divorce settlement. Simultaneously the rUK would be concluding final negotiations with the EU on their divorce settlement.

    There is at least one significant item where Scotland could benefit from EU support. Borders. The scenario: EU agrees to rUK single market access but insists on no hard borders between physical UK and EU land masses – Scotland, R Ireland, Gibraltar (similar to Swiss/EU borders). We need to keep EU on side to make this happen.

  263. Graham Rae
    Ignored
    says:

    Let’s see here. Yougov, hmmm. From Wikipedia:

    ‘YouGov was founded in the UK in May 2000 by Stephan Shakespeare and Nadhim Zahawi.’

    What does this mean to the average Scot in the street? Welllll…

    ‘He has been a member of the Government’s Public Sector Transparency Board and a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, London.

    He is the former owner of the websites ConservativeHome (now owned by Lord Ashcroft) and PoliticsHome (now owned by Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd) which he launched in April 2008 after closing down his Internet television channel 18 Doughty Street.’

    And Nadhim Zahawi:

    ‘Nadhim Zahawi (born 2 June 1967) is a British Conservative Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Stratford-on-Avon since 2010, after the retirement of previous MP John Maples.’

    Well kids, what does this Tory-heavy information tell us about Yougov results? Hmm? Hmmmmmm? That’s right, that they’re about as reliable as Peter Lilley’s indyref postal vote-counting scam conglomerate IDOX.

    Pretty easy when you take 35 seconds to research the basic roots of braindead propaganda, really.

  264. Sharny Dubs
    Ignored
    says:

    What’s wrong with referendums anyhow? Other small countries have them regularly and with a population of only 5,000,000 or thereabouts surely we can figure it out with today’s tech? I think the present regime have given them a bad rep since they hate them, but if you begin from the standpoint that the population should be heard and are not completely brain dead, why not?

  265. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Nana says:
    6 December, 2016 at 8:41 am
    Torrance writing in the Irish times,

    “For beneath the lofty rhetoric about tackling inequality and promoting social justice, the Scotland of 2016 is about as close to matching such ideals with action as Ireland was 10 years after its 1916 declaration.”

    Very Torrancian, Torrancite, Torraany?

    Toryboy Torrance’s usual Britnat tory shite, has left out the vital bit where Scotland and Holyrood have none of the 2104 The Vow promised devo-max economic capabilities. Or what independence from our chums in the south, in the Treasury especially, would deliver automatically.

    Ireland is the EU tax haven though, for mega corps like Apple and Intel. Mind how many Britnat pants were filled when the suggestion that Scotland could also lower corporation tax.

    Also, most Irish media is a very tory swamp of the most awful high tory liggers.
    Funny that.

  266. Shug
    Ignored
    says:

    There is no reason to think Torrance believes what he is writing.
    He has been paid to write an article.Whoever is paying sets the tone

  267. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Shaemy Dubs @ 10.15
    That’s actually no a bad idea.
    Don’t package it up as let’s have another EU ref.
    But rather…..we design a system where the people are asked by Holyrood for instructions regularly.
    And anything is in the mix up to and including the EU.
    But to get any kind of say we need Independence.
    At least it worth exploring.!!!

  268. Cath
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s a tricky balance to get right. If we’re to win this time, we’ll need more explicit support from other EU countries. The ‘you’ll be out the EU’ line gained traction last time round and unionists continue to use it, despite Brexit. If Brexit is being used as a trigger, it needs other EU countries to explicitly come out and challenge UK propaganda. There’s already some sign of this, eg Ireland and individuals, so it’s positive. But if the entire case for indy is now staying in the EU (and it would kind of have to be to gain that kind of support), that will out some people off, and it also takes away one key point of independence: the ability to make decisions for ourselves, democratically.

    For me, I’d be equally happy with the EU or EFTA, my key aim is keeping freedom of movement, co-operation in science etc, as these things are vital, especially to the younger generation. But I suspect for many leavers, that isn’t the case – they’re anti-immigrant and want an end to that.

    How you square that circle, I have no idea.

  269. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    Re UKSC appeal, an interesting article from Aileen McHarg.

    http://judicialpowerproject.org.uk/aileen-mcharg-the-devolution-implications-of-the-miller-decision/

  270. Breastplate
    Ignored
    says:

    I think we should be cynical of these British pollsters.
    As Scotgoespop has been questioning about how their weighted, how their asked, the sequence of questions, how they’re worded and how how the information is cherry picked for quite a few years.

    Recent events have brought to the pollsters themselves to the fore rather than the results of polls.
    It should leave people wondering about the honesty of the pollsters.

    Here’s a question to ask yourself.
    Would The Establishment manipulate the polls if there was an advantage in it for them?

    Answer A. Of course not, they’re much too honest for that and after all, that’s just not cricket.
    Or
    Answer B. In a fucking heartbeat.

  271. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    Don’t know whether anyone’s pointed this out. An alternative take on the UKSC proceedings.

    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers

  272. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Whoever is paying sets the tone

    Ireland is much like the UK inequality wise. Being the EU tax haven for giant corps like Intel is not exactly an attractive economic model, especially compared to our Scandinavian neighbours.

    Recent EU Brexit triumph was all about taking your country back from the supersonic super state of evilness in Brussels. But Brussels is clearly and completely incapable of leveling corp across Europe. Ireland is also blessed/cursed by the same levels of City bankster crooks as the UK.

    From,

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-at-risk-of-reaching-us-levels-of-income-inequality-says-study-1.2105125

    to,

    Chancellor George Osborne bails Irish banksters out by £7bn, 2010, and classic tory BBC vote tory propaganda, leaving out vast amounts of info, like Osborne’s family link/investment with said Irish banksters.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769

    Sup with the devil, Scotland.

  273. Breeks
    Ignored
    says:

    @ Orri 10:05

    This talk about holding pen status is dangerous I think.

    Until Scotland has a some intractable commitment to independence, or is in fact independent, I cannot see any provisional or transitional status being possible. In law, we will simply be recognised as a component part of a sovereign U.K., and thus any liaison with us as an independent entity becomes political interference with the internal politics of a sovereign country. It isn’t going to happen.

    It seems painfully obvious that Europe would love to embrace Scotland’s membership of the EU, but the lack of negotiation prior to Article 50 tars Scotland with the same brush as Westminster, and ties European hands as much as it ties ours. It is my understanding that holding pen status would fall foul of similar inter-National constraints. Europe can only interact with Scotland as an entity distinct from the UK is once Scotland has a sovereign interface which Europe can connect with. That means a post Indy2 referendum with a YES result in the bag, or formal independence achieved by other means.

    Those who believe a holding pen status will allow Scotland time to decide what it wants to do are missing the whole picture. That is not a practicable option. It is not a “get out of jail free” card. The rUK would have a legitimate grievance in law over illegitimate foreign interference in domestic affairs, and the EU is wise enough to avoid letting that happen. That particular ball is in Scotland’s court.

    Once Scotland can add a sovereign signature to a document, then the door opens to some transitional status. The conclusion is known, it is merely the path towards getting there which requires time to unfold.

  274. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    ‘Admission of failure’, ‘That’s not how it looks…’

    Oh Jings! 😀

    The clue in Mr Torrance’s own article, is the length of tenure enjoyed by the SNP. If folk didn’t see for themselves the work and effort they put in, there would be no extended tenure. I think its safe to say that were it not for the UK media their already impressive electoral record would be even more resounding and Scotland would now be an independent nation with y’know, actual control of its own economic levers and such. I also suspect that Scotland’s voters are a damn sight sharper and more politically aware than most journos are comfortable with these days. We are certainly aware of work done in our own communities, who participates and who actively hinders.

    What the Scottish electorate have had dumped in their lap was an outcome that both Her Majesty’s Government and the Better Together campaign expressly assured them would NOT happen. A cornerstone of that campaign was BTs EU promises. Scots were told that only by voting no to independence could their continued membership of the EU be guaranteed. A majority voted no on 18th September 2014 and today we find ourselves facing a brexit door regardless. We are also facing a constitutional meltdown (again not of the SGs making) and an economic downturn of truly awful proportions. So one more time with feeling. Whose government has epically failed in their pledges and duty of care toward a nation partner?

    The UK media have played their part in all of that and I don’t think folk have short memories on that front either. Mind you, members of the Scottish media are already painfully aware of what people think of their output as reflected in the ongoing decline in printed media sales.

    The only folk Mr Torrance’s commentary will convince of anything these days are those already opposed to both Scottish autonomy/self determination and the current Scottish Government. Unlike Mr Torrance’s assertions however, the failure of UK government, both in terms of their pledges to the Scottish electorate and their duty of care to the wider UK population, are widely and extensively documented.

    Who knew?

  275. Breastplate
    Ignored
    says:

    Regarding Torrance in the Irish Times, I’d written a comment only to find out that you need to be a subscriber to get it posted. I thought, bollocks, I’m not doing that so I’ll put it on here instead.
    I’m sure he takes a peek in more and more.

    This is very poor fare seen through the tainted spectacles of a unionist.
    A contrived opinion based on wishful thinking to stave of the fearsome spectre of self determination as his underpants gain weight.
    As the old saying goes ” Opinions are like David Torrances, everyone’s got one”

  276. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert Kerr says:

    yes I know what you mean by archiving, but the battle for hearts and minds isn’t just in Scotland’s media, posting abroad is very good too.

    You should read the Irish Times article again, the Irish aren’t daft you know.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/nicola-sturgeon-has-no-clear-plan-for-brexit-1.2893959

  277. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @Breastplate
    Yes, I found the same thing. I did consider paying £1 for the month and then cancelling, but for a poster that’s obviously from Scotland that seemed somehow – disrespectful. £10 a month after that, they’ve got the right idea! Too rich for me. So’s the £1 right enough.

    I wanted to say:

    “When you’ve finished with our David please send him back in good condition, he gives Monday the laugh we need to get in the mood for the week ahead”.

  278. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    Yesindyref 2

    OK your wish is my command.

  279. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    10 years after 1916. The Partition 1922. 1926 The General strike. 1928 Universal suffrage. 1930’s The Wall Street crash.

    Scotland depopulated by unelected Westminster policies. The clearances etc. Taking all of Scotland’s resources. Migration. A 40Million Diaspora.

    The Irish famine, land clearances. Black & Tans. Civil War. The illegal Partition. Lloyd George, a Liberal. The Balfour Agreement 1917.

    NI six counties. Apartheid Masonic rule, backed up by Unionists at Westminster. Breaking UK Law. A Law unto themselves.

    Apologises from the Royals

    NI (2 million pop) raises £28Billion in taxes. Gets another (50%) £14Billion = £42Billion. Norwegian level of funding,

    No Equality under the Law within a Union. Paid for discrimination. Hidden under the Official Secrets Act.

  280. Nana
    Ignored
    says:

    A couple more links

    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie

    UK’s stance incompatible with smooth brexit
    http://archive.is/u4e58

    Excellent comments by Andrew McLean on the Torrance tripe. Yesindyref2 gets a mention!

  281. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    Or:

    “I see David is taking full advantage of his day pass from the open institution he was transferred to last month. Please return him by midnight or the DWP will sanction him”.

  282. The Rough Bounds.
    Ignored
    says:

    Breastplate @ 10.37. Not ‘their’ but they’re (they are). Your post doesn’t make sense otherwise.

  283. Breastplate
    Ignored
    says:

    Yesindyref2,
    You’re right, he is always good for a laugh as most Unionist commentators are, they’re like our very own cavalcade of whimsy.

  284. Breastplate
    Ignored
    says:

    Thank you Rough Bounds,I hadn’t noticed my mistake.

  285. Free Scotland
    Ignored
    says:

    £1.00 to comment on Torrance? What a joke! Whatever happened to free speech?

    If the local garden fete had him locked in the stocks and wanted to charge £1.00 per coconut thrown at his Weetabix head, I’d be first in the queue, and I’d be willing to splash out, say, £50.00.

  286. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @Andrew McLean / @Nana
    I’m famous! 🙂

  287. Breastplate
    Ignored
    says:

    2 of the same mistakes no less. Time for a coffee I think.

  288. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Another day at the UKOK Graun tory coalface. England education rank 493, Scotland 491.

    http://archive.is/xRJAL

    From,

    “But ministers in London may be buoyed by England’s better performance compared with the three other home nations. Scotland in particular suffered a poor set of results, with substantial falls in reading and science compounded by a fall in maths.

    to,

    “Labour’s Scottish education spokesman, Iain Gray, said the SNP should be ashamed by the results. “These are terrible results after 10 years of SNP government. They must wake up to the fact that their cuts to school budgets, teachers numbers and support staff are damaging the life chances of Scotland’s children,” Gray said.”

    As per, nothing like the above included for Wales, England etc, Graun style.

    BBC Scotland Xmas holiday SNP monstering, here we go.

  289. Nana
    Ignored
    says:

    Recording of this morning’s press conference with Michel Barnier on Brexit and article 50

    http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/focus/index.cfm?sitelang=en&focusid=1981

  290. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    The nonsense in the Supreme Court. The Tories at their worst. Never have there been such total ignorant incompetence. Slavering nonsense and total incompetence.

  291. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    Ireland doing good, ranked three in the world, bloody Irish nationalists!

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/irish-students-among-best-at-reading-in-developed-world-study-finds-1.2894910

    Actually the scores are about similar, except for poor Wales under Labour, they really are bad, so what gives Unionist Labour? why are you performing so badly in the only part of the UK that you have responsibility for, Don’t you like the Welsh .

    So apart from labour in Wales this is a similar problem affecting England and NI, some of the aspirations for future employment are very poor compared with other countries. but they don’t have a conservative ideology of austerity and cut backs do they!

    http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i_9789264266490-en#.WEakjfmLRaQ#page1

  292. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    heed tracker

    If England is 493 and Scotland 491, consider what would be done when we have all the revenues and resources available with Independence.

  293. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    @Andrew McLean……. Irish Times

    Well caught, he’s a naughty little troll is Torrance sneaking about like that
    I wonder if they paid him actual money or does he just do it because he’s a wee Tory tree humper

  294. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    My God, D Torrance is mind boggingly desperate with that article in the Irish Times. It’s quite bizarre, the Irish Senate and Government say N Sturgeon good, Torrance in hysteria mode rushes to tell them they are wrong, they don’t know what they are talking about.

  295. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    @Heed

    Would now be a bad time to remind Elmer of Labour’s legacy regarding schools?

    https://archive.is/jKRHn

    http://www.thenational.scot/news/14902627.Edinburgh_s_17_closed_PFI_schools_may_have_to_be_rebuilt/

  296. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Devolved matters:
    Ireland , Wales and Scotland summary so far (not competent).

    So there… in less than 5 minutes! 🙂 More to come no doubt.

    Supreme court day 2:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

  297. Dan Huil
    Ignored
    says:

    Great stuff by Andrew McLean over on Irish Times. I wonder: was Torrance asked to write such britnat BS or did he plead to put forward his britnat propaganda?

  298. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Brian Powell says:
    6 December, 2016 at 11:58 am
    heed tracker

    If England is 493 and Scotland 491, consider what would be done when we have all the revenues and resources available with Independence.

    Brexit and SNP Scotland education stats are currently the white heat of britnat BBC led attack propaganda in Scotland, probably right in to the May council elections and beyond, shock.

    Fact’s are fcuked UKOK wise, basically.

    Or, how come the highest uni attendance, at the top 20 UK uni’s, Russell Group, are a majority from London and the south east of England and privately educated? Look at a UKOK zone wealth distribution map, starting in London, it gets poorer and poorer, until you drop off the edge of teamGB, at Unst, which is lovely this time of year:D

    2013

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24643786

    Cambridge and Oxford places still dominated by south-east applicants …

    http://www.theguardian.
    9 Jun 2013 – Undergraduate places at Cambridge and Oxford universities remain dominated by students from London and the south-east of England, … in each area, it shows the 20 highest-scoring local authorities

    2016

    Same.

  299. One_Scot
    Ignored
    says:

    Not a legal expert in Supreme court matters, but given the derogatory opinion of Scots law from Lord Keen, I’m pretty confident that Scotland will be getting told to get to France. Well who knew?

  300. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    Of course, Torrid’s state visit to the Irish Times will be all over BBC news coverage.

    “They are stakeholders in the union & the audience should be reminded of that regularly.”

    They are perfectly entitled to their own opinion – they are not entitled to their own facts. Being ‘stakeholders’ doesn’t give them any right to change facts and LIE to the people of this country.

    And THAT is exactly what they are doing. Nay–that is exactly what they MUST do to stand any chance of winning IndyRef#2.

    Alas, however, at least half the population of Scotland are now reasonably well aware of the twisted reality and poison that is BBC Misreporting Scotland. And the thing is, once a person’s eyes are open to what that corrupt Corporation is doing, they remain open and never go back.

    Person by person, we will win this battle with BBC Misreporting Scotland

  301. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    The UKGov QC in the SC proceedings has just compared Scotland with the (former) colony of South Rhodesia.

    So now we have official confirmation of our true status as seen by our masters in London, an English colony!

  302. One_Scot
    Ignored
    says:

    There is something quite ironic when the Advocate General for Scotland is arguing to dump on Scotland.

  303. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Well that’s a broadside from the the UK side in court WM is all powerful. ‘A convention (Sewell) can’t crystalise into law’

    That word ‘normally’ Good old Smith agreement!

    Oor teas oot! But wait!

    The Court Judges are not so sure… phew!

    We’ll see what happens when the smoke clears! 🙂

  304. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Macart says:
    6 December, 2016 at 12:14 pm
    @Heed

    Would now be a bad time to remind Elmer of Labour’s legacy regarding schools?

    Irrelevant, in yoon culture.

    Here we go. Euan MacSpanner white heat of toryboy yoon rage in Scotland. This reprobate popped up in that Huffington post thing linked earlier, alongside JK Rowling too. UKOK tory clusterfuck in the Huff Post today, BBC in Scotland brainwashing, all day and every day, forever:D

    Brian Spamander ?@BrianSpanner1 53m53 minutes ago
    Imagine being so committed to the idea of national sovereignty you’d allow a political party to ruin your children’s education.

    Fanatics.

  305. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    SC judges are now questioning the Gov QC’s blithe assertion that the incorporation of the Sewell Convention in law via the Scotland Act 2016 makes no difference, but the judges seem to believe that the incorporation into law gives them jurisdiction.

    QC then dodges by invoking “normally” and the refusal of WM to endorse its removal, but carefully makes no mention of Fluffy’s assurances to the HoC about that.

    Then he dodges even further by asserting that the Sewell convention has no relevance anyway. It’s the UKGov which is paramount and the Scots are mere subject peons of its prerogative whims.

  306. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    “It’s the UKGov which is paramount and the Scots are mere subject [sic]persons of its prerogative whims.”

    Except the prerogative powers being discussed is that which WM derives from the Royal Sovereign (the monarch of the day). The Queen is NOT sovereign in Scotland (only of the kingdom/queendom of England) so how exactly can WM’s derived royal prerogative be applicable to Scotland?

    Questions, questions.

  307. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    The antics in the Supreme Court does highlight the wretched thinking of Labour, once it saw that Scotland would not be its servant, the whole Smith, Scotland Act was designed to remove real political and legal power while pretending to give it.

    Devolution is a dead duck, Independence is the only way forward.

  308. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    Headtracker
    Brian Spamander ?@BrianSpanner1 53m53 minutes ago
    Imagine being so committed to the idea of national sovereignty you’d allow a political party to ruin your children’s education.

    so is he suggesting we burn the union jack then smash down Westminster and renounce the UK then all become Singaporean?

  309. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    @Robert J Sutherland

    Deeply hoping there are one time no voters out there either following this thread or the proceedings themselves.

    I’d like to know how we went from partners, helping to lead from the front in the bestest family of nations on earth, to shut up and dae as yer telt in two short years?

    THIS has always been the reality of the ‘union’.

    Just listening to the language used by their council about Scotland, about devolution should be a bucket of icewater in the face. Sadly most will only see or hear the meeja filtered version. But as I said, I hope that enough former no voters or those considering their former vote viewing this thread carry away what is occurring and spead it far and wide as they can.

    What they are watching is a government attempting to hijack their human rights and their national rights as Scottish citizens by consigning their nation to regional status at best.

    Better Togetherness never looked more unappealing.

  310. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Is it jist me or did that government lawyer apart from everything else he said about Scotland….also say that N Ireland only received the use of EU law because it flows through Westminster.
    In other words theirs to give or take away as and when they feel like it and N Ireland has nothing to say about it.
    I don’t know very much about the Good Friday Agreement but I did always think one of it’s protections was that Westminster couldn’t enforce it’s will on N Ireland.
    And Dublin was some sort of guarantor of this???
    Is that no breaking an International Treaty in it’s self???
    Anybody know????

  311. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Macart @ 1.14
    Wit dae ye mean unappealing…..can ye no see the POETRY in Scotland’s Soverenty

  312. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Andrew McLean says:
    6 December, 2016 at 1:13 pm
    Headtracker

    In the bizzaro world of UKOK tory culture Euan Macspanner’s the one to follow:D

    BBC r4 lunchtime news ligger cant get SNP worst ever Scots education results out of her mouth quick enough today, and this The Times toryboy ligger says stuff like,

    Kenny Farquharson ?@KennyFarq Dec 3
    A soft Brexit for the UK as a whole is a better deal for Scots than a bespoke Scottish deal that creates a hard border at the Tweed.

    You dont have to be a sneaky shit to be a yoon ligger but it certainly helps.

  313. Jack Murphy
    Ignored
    says:

    Proud Cybernat said at 12:42pm:-
    “——-Alas, however, at least half the population of Scotland are now reasonably well aware of the twisted reality and poison that is BBC Misreporting Scotland.

    And the thing is, once a person’s eyes are open to what that corrupt Corporation is doing, they remain open and never go back.———”

    I agree,and will just add to that:-
    Trust, like the soul, never returns once it is gone.

  314. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    “What they are watching is a government attempting to hijack their human rights and their national rights as Scottish citizens by consigning their nation to regional status at best.”

    Fortunately this Gov twit won’t be making any judgements on this. And hopefully the actual SC judges will show more restraint than this clown and deliver good and fair judgement.

  315. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    Proud Cybernat,

    I wrote “peons”, not “persons”. UKGov doesn’t accord to the people of Scotland the status of citizens with ultimate sovereignity; on the contrary, to them we are mere feudal serfs. UK rule over Scotland is a democratic dictatorship.

    Macart ,

    Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. If this business has no other effect, it will at least have ruthlessly exposed the utter sham that is our supposed Smithian “autonomy”.

  316. shug
    Ignored
    says:

    BBC Scotland headline is education. Result worst ever
    BBC UK headlines e is Scotland results are broadly the same

    Very strange

  317. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Dr NO! wets pants, again. Only sensible way up and out to FM Ruth and or Kez, is for red and blue toryboy’s getting back BetterTogether permanently, Scots referendum 2014 style.

    They do it virtually online every UKO day, Dr NO!’s for example is a shrieking unionist, Euan and Alan are hard core conservative bootboys…

    Scott Arthur Retweeted
    Brian Spamander ?@BrianSpanner1 19h19 hours ago
    Brass neck.

    Scott Arthur Retweeted
    Alan Roden ?@AlanRoden Dec 5
    From today’s Daily Record: @kezdugdale on why only Labour can stand up for the majority of Scots

  318. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Proud Cybernat says:

    “What they are watching is a government attempting to hijack their human rights and their national rights as Scottish citizens by consigning their nation to regional status at best.”

    Fortunately this Gov twit won’t be making any judgements on this. And hopefully the actual SC judges will show more restraint than this clown and deliver good and fair judgement.

    dinna hud yer breath, it is about to be ruled by the sc that the scots are not sovereign, im amazed anyone would think they would do otherwise.

  319. Robert Peffers
    Ignored
    says:

    O/T:

    Anyone else notice the usual Westminster propaganda, and typical media, idiocy in most of the MSM outlets today? I refer to the newly published, “Pisa”, figures.

    Most, if not all, Media reports refer to, “The UK”, figures.

    No problem for the hard of thinking reader/listener/viewer but the more, “Alert”, Wings commenters will, (I hope), have instantly spotted the MSM propaganda.

    The reports I have so far read all have referred to the, “UK, (United Kingdom), figures and then gone on to report there has been little change in those UK figures.

    Trouble is they were NOT quoting the United Kingdom’s performance figures.

    They were reporting the, “COUNTRY”, of England’s figures as if they did not know Scottish education has remained independent from the three country Kingdom of England’s education system even before the Treaty of Union enshrined that into UK law.

    Then we see just how deliberate some of these Westminster propaganda tools are. Some then go on to report that Scotland has fallen down the league table list of Educational performance.

    How then can they claim they do not know that the UK, England and Scotland are quite different entities?

  320. manandboy
    Ignored
    says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38212049

    Could the European Union fall apart? Mark Mardell

    More propaganda from the UK Government via the primary mouthpiece, the British Brainwashing Corporation, building the narrative that the EU is in trouble and has a doubtful future.
    No facts, no evidence, no knowledge, no proper argument, just spurious speculation by Mark Mardell.

    Since 2010, the Tories have been in power in the UK, pursuing their ideological ambitions, but they have barely begun to properly govern. Everything Mardell has conjured up about the EU, could easily be applied to the UK but with greater plausibility.

    Westminster is developing an even more hostile attitude to the EU. Things are coming apart; the next stage is falling apart; after that comes the Crash. But the propaganda says that everything is going to be alright.

    The population of the UK is being led through a hall of mirrors – to the edge of a cliff.
    L

  321. Socrates MacSporran
    Ignored
    says:

    Several years ago, I read a novel about a rich Scottish businessman, who felt Scotland should be independent, and who then bought a struggling Scottish newspaper and made it a pro-independence paper, which told the truth about how Scotland was being kept back by Westminster.

    Of course, the state threw every dirty trick it could at him, but he kept going.

    If only, we had such a rich Scotsman, of independent mind today. Then, just maybe, we could stem and turn back the flow of anti-Scottish propaganda in the British Unionist Media.

    I know the case for Independence has already all but been won on social media, however, until we get at least one clear and loud voice in the MSM standing-up for Scotland – and I do not for one second believe the National’s owners will ever allow this – we cannot expect to achieve the pro-independence majority we will need to make it stick.

    Without more media clout, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

  322. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    manandboy @ 13:40:

    the British Brainwashing Corporation

    A very apposite expansion that, I like it!

  323. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Westminster is developing an even more hostile attitude to the EU.

    Its only tory logic. You cant Leave a success, without the suckas moaning, for why?

    Graun lunchtime news. This is the BBC in Scotland, relentlessly monstering Scotland’s fledgling democracy, 2016.

    “Savile review: BBC bans unaccompanied children from audiences
    Corporation outlines official response to review which detailed serious failings that allowed sexual abuse of nearly 100 people

    The BBC has banned unaccompanied children from participating in its studio audiences and told staff to keep a closer eye on stars as part of its attempt to avoid repeating the mistakes that let Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall sexually abuse nearly 100 people.

    In its official response to the Dame Janet Smith review”

    Gads.

  324. Glamaig
    Ignored
    says:

    Don’t know if anyone watched EU Chief Negotiator, Barnier give a press conference (link above somewhere).

    He seems adamant that negotiations must be completed in a minimum of 18 months from Art 50, then there will be 6 months for all member states to agree. So negotiations could be complete by Oct 2017.

    He also says no membership, no benefits.

    Unfortunately the clip doesnt extend to the questions asked by the press afterwards.

  325. ronnie anderson
    Ignored
    says:

    @ Robert J Sutherland 12.53 Its now unavoidable The Declaration of Arbroath & The Claim of Rights have to be brought to the fore & that of the Queens Title in Scotland .

  326. James Westland
    Ignored
    says:

    And now we are looking at “Red White and Blue Brexit”

    ““I’m interested in all these terms that have been identified – hard Brexit, soft Brexit, black Brexit, white Brexit, grey Brexit – and actually what we should be looking for is a red, white and blue Brexit,” she told reporters during her two-day trip to the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) in Bahrain.”

    (from the Grauniad)

    Pass the sick bag….

  327. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    “…and told staff to keep a closer eye on stars as part of its attempt to avoid repeating the mistakes that let Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall sexually abuse nearly 100 people.”

    And who will keep an eye on the staff? Oh–they never saw or knew a thing. Aye. Sure. Righto.

    BBC filth.

  328. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Before I forget…. Capella.. from yesterday & Call me Dave from today.
    Thank You Both Very Much for the link to the Supreme Court X.

  329. HandandShrimp
    Ignored
    says:

    I think the biggest single danger to a successful Indyref2 is that Brexit may stall indefinitely. That may well have other ramifications for UK politics which could escalate Scotland’s case (ie if the Scottish Lawyers put a good case to the Supreme Court and a delayed/cancelled Brexit is perceived to be our doing) but to call on that is real long shot.

  330. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Proud Cybernat @ 1.53
    That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.
    They were perverts…no excuse but at least an explanation.
    But what kind of person sees that stuff going on and doesn’t do anything.
    I don’t know anybody that wouldn’t have knocked them into the middle of next week for it.
    Job be hanged.

  331. manandboy
    Ignored
    says:

    SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ORDERS PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO SMITH COMMISSION FIASCO.

    No, of course it hasn’t, but it should – if it could.

    The political trickery known as the VOW, almost certainly tipped the scales of IndyRef14 in favour of No. The Smith Commission was supposed to convert the Vow into fiscal autonomy for Scotland, the famous DevoMax. Then came the treachery from Westminster until we ended up with the power to change road signs.

    While we stood by, like a wean that had just wet itself and didnae know what to do.

    The Scottish electorate handed over Independence and got a few beads in return from our Colonial masters.

    It’ll be the same with Brexit if we’re not careful – extremely careful.

    Or are we jist gonnae pee wursel again.

  332. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    HandandShrimp

    Its opened up a whole new world of UKIP, in England. BBC Politics show lunchtime was essentially another day of vote UKIP, for example.

    Tory britnats, red and blue, go UKOK SNP bad apeshit in Scotland from now til independence, England goes UKIP.

  333. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Court back on: Northern Ireland:

    Popcorn still pending!

    Slow start.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

  334. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    School results are a year out of date, year end 2015
    And anyway since when was average a failure for a 5 hour a day student compared to 8 or 10 hour a day student from another country

    Lift more weights you get bigger muscles
    Study longer you get more brain muscles…..maybe
    Funny thing about all these kinds of findings though it doesn’t seem to hinder Scotlands position in the world as one of the top places to study in
    So maybe we must be doing something right eh, unless we’re all too thick to notice that

  335. Dan Huil
    Ignored
    says:

    Just as the britnat parties have blown any credibility they may have had because of their deceit and non-delivery of the infamous vow, and their treatment of the Smith Commission and SNP amendments in Westminster the bbc has blown any trust the people of Scotland once held for it because of its blatant prejudice against pro-indy parties and their pro-indy supporters.

    The bbc is now Scotland’s biggest enemy.

  336. Jack Murphy
    Ignored
    says:

    OT. The Canary yesterday reporting on BBC Question Time:-

    “A fresh scandal erupts at the BBC, and might explain allegations of ‘bias’ on Question Time”

    “Alison Fuller is an audience producer for BBC Question Time. As a 2010 article for leading press industry magazine journalism.co.uk put it:

    Every week audience producer Alison Fuller has to select the audience and, depending on the city they are in, this can mean considering more than 4,000 applications. This process involves checking the background of every applicant against their political affiliations, campaign involvements, advertising intentions, and many other factors.”

    “But it has also been revealed that Alison Fuller may have sympathies with Britain’s far-right.

    The woman responsible for ensuring a diverse and representative audience at BBC Question Time has been sharing Britain First memes on Facebook.” 🙁

    Quotes lifted from yesterday’s Canary.

  337. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Just another centre left Graun haha vote tory Scotland puff piece,

    http://archive.is/XzjLQ

    https://twitter.com/AnnieWellsMSP/status/806101449302220800?lang=en

  338. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    Weird juxtaposition of cake and eat deals and mainly desperate will EU fall part narrative. If the EU fell apart then EU/UK deals would be meaningless.

    Outside that what the EU does is little business of the UK, apart from a perverse wish to continue to complain about the EU even though it has nothing to do with the UK.

    I suppose once Brexit comes to England and Wales the lives of many politicians will become meaningless, they’ll need to find something else to whinge about.

    It beginning to look like those scenarios where divorcees is constantly looking to see what ex is doing!

  339. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    @HandandShrimp

    Possibly. Right now though, they’re doing a bang up job of depicting Scotland and its citizenry as a powerless region without any say in proceedings. Kinda knocks Fluffy’s ‘most powerful devolved parly in the world’ nonsense out of the park for sure.

    Pretty much as expected, has to be said. And the louder they make those claims and the language couldn’t be any more off hand or dismissive, the better.

    I believe people need to hear for themselves how Westminster government regards them, their freedoms, their rights and their opinions. It won’t be pretty or comfortable for them, but the louder the better IMV.

  340. wull
    Ignored
    says:

    I will never be a politician, far less do I have any interest in concocting arcane ‘political strategies’. These seem to me to be mostly a matter of slightly fevered speculations, guesswork and vain imaginings. An ‘if’-world rather than the real world, and one ‘if’ leads to another, and very quickly we are whisked away into a shadowland of ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’.

    No strategist that I am, I remain convinced that the best strategy for any political party is to be straightforward and honest with the public. It might get you into some temporary bother sometimes, but in the long run you will earn enduring respect.

    I have thought for decades that the SNP were really very good at this, and certainly miles better at it than any other political party.

    This had the further highly desirable effect that it helped them to keep their message simple and straightforward. You got what was written on the can: what they said they would do is precisely what they did do. Simple message, simple principle(s) and – therefore – they increasingly acquired the trust of the people. More power to their elbow …

    They also respected principles to which we could all adhere. In particular – the big one – that the people were sovereign in Scotland.

    So where did the idea come from that when Scots voted by a pretty enormous 24% margin (62% to 38%) to remain in the EU, they had actually voted not to remain in the EU, but only to remain in the single market?

    Who said anything about the single market? Where did this wheeze come from? Nobody asked the Scottish people any question about the single market. They were asked about remaining in the EU – that’s all! Nothing else: nothing les, and nothing more.

    Nothing anyone in the SNP or the SG tells us, from the leadership to the last member, can change that fact.

    Voting to remain in the EU is NOT the same thing as voting for a ‘soft Brexit’. The SNP know that to have been the case, so why are they pretending that the result was otherwise than it actually was?

    Those who wanted a ‘soft Brexit’ – including, according to his own statements, Boris Johnson – voted ‘Leave’. They did NOT vote ‘Remain’.

    Of the 38% of Scots who voted ‘Leave’, insofar as they thought about it at all, we may suppose that some of them wanted a ‘soft Brexit’ (like Johnson, down south) while others (like Gove, also down south)wanted a ‘hard Brexit’.

    We could not say whether that the figure would have been ’50 / 50′, but if we suppose such a divide among the 38%, just for the sake of argument, that would mean that the ‘soft Brexiteers’ amounted to something like 19% of the Scots who voted in the EU referendum.

    Which leads to the question: How can anyone who believes in the sovereignty of the Scottish people decide to bin the view of 62% of Scots, and support the view of 19% of Scots instead? Even if all 38% of the Leave voters in Scotland were ‘soft Brexiteers’ – which is unlikely – why should their view prvail, and become SNP policy on the hoof, instead of the 62% who voted Remain?

    And why should the SNP suddenly support a policy – ‘soft Brexit is OK’ – which directly contradicts their own official ‘independence in Europe’ policy? Especially when they have no mandate from the Scottish people to jettison that long-standing policy commitment of theirs. Why abandon it at just the moment when when they have a clear mandate from the people to pursue that policy, even to the hilt?

    Why have the leadership effectively changed a policy which the Party has consistently held and promoted since the 1980s, and which no Party Conference has since then overturned? Why have they seemingly reneged, without any mandate from either their own Party members or the Scottish people generally, on a position that was part and parcel of the platform on which they stood for Westminster in 2015 and for Holyrood in May this year?

    How can they do a thing like that?

    I must be very thick but, frankly … I don’t get it!

    How can any SNP parliamentarians (whether at Holyrood or Westminster) who claim to believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people, ever suggest not only that they could be satisfied with a ‘soft Brexit’ but that, if the conditions were right, they could even vote for it in a parliamentary motion?

    Are the Scottish people sovereign only when it suits you, and not when it doesn’t? Can you really play fast and loose with such a basic principle, and expect people to keep trusting you? Do you think people don’t notice it … or don’t care?

    We now have the ironic position where a populist right-wing Conservative government at Westminster are using the typically ‘Scottish’ principle of the sovereignty of the people to override the traditional ‘English’ doctrine that not the people, but parliament is sovereign. For Mrs May and Co are trying to hammer home the point – even in the face of the Supreme Court judges – that the people have spoken in the referendum and the Parliament of Westminster has nothing more to say about the matter. The people have spoken, and it is simply up to the Executive to implement the will of the people. So they are pretending, thereby ignoring English parliamentary tradition.

    And the still worse irony is what seems to be happening in Scotland.

    Having been a consistent SNP voter for decades, as well as a committed European, it sticks in my craw to say it. But the fact keeps on smashing into my face, full on, so often and to such an extent, that I just can’t avoid seeing what I do not wish to believe.

    Namely, that we have a government and leadership in Scotland that feels entitled to deny, ignore and subvert the stated will of the Scottish people. The people voted ‘Remain’ in the EU, but that can be taken to mean one of its opposites, namely a ‘soft Brexit’! ‘Words mean whatever I say they mean …’ In other words, they are meaningless …

    Michael Russell was surely right when he said he could think of no circumstances in which the SNP would ever vote for any form of Brexit. But he has been contradicted since then … even by senior colleagues of his, for whom I once had the greatest respect.

    Of course, you will tell me to ‘get real’, ‘be pragmatic’, ‘don’t be naive’, ‘strategy is so important’, ‘circumstances don’t allow’, ‘principles are a luxury’ …

    And I will tell you: that’s how political parties lose the plot … And that’s why people, gradually, desert them.

    If you want the people’s respect, you have to tell the truth. And you have to play it straight. The SNP had this -I hope they can recover, and are not going to lose it.

    They still have my vote, at least for the moment, because they still look like the best means of gaining Scotland’s independence. And I know there are plenty of totally committed ‘Europeans’ within the Party – most, in fact.

    But I have to say, if a Pro-Independence Party existed that was totally and explicitly committed to Scotland’s full membership of the EU, in a way that no longer seems to be the case with the SNP, and I trusted it, my vote would very likely go there.

    I am no politician and no political strategist. But even pragmatically, I think the SNP took a wrong turning here.

    They lost momentum by not daring to be more clearly in favour of an independent Scotland having full membership of the EU. If they had done that, I think support not just for the SNP but for independence would be considerably higher than it is now.

    That is only a speculation, certainly. But I also think it is the right way to go anyway, even morally, and not just for pragmatic reasons, though there are plenty of these too.

    It is not too late for the SNP to retrieve the situation – I hope they soon will.

  341. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s like watching a whole load of Captain Jack Randalls wagging their smirking sarcastic fingers at us from a distance while they’re raping your country smilingley and then telling you it’s their right to do so and good for you anyway you shower of Scottish bogtrotters

  342. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    wull

  343. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    wull

    The SG looking at all options as they said they would, then when all covered, independence.

  344. Dan Huil
    Ignored
    says:

    @Wull 2:23pm

    Oh dear, Wull. The harder you try the more obvious you become. Isn’t it time for your daily rendition of Rule Britannia?

  345. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    wull @ 14:23,

    I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying. We’re not very clear what the position of the SNP leadership is at the moment, because they’re having to deal with a whole lot of uncertainties which are entirely outwith their control. But it does leave one feeling somewhat uneasy.

    However, just as we can remind the “Yes/Leavers” that it’s the “Yes” part that’s paramount because it’s the only part which guarantees the rest, “Yes/Remainers” also have to respect the reverse situation, that if a Norway-style deal was the only likely way to win indyref2, we must remain willing to continue to vote “Yes” for the very same reason. Indyref2 will not be the time to get precious on either side.

    I’m not sure though that the SG’s position on “soft Brexit” is anything more than a temporary tactical move to assure everyone that it is willing to go the extra mile before finally invoking the ultimate sanction of indyref2. Then asking for across-the-board support accordingly.

    Nicola’s recent comments to both the Irish and the EU Greens seems to indicate her unwavering core belief in retaining full EU membership.

    Hearing EU Commission negotiator Barnier’s comments this morning, it doesn’t look as though the UK will only be offered all or nothing, despite its fantasies about getting their cake and eating it. With the likely outcome being nothing.

    Then it’s game on.

  346. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    Oops! An inadvertent double negative in my previous posting. That last paragraph of mine should of course begin “Hearing EU Commission negotiator Barnier’s comments this morning, it looks as though the UK will only be offered all or nothing…”

  347. Dorothy Devine
    Ignored
    says:

    What has this wee country of ours done to deserve the media betrayal?

    Having just read the Torrance piece I find myself quite nauseated by the drivelling , undermining ordure which he considers journalism.

    What a despicable bunch they are these so called journalists.

  348. tony little
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert J Sutherland

    I think you are right. But let’s be absolutely clear, there is NO WAY that the UK will be offered anything but a black and white choice by the EU. All four freedoms, including especially free movement of people, or it’s a HARD Brexit.

    Anything less won’t wash with the UK Brexiteers, so hard it will be.

    THEN the FM has the moral authority to call IndyRef2

  349. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Cute. Eddie Hitler, he’s a star in New York and a star in LA.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-38212042

  350. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    wull
    after a yes vote in indyref2, the SG would need to negotiate scotlands position wrt to the eu.

    the result would be scotland further integrated into the eu, less integrated into the eu or retaining its present position, ie the status quo. there are reasons for and against each of these 3 of the negotiations, but since these negotiations are exactly that, negotiations, no one side can claim knowledge of the result before the negotiations begin, not the sg or the eu negotiators.

    see the present uk wide debate about what exactly people voted for.

    It is clear that people voted to take back control of their borders, simply because that is something that wm does not need to negotiate with the eu about. It requires no negotiation by wm to close its borders, indeed it can do that right now.

    what is not clear is what form of trade deal the people voted for, (eg hard or soft brexit). simply because what the people will get will be as a result of negotiations. proof, not only did the people not know what trade deal they were voting for….. they still dont.

  351. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    BANG! Direct hit on UKgov case in the SC by opposing counsel’s first point. He references UKgov minister Liddington’s dismissal in WM of Alex Salmond’s proposed amendment to clearly specify a robust legal outcome in the EUref Act. Parliament must be free to act, quoth he!

    Heh, heh. I wonder if Fluffy will get similar consideration about “normally” In the Scotland Act 2016 from the Lord Advocate when it’s his turn.

    Popcorn being opened now…

  352. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    Popcorn bowl lying upside down on living room floor. Popcorn all over the place. Fell asleep.

    When’s the fireworks?

  353. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Nicola’s recent comments to both the Irish and the EU Greens seems to indicate her unwavering core belief in retaining full EU membership.

    not sure what you mean by full eu membership, scotlands position, and that of the ruk’s is less full than other countries who eg use the euro and perhaps more full than say switzerland…

    after a yes in indyref2, the sg maybe asked by the eu to commit to adopting the euro, which while there exists no mechanism to force scotland to do so, it would be a movement of greater integration into the eu than it presently is. by full eu membership, do you think that nicola could introduce the euro as a currency in scotland by negotiation and no indy scotland eu referendum? no she couldnt.

    the reality of any such post indy eu negotiations would be an exercise in pragmatism and concessions on both sides. That is why Nicola is pursuing a norway type eu settlement for an indy scotland. it ensures the continuing unfettered access to the eu market and the free movement of people. But bear in mind, Norway isnt technically a member of the eu.

    that is why i wouldnt be opposed to holding another euref in scotland once we are indy, in the 2nd half of the next sg term, for people to vote to accept the results of the negotiations, or like yourself, to increase scotlands integration into the eu (eg introduce the euro?) or to pull out of the eu altogether (after the 62% remain vote 5 months ago, i doubt this option would gain many votes)

    I wouldnt endorse an indyref3 to confirm the results of the sg negotiationed indy settlement with wm, an snp and/or indy supporting majority in the next Holyrood election would end the issue for good

  354. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    heedtracker says:3:08 pm
    Cute. Eddie Hitler, he’s a star in New York and a star in LA

    Thanks I will be singing that all day!!!
    and its bloody dark!

    “The city lights are often blurred
    By stories we’ve already heard.
    Booze and drugs now break my head
    Cause all the shining stars are dead.”

    So Wings!

  355. orri
    Ignored
    says:

    The thing about Freedom of Movement is it’s not unlimited. You need ID for a start. You can be limited on whether you can look for work or need to secure employment before hand and if you can stay the time that takes can also be limited. In the latter it’s 3 months or permanent after 5 years of residency. Failing being employed you need to support yourself independent of the state or be there to study. It’s up to individual member states to set their own limits on how they organise Freedom of Movement.

    Obviously being able to police that might have required the introduction of some kind of voluntary EU wide ID card scheme which could be simply some smartcard used to access a database in your home state so less prone to being faked. If you live in the UK and don’t leave then it wouldn’t be a problem.

  356. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    schrodingers cat :

    after a yes in indyref2, the sg maybe asked by the eu to commit to adopting the euro

    It won’t “maybe” be “asked”, it will likely be a direct consequence of whatever discussion takes place between a nascent iScotland and the EU. Let’s be clear about that.

    But that’s not all there is to it. It’s well known that there are several EU countries such as Sweden which are already technically committed to joining the euro, but clearly have no intention of proceeding to do so, even if they met the necessary convergence criteria.

    The issue of the euro is entirely irrelevant to indy. A red herring that is uncomfortably close to Unionist anti-indy threat propaganda.

  357. Valerie
    Ignored
    says:

    Stopped decorating duties to watch Lord Pannick, the rock star of the English Bar.

    He has a cold but coming over as calm, very well organised, clearly setting out his points. Twitter legal geeks loving him for his simple clarity.

    Good to hear him quoting Salmonds actions in HoC calling for 4 nation lock, and querying lack of legal compulsion on EU result. Of course, Cameron and his ninnies, kept saying they would ‘respect’ the vote.

    I really hope the whole of the UK begin to wake up to the fact that the rich toffs, are not our betters. Their government has been riddled with incompetence, arrogance and fiscal mismanagement, before you even query their policies.

    They are shit managers, and this court case, and Brexit are the shit show.

    On what planet can anyone say – och, it’s going fine.

  358. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    @Robert J. Sutherland

    Liked that bit myself about Salmond.

    I think the Ireland, Wales and Scotland mine field will be left in the long grass for another day and the case will be decided within ‘English law’… if the 11 Judges can get away with it.

    Going along better this afternoon though.

    Popcorn still pending too near teatime. 🙂

  359. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert J. Sutherland says:

    which is why i said regarding the adoption of the euro, “which while there exists no mechanism to force scotland to do so”

    thing is, even an acceptance to join the euro, would be a move to greater integration with the eu than we have at the moment.

    This is why nicola is moving towards a norway type settlement, it doesnt require a commitment to join the eu.

    It would be a roll back from scotlands position, but as many people point out, once indy, we can have as many referendums as we like, so i cant see why folk here would object to it.

    I think this type of option for scotland would be a good idea in the aftermath of an indyref2 so i would vote to accept nicolas solution, although i would not disiss greater integration, ie adopting the euro at a later date.

    for those who argued on this thread that we shouldnt confuse indy from the eu in indyref2, i would argue that we didnt in indyref1, our eu status was quite clear, it was the unionists who did that and will do so again in indyref2 whether we like it or not.

    our negotiating position on the eu must be made clear during indyref2 and the possibility of an indy scotland euref, as per this article, after a yes vote in indyref2

  360. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    schrodingers cat:

    thing is, even an acceptance to join the euro would be a move to greater integration with the eu than we have at the moment.

    I agree, but only in theory. It has no practical political relevance whatever, because it constrains a fully-sovereign SG not one whit.

    This is why nicola is moving towards a norway type settlement, it doesnt require a commitment to join the eu.

    Sorry, but I think this is a presumption on your part. This “Norway” option may only be a stand-by, not new policy. I don’t believe that is her desired end point at all, as I believe became very evident in her recent addresses to the two bodies I quoted.

    I also don’t believe that Nicola can be accused of double-dealing here. She is just trying to cover the possible outcomes in this period of uncertainty. But SNP policy hasn’t changed.

  361. Socrates MacSporran
    Ignored
    says:

    This is somewhat off-topic, but still I think interesting

    On the Rev’s twitter feed, there is a tweet from John Nicolson MP, in which he highlights the Daily Telegraph’s retraction and apology, naturally buried at the foot of an inside page, to its lurid story – based on a Scottish Labour pr piece – which was as false as anything that bunch of haddies has ever put out, about MPs expenses.

    They couldn’t even apologise with half-decent grace, as Mr Nicolon shows. The final sentence reads:

    “It has published new figures which shows, the SNP says, that its MPs cost on average, £21,000 less than their Labour and Lib Dem predecessors.

  362. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Andrew McLean says:
    6 December, 2016 at 3:37 pm
    heedtracker says:3:08 pm
    Cute. Eddie Hitler, he’s a star in New York and a star in LA

    BBC is so right wing now, its more than unsettling watching them in action. Vote Tory BBC Daily Politics lunchtime show had Jo Whatsherface seated next to a toryboy the whole show.

    06/12/2016
    Daily Politics

    Jo Coburn is joined by journalist and ConservativeHome founder Tim Montgomerie to examine the government’s plans to change the way some rail services are run, plus the latest from this week’s by-election from…

    Its an appalling outfit/perfectly fine and dandy. I think toryboy BBC actually detests Corbyn’s LAB even harder than they do SNP. Must be fcuking awful going anywhere the whole tory BBC creep show, if you’re a not tory gimp though.

  363. Positive Internet
    Ignored
    says:

    This is a test comment, please disregard.

  364. Bob Mack
    Ignored
    says:

    Lord Pannick can defend me any time. Rapier mind, incisive and sharp.
    I have no doubt at all he has already won Ms Millers case for her.
    There was the disgusting spectacle of the Advocate General for Scotland admitting that the rights enjoyed by Scotland are not enshrined in law and are subject to change at Westminster whim.

    We have “conventions” apparently rather than legal rights

  365. Andrew McLean
    Ignored
    says:

    This is a curious you gov survey, the day after the one referenced by the Rev?

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ncuxzlahef/InternalResults_161130_FavourabilityFigures_W.pdf?

  366. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Can just hear same BBC Welsh dude what told us Scotland had voted NO 2014, explain May wants a red, white and blue Brexit now. Tories arent mad, at all.

    For WoS accuracy, it was Ruth Davidson what announced the Scottish 2014 referendum result first, to the Welsh BBC guy, on his show, then he did it formally.

  367. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree, but only in theory. It has no practical political relevance whatever, because it constrains a fully-sovereign SG not one whit.

    ok,I accept your point here, accepting the euro doesnt actually force us to do so, so in effect the status quo will be maintained. but i merely used it as an example that the results of subsequent eu negotiations will certainly not include scotland keeping a population share of the uk rebate and as such, negotiations will not result in scotland retaining its status quo. the remit of the scottish government must be to err on the side of less integration than we have at the moment. It has no mandate to increase an iscotland’s eu position.

    I think this is more a pragmatic position, and i dont think changes snp policy either. their aim and policy is to retain access to the single market and free movement of people. the norway option suggested by salmond fulfills nicola’s promise to the scottish people

  368. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    “There was the disgusting spectacle of the Advocate General for Scotland admitting that the rights enjoyed by Scotland are not enshrined in law and are subject to change at Westminster whim.”

    Unless I was seriously losing the plot (I could have been – easily), the guy speaking today for the UK Gov was James Eadie QC. The Advocate General for Scotland (speaking tomorrow for the Scottish Gov) is The Lord Keen of Elie QC.

  369. Bob Mack
    Ignored
    says:

    Lord Keen did speak today Proud Cybernetic, just after Mr Eadie

  370. stewartb
    Ignored
    says:

    I see issues of EU membership and eurozone membership are being raised again. I posted on Wings some of what follows as part of a longer piece in July this year and it may be helpful to repeat it.

    Participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism is a necessary precursor to joining the Eurozone AND participation in the ERM is voluntary. This accounts for Sweden’s longstanding position of choice to remain an EU member outside the eurozone.

    The list below is of countries that joined the EU post-1999 and shows how long they have existed as EU members without being in the eurozone – and notably without a formal UK-type or Danish-type opt out (http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/ ):

    Czech Republic – c.12 years as a non-eurozone EU member (.. and counting?)
    Hungary – c.12 years
    Poland – c.12 years
    Bulgaria – c.9 years
    Romania – c.9 years
    Croatia – c.3 years.

    Some post-1999 EU members who now have chosen to join the eurozone did so only after a substantial period of time e.g. Estonia after c. 7 years; Latvia after c.10 years; Lithuania after c.11 years.

    Therefore, it would not be exceptional for a newly independent Scotland to see two or more parliamentary cycles pass and still not opt into the (voluntary) ERM. Seeking a mandate from the Scottish electorate to do so may even be a good thing in 15 years!

    In contrast to the recurring statements that an independent Scotland in the EU would be forced to join the eurozone, the following are a couple of illustrative extracts from recent political and economic discourse in Europe to provide some much needed, additional context.

    “Of the seven countries (outside the eurozone but without formal opt outs), Poland is the largest and the most strategic country. Currently it falls short of only two criteria and both are just a matter of little more than political will. The alignment of certain national laws could rapidly be implemented. And the still excessive budget to GDP ratio, resulting also from recent anti-cyclical policies to counter the economic crisis, could also be reined in a few years. But the victory of a Eurosceptic government – and the deeper trends in the Polish society it reflects – postpones membership in the euro to an undefined future, regardless of its Treaty obligations. Some of the other non-euro countries are in a similar situation.” (Source: europeanfederalist.blogactiv.eu/2015/10/29/polish-elections-and-eurozone-future-the-reality-of-a-multi-currency-union/ )

    In short, joining the eurozone or not is in reality a political decision for the sovereign government of Poland!

    “Sweden is not yet a member of the euro area. The Swedish krona is not yet within the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II)”, and there is an acknowledgement that: “Sweden does not have a target date to adopt the euro.” (Source: ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/countries/sweden_en.htm )

    Once again, joining the eurozone is a decision for Sweden – no ‘forcing’!

    (It is also important to note that IF Scotland had to join the EU as a new member then according to the rules: “Accession criteria are identical for all countries and remain those defined by the 1993 Copenhagen European Council.” – i.e. the same terms as regards the ERM etc. as those members who still have not chosen to join the eurozone.)

    Finally, and interestingly, although having a formal opt-out from joining the eurozone, Denmark is a longstanding member of the ERM. And of course, Denmark borders (and trades normally with) one eurozone member, Germany, and one EU member that is not currently in the euro, Sweden, not to mention close proximity and links to Norway that is in neither club.

  371. Bob Mack
    Ignored
    says:

    @Proud Cybernetic,

    Lord Keen represents the UK government in his capacity as Advocate General for Scotland.

  372. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    “Lord Keen did speak today Proud Cybernetic, just after Mr Eadie.”

    That’ll be when the popcorn hit the floor then.

    Well, if Keen DID say that about Scotland having no rights enshrined in law then I fear for the ScotGov’s position. Or perhaps I am totally missing his game and it’s all part of a develish ruse being played by him.

    We’ll see tomorrow I guess??

  373. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has recently taken part in discussions with Icelandic ministers, is keen to preserve Scotland’s access to the single market and has already intimated that a Norway-style deal could be the preferred choice once Article 50 is triggered.

    Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-holds-talks-over-scotland-adopting-norway-model-1-4296247

    The European Free Trade Association (EFTA), allows Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein to operate within the European Economic Area (EEA) while being outside of the EU.

    I dont think it compromises the snp policy, it was never snp policy to leave but that appears to be what is happening to scotland regardless. it could be put forward as an interim compromise agreement, with the promise by the snp to hold a full euref in scotland to consider full integration and euro adoption

  374. stewartb
    Ignored
    says:

    Some confusion developing here over who speaks for whom at the Supreme Court.

    As I understand it, Lord Keen, speaking today, is Advocate General i.e. the UK government’s Scottish Law Officer. He leads the team of lawyers providing legal advice, drafting and litigation services to the UK government in relation to Scotland.

    So he very definitely does not speak on behalf of the Scottish Government. The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC will do this later in the week.

  375. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    schrodingers cat @ 17:07 [how inadvertently appropriate! =grin=],

    We can’t know at this point what the actual outcome of iScotland-EU negotiations would be, so it doesn’t follow that we would definitely not be able to retain a population share of the UK rebate. The EU is looking favourably upon us right now, so might well be prepared to concede that point. At least (as others have already pointed out) if we continue to show full committment to membership. If we weaken on that, we automatically lose that support.

    The SNP has indeed no mandate to increase Scotland’s EU standing, but that’s not what is proposed. The EUref has demonstrated a clear mandate to maintain it, yet you seem to be proposing a weakening. On grounds of pragmatism? That kind of trimming was never the SNP’s way, which is why the party has retained so much respect and support through all these recent difficult years.

    Alex Salmond can fly as many kites as he wishes, but he’s no more leader now than arch-leaver Alex Neil.

    Surely the whole point of Nicola’s position is to demonstrate to everyone in the country that she is willing to move heaven and earth to achieve some kind of compromise arrangement within the existing UK. When that fails, as Ramblin’ Phil Hammond has already signalled, and virtually everyone expects, all bets are off.

    We need full EU backing to see indyref2 through. It offers us amplification of power. Protection against threats of a dog-in-manger trade reaction from rUK, for one thing. Potential for serious financial support for renewables for another.

  376. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    The Scottish Government’s guy hasn’t spoken yet
    His name is Wolf
    Good grief if that Keen guy was speaking for Scotland we would have to ha e questioned Nicola’s sanity for sending him there.

  377. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m well aware that a commitment to join the euro is required but there exists no way for the eu to actually enforce it on anyone, (joining the erm is voluntary) that wasnt the point being made

  378. Proud Cybernat
    Ignored
    says:

    Ta Stewartb for that clarification. You’re quite right–it’ll be the snappy Wolffe that’ll be sinking his teeth into them tomorrow.

    Advocate General for Scotland? Advocate General AGAINST Scotland.

  379. K. A. Mylchreest
    Ignored
    says:

    Everyone who spoke today, up until the last hour or so, were speaking for the UK government, defending their contention that parliament could be sidelined. The case against has just begun …

  380. ronnie anderson
    Ignored
    says:

    Appearing soon in ah Supermarket near you Brex it it might be on the Cereal shelves or on the Pet foods shelves at the Dog section, it will have the obliga tory Red White & Blue made in Engerlund stamp on it.

  381. Glamaig
    Ignored
    says:

    Andrew McLean says:
    6 December, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    This is a curious you gov survey, the day after the one referenced by the Rev?

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ncuxzlahef/InternalResults_161130_FavourabilityFigures_W.pdf?

    According to that survey, Scots dislike everything listed apart from the SNP and senior judges.
    They dislike all other political parties, dislike all UK politicians, plus Trump and Putin. In fact apart from the SNP the only thing they approve of is senior judges, apparently.

  382. T.roz
    Ignored
    says:

    Listen to latest piece on Michael Greenwell. Very interesting!

  383. Capella
    Ignored
    says:

    Lord Keen is the UK Government spokesman on Scotland’s position in the Westminster firmament. He started early by referring to the ancient sovereignty of the Scottish people. He said that this had been dealt with in AXA and that it has no legal standing in the UK. He forgot to mention that neither has the English principle of Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary sovereignty.

    He’s a Tory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Keen,_Baron_Keen_of_Elie

    The Lord Advocate, James Wolff QC is on tomorrow at 3.30 pm then again on Thursday morning at c 10.30 am. He is the Scottish Government advocate.

  384. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    Glamaig says:
    at 1:48 pm

    EU Chief Negotiator, Barnier give a press conference ….. seems adamant that negotiations must be completed in a minimum of 18 months from Art 50, then there will be 6 months for all member states to agree. So negotiations could be complete by Oct 2017.

    IMO this is excellent news because it leaves a 6months window where we will all know exactly what the Brexit deal is.

    If it doesn’t include EEA membership for the entire UK, or a good special deal for Scotland (nae chance), then IndyRef2 must follow. Unfortunately it would be winter, not an ideal time. However it does give the opportunity for the people of Scotland to decide between Brexit and Indy BEFORE Brexit happens.

    It would help enormously if the courts delay A50 until summer 2017, that would allow IndyRef2 in Spring 2019. (Just as The Rev suggests!)

  385. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    Glamaig,

    It seems it isn’t only God who moves in mysterious ways! =grin=

  386. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Is anyone going to ask Fluffy at the next Scottish Questions in Westminster.
    Did he know that the Advocate General (the guy he is supposed to get his legal advice from) holds the opinion that Sewal is legally irrelevant?
    Did he ask…if not why not. what did he know and when did he know it.
    Is it no his job to find this stuff out for parliament so they can have as an informed debate as possible???

  387. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Capella @6.05
    Thanks for that.
    Do you happen to know when the Trade Union people are up,they had a really good (for us) submission??

  388. Capella
    Ignored
    says:

    SC timetable here. The Lord Advocate is on at 3.15 (not 3.30 as I said above).
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/article-50-brexit-appeal.html

    All papers are available from this page.

  389. Glamaig
    Ignored
    says:

    galamcennalath says:
    6 December, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    ‘IMO this is excellent news because it leaves a 6months window where we will all know exactly what the Brexit deal is.’

    Saw on SNP twitter that Barnier will also have a direct line of communication with ScotGov! Dont know if that came up in the press questions that werent in the clip. He also said the EU were ready now… kind of implies they are not expecting these negotiations to be too complex – accept all 4 conditions of the single market? No? Theres the door.

    Obviously I meant negotiations complete by October 2018, not 2017, but you knew that.

    Its fine by me, because every year 60,000 new youngsters are added to the electoral roll.

  390. Capella
    Ignored
    says:

    @ Liz g – It looks as though the IWUGB are represented along with George Birnie and others at 2 – 2.30 on Thursday. Represented by Patrick Green QC.
    The papers are all available to read on the page I posted:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/article-50-brexit-appeal.html

  391. Chic McGregor
    Ignored
    says:

    When the UK joined the EEC 6 along with Ireland and Denmark in 1972 it was still pretty much, just an economic cooperation zone. CAP and all that, although some relevant ‘rights’ related things like equal pay for men and women had to be accepted.

    Ireland and the UK did not even hold referendums on the accession and Denmark only did because they had 5/6ths qualification rule for their parliament which was not met.

    However in 1975 there was a Brexit referendum to decide if the UK stayed in or not.

    You guys will know all this but the point I am going to make is this. Scotland, while still voting to remain, did so with a smaller vote than England, nearly 10 percentage points lower whereas in 2016 there was more than a 10 percentage point larger remain vote in Scotland than in England.

    Why?

    The ensuing 4 decades is a period where England or at least the Southern part of it has inexorably moved to the right, when Scotland has not and neither has Europe. Further treaties have helped make this clear with worker’s rights and the like.

    So Scotland has for some time, felt politically closer to the EU while becoming ever more politically distant from an England exiting stage right.

    However, and this is the danger Will Robinson moment, it looks like the EU could be about to undergo a lurch to the right, mainly fueled by immigration pressure of a million refugees from the Middle East. That move would be given extra impetus if Erdovan does release 3 million plus extra refugees into Europe as he threatens.

    Message. The turn around in Scotland’s perception of Europe which is currently aiding the indy cause via Brexit may very easily be turned 180. By the time of indyref2 we could be looking at a very different Europe than the current perception.

  392. Robert Louis
    Ignored
    says:

    I see some people concerned above by Richard ‘Lord’ Keen in the pretendy ‘supreme’ court in England today. Rest easy, he is London’s man, and does not stand up for Scotland on any level. He acts for Theresa May.

    Baron Keen of Elie, as he likes to be known, was the Chairman of the Scottish Tories until last year. That tells us everything we need to know.

    He comes in at number 61, on this linked article from 2003 below;
    http://archive.is/7FOC0

  393. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    Glamaig says:

    Saw on SNP twitter that Barnier will also have a direct line of communication with ScotGov!

    Driving home tonight I was listening to Radio Shortbread. I shouldn’t have because it only winds me up! I wanted to hear about the Supreme Court, but they didn’t say much.

    HOWEVER, what they did say was that there a direct line of communication from the European Commission to the SNP.

    Which is good news.

    BUT what really pissed me off about their report was saying ‘SNP’ when they really meant, and should have said, ‘Scottish Government’. This is becoming one of their standard propaganda tricks. Never ever to they call the WM Government the Conservatives, but the habitually refer to the Scottish Government as the SNP.

    We know why, of course. It’s about gravitas. By not using the correct title they are attempting to make it sound less important, less serious.

    It the same as not referring to Nicola as The First Minister of Scotland and instead saying Leader of the SNP.

    The informed listener/viewer sees right through them. It’s the uninformed listener/viewer that is the problem because they can still be influenced.

  394. North chiel
    Ignored
    says:

    Jackie Bird ( first ” unionist minister in waiting” , cross examining John Swinney
    on Scottish education performance . First item on the ” news where you are ” ( propaganda channel ” ) , closely followed by ” Holyrood no say in Brexit ” ref UK government advocate today at ” Supreme Court” .
    BBC ” Scotland” Westminster’s ” mouthpiece where you are ” .

  395. One_Scot
    Ignored
    says:

    Lol Iain Macwhirter finally waking up.

    ‘.@pforpaddy But the promise post vow was that Scot parliament would be “entrenched” + Sewel on “statutory basis”. Now revealed as bollox?’

    https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/806186273996148736

  396. Vestas
    Ignored
    says:

    Pannick is very impressive – I can see why his star is rising in legal circles.

  397. Iain More
    Ignored
    says:

    “But it shouldn’t be. Because what the poll shows is that there is currently a majority of people in Scotland prepared to vote for independence.”

    Aye but will the SG/SNP do anything within its power to stop those not resident in Scotland full time and permanently from voting in the next IndyRef. The decision by the SG/SNP to give preference to and or allow the Electoral Commission to verse the poll gives me no confidence in the Referendum process.

    So I think it is only fair that sleekit Opinion Pollsters hired by the Brit Nat Press and Media should ask those who shouldn’t legally in my view have a vote in the Referendum to express an opinion.

    I am still seething 2 years after Indy Ref 1 that hostile Holiday Home owners could vote in Indy Ref 1 and pack oot their wee butts and bens with their gets as well. I never met one that voted yes.

  398. One_Scot
    Ignored
    says:

    Got to laugh at Macwhirter throwing his dummy out the pram shouting ‘Scotland is being shat on. Yes Iain, it has been going on quite a while I’m afraid.

  399. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    The refugees from the Middle East are coming because the US/UK and France have been illegally invading and bombing the Middle East for years. It is UK/US and France who are causing the migration crisis in Europe and then denying any responsibility. Many migrants that come to the UK come as an extremely small percentage of the migration problem Westminster Unionists have caused by their actions. I.e. the migrants would not be in Europe if the US/UK and France were not illegally destabilising the Middle East for ever.

    The behaviour of the Tories and Farage is appalling. They want out of the EU so they can tax evade.

    Any migrants that are coming from the Middle East to the UK are just a small the proportion of the migrant crisis the UK Unionist Gov is causing, They are dispicable. Their behaviour is illegal. The rest of the European countries are having to pick up the pieces of the illegal behaviour of the Britush Gov. Costing £Billions. Most of the Westminster lying criminals should be put in jail.

  400. Breeks
    Ignored
    says:

    Saying it again, if the SNP back away from the EU in preference for EFTA, then we might as well roll up the Brexit referendum result and put a match to it for all the good it will do us.

    Staying in Europe is our mandate for constitutional divergence between Holyrood and Westminster, because like it or not, EFTA means, and requires, Brexit for Scotland.

    Carry on if you must examining all the options, so that eventually Independence is the only option left standing, but be aware, in effect, you are telling the whole population of Scotland that Independence is the choice of last resort. Wow. Who could refuse? Please tell me you do see that, right?

    I am 100% with Wull in his comment above. It’s all very well saying have faith and trust in Nicola, for most of us do, but I didn’t vote in the Brexit referendum to prevent Westminster forfeiting my European citizenship only for the SNP to work out some compromise and make it happen instead.

    FFS put EFTA back in the box, and get the EU firmly on our side and supporting our cause. EU membership is status that we already have, status I like having, and status I demand is respected. If you want to compromise and make do with access to the single market, then I’m going to compromise and save my vote for somebody who stands firm and defends my interests.

    I’ll be brutally frank, because I’m not SNP party faithful, so it’s allowed, but getting my head around your policy towards Europe is just as difficult as getting my head around your path towards constitutional reform and independence. With due respect to Robert Peffers and absolutely no slight intended, why should I get my education about Scotland’s disputed sovereignty in below the lime comments on a pro-Indy blog? Why isn’t this constitutional betrayal of Scotland’s sovereignty, and indeed the sacrosanct nature of Scotland’s civic popular sovereignty front page news? Why are these issues being left remote from SNP strategy just for laypeople to uncover and agitate for recognition from the sidelines?

    Forgive me, but the only sense I can make of it is that you seem to have conflicting priorities between democracy and sovereignty, believing democracy to be the superior to sovereignty. Your message seems to be you need democracy to preselect your sovereignty, but sorry, that just isn’t how it works. Sovereignty is pristine and absolute and has not changed for 700 years. We just haven’t used it in a while. Democracy is inconstant and ephemeral. Whatever it stands for changes with every vote. Democracy is important, of course it is, but it is a tool OF sovereignty. Without sovereignty, democracy alone is merely an opinion poll. Please, do not forsake the integrity our precious, legitimate sovereignty for the humble formality of a democratic majority in a faux parliamentary process designed from the beginning to frustrate our self determination and introspection as a Nation.

    Nail our colours to sovereignty. Win the battle for control of that, and everything else will fall into place.

  401. schrodingers cat
    Ignored
    says:

    so might well be prepared to concede that point. MIGHT, thats the point i am making, the point about the rebate was only an example of the opt outs that wm has,
    no one knew what trade agreement they were voting for in the euref, indeed, they still dont. So the idea of voting yes in indyref2 and keeping our status quo is incorrect.

    if we continue to show full committment to membership. If we weaken on that, we automatically lose that support.

    Not if during eu negotiations were the snp to announce a post eu negotiations, they would hold an euref to accept the outcome of these negotiations but also to propose scotland becomes a full member, adopts the euro etc

    The SNP has indeed no mandate to increase Scotland’s EU standing,

    agreed

    but that’s not what is proposed. The EUref has demonstrated a clear mandate to maintain it,

    the eu is commited to respecting the wishes of the scottish people, it hasnt said that an indy scotland will keep the uk rebate

    yet you seem to be proposing a weakening. On grounds of pragmatism?

    if further integration and the status quo are off the table, then a lesser position would seem the pragmatic solution, the ability to point directly at an existing arrangement, ie the norway model, this would remove doubt as to what was being proposed

    Alex Salmond can fly as many kites as he wishes,

    and so can and has Nicola

    Surely the whole point of Nicola’s position is to demonstrate to everyone in the country that she is willing to move heaven and earth to achieve some kind of compromise arrangement within the existing UK.

    absolutely, no arguments here

    When that fails,

    which it will do, indyref2 will be announced

    We need full EU backing to see indyref2 through.

    I think the eU will be more supportive than in indyref1, but they will not be able to comment on the intracacies of post indy eu negs, but if we point to an existing model, they might be willing to say yes to this solution during the actual indyref2. it would remove any doubts

    It offers us amplification of power. Protection against threats of a dog-in-manger trade reaction from rUK, for one thing. Potential for serious financial support for renewables for another.

    we are discussing the snps position during indyref2 in order to win

  402. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    Holiday Home owners should not have a vote. The council should not be giving them voting rights. Council – council registers can identify Holiday home owners. They will have two addresses. The main abode is the registration for voting rights in the UK. If there are holiday home owners identified voting report them to the council. They are breaking the Law. Their vote should be nil and void. The registers have been tightened up recently.

  403. Dj
    Ignored
    says:

    The Scottish Indy supporting brexiters are the one thing that will be fully exploited by the diehard yoons at the next indyref. Let’s face it, anyone who’ll throw Indy down the fuckin pan for a perma Tory future must have a screw missing somewhere. I fully understand folk being iffy on the EU but any sensible punter must know that Scottish independence can only be won in the near future if we carry the pro EU folk with us. After we have our independence we can then have a sensible debate in Scotland and make a decision on the EU. At that stage I will happily give careful consideration to EU membership from a completely different political situation in Scotland.

  404. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    Iain More @ 18:53,

    I think it was Meg Merrilees some time ago (apologies to everyone concerned if the wrong attribution!) who pointed out that the SG does not have a free hand in choice of electoral procedure for an indyref; it can choose only one of a few pre-existing options. Last time it chose the “local election” model because that allows all people of Scotland (including resident EU citizens) to vote on their future.

    It’s also highly unfair to target the Electoral Commission with unsubstantiated allegations. They can only operate within the existing (UK!) law and as we have seen, that can be (deliberately) lax in various ways due to the politicians who wrote it. (Think Carmichael the sanctioned liar.)

    I don’t know to what extent 2nd-home owners were allowed to vote the last time. Some posters, I seem to recall, made it clear that time-majority residence was a necessary requirement of eligibility.

    We’ve been through this before. There’s no point whatever in girning about a voting system that is inherently inclusive. The only answer, despite the gross media bias and a legitimate cohort of resident southerners who will never vote “yes”, just as there is a cohort of resident Scottish BritNat Loyalists who will do likewise, is to convince a majority of voters that independence is the better choice.

    That’s the bottom line. Focus on achieving that. Anything else is just distraction.

  405. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1206/836787-nevin-northern-ireland-brexit/

    “Northern Ireland is staring into a “Brexit black hole” and a “calamity” that offers no economic, cultural or peace building opportunities”

    Aye, Snap!

  406. North chiel
    Ignored
    says:

    Re Chic Macgregor comment @ 0639 pm.
    Whilst agreeing with your post Chic, additionally Brussels ensured that
    Contributions made from the London treasurey to the EU were
    re-distributed to poorer areas e.g. The highlands& islands . There was hardly an infrastructure project in H& I after EU membership that did not receive assistance from Brussels. This redistribution of wealth would never have happened if we were not members of the EEC. I doubt very much that any Westminster government would have spent any retained funds in poorer areas of the UK if we had not become members. Similarly, I very much doubt the current Tory Junta now “presiding over Scotland’s budget “would ensure that EU funds lost to Scotland after Brexit would be duly fully compensated for by Westminster thereafter. ( Just perhaps, the EU were aware of Westminster’s stranglehold over Scotland’s resources all along , and at least attempted to mitigate it somewhat ??)

  407. galamcennalath
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert J. Sutherland says:

    I don’t know to what extent 2nd-home owners were allowed to vote the last time.

    It shouldn’t happen, and if attempts are made, it should be easy to identify.

    Councils have details of what the status of every residential property is because 2nd homes get a 10% discount on council tax. No one should normally be registered to vote at such addresses.

    I don’t know whether this checked off against the electoral roll, but it certainly should be!

    The electoral commission says ….

    Whether or not you reside at an address is not defined in law. Residence is understood to mean a “considerable degree of permanence”.

    This means a person with two homes who spends the same amount of time in each can legally register at both addresses. [But note vote twice]

    It is unlikely that merely owning a second home that is used for recreation would be enough to qualify you to register to vote in that area. Simply paying council tax on a second home would also not be enough.

  408. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Capella @ 6.21
    Once again thank you Hun..
    Your a star… I am worse than useless at finding stuff.

  409. North chiel
    Ignored
    says:

    Agree with ” Breeks” at 0702 pm ” sovereignty” is the crux
    of the matter. Is the people of Scotland ” sovereign” or not ?
    The Scottish government eventually ? have to get this argument out into the
    open. Is the crown or people ultimately sovereign in Scotland?

  410. Brian Doonthetoon
    Ignored
    says:

    Kinda O/T – well definitely O/T…

    Just picked up from “The One Show” that MC Hammer is afraid of hammers. Maybe a good job he doesn’t comment btl on Wings. He’d be a quivering wreck!

  411. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    Tis the season to get shafted

    Remember at the time of the Myth Commission John Swinney fought tooth and nail to get the word “Normally” removed from that document, in the sense of the UKGuv wouldn’t “Normally” overule Holyrood and Fuffy and Carmichael were never off the Telly telling us so

    The SNP saw this coming a long time ago, and also saw the use of the threat to dissolve the Scottish parliament should Westminster so choose by refusing direct permanency of Holyrood with the words “The UK GUV recognises Holyrood”

    You can’t depend on Numpties like McWhirter to know anything, these “Journalists” don’t keep up and they have as much foresight as foresk, Aye well you know what I was going to say

    Don’t also depend on Northern Ireland to support Scotland, they won’t, they’ll get the deal they want for all the obvious reasons and then go quiet on the matter, and that’s the problem Scotland will always have, we’re too nice, the SNP (And I’m a member) are too nice, Scotland is always just too reasonable and the English take that as a sign of weakness because they’re not nice

    The more Westminster bullyies us the more the Scottish cringe Yoons will lap it up, the BBC will punt out it’s failure and useless Scotland crap and the fearties will buckle and bow their heads
    WE want Independence but does Scotland deserve it if the people aren’t prepared to get off their knees and not accept London theft and rule anymore

    And a Morbid Christmas to one and all, london bless us every one, can we have some more please

    Too much?

  412. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    schrodingers cat @ 19:04,

    Sorry, cat, the lack of distinction between my quotes and your responses was so mingled I got very confused. But on one specific point:

    Not if during eu negotiations were the snp to announce a post eu negotiations, they would hold an euref to accept the outcome of these negotiations

    This is just plain self-harming, as has already been explained upthread.

    There is a legitimate concern as mentioned by Chic McGregor @ 18:39 that the EU may sooner or later turn in a direction that is politically unpalatable to us here. That is indeed possible, but not on the likely timescale of indyref2. That is one of the points that Barnier was addressing today. If there was an eventual dramatic swerve in a rightwards direction, eg. if Marine Le Pen became President of France, that might cause many member states to re-evaluate their membership, not just an iScotland. With such an situation the then SG would be perfectly entitled to have a referendum on continued membership, (or -say- on some proposal emanating from the EU to loosen-up the mutuality of the EU).

    But a promise to formally couple any secondary referendum du jour of any kind (monarchy, etc, etc.) with one on independence is self-defeating and simply a cause of avoidable dissention and muddle.

  413. ScottieDog
    Ignored
    says:

    Entirely agree with the view amongst folk saying that SNP really have to commit to fighting for full membership of the EU. If they don’t then it weakens their argument for indyref2. I say that as someone who is disillusioned with the EU, especially Schauble. That’s why my pref is a ETFA but this is politics.
    The BBC won’t be interviewing many EU representatives this time around. They won’t get the answer they want to hear!

  414. Stoker
    Ignored
    says:

    WOS archive links for June 2012 now over in O/T.

  415. shug
    Ignored
    says:

    I am pleased to report the the national BBC news is now back on message emphasizing how bad the Scottish results are

    I await an apology for the not much worse than previous years

    For a horrible moment I thought we were getting balanced news reporting

    It was delightful to hear the ‘Burd Wuman’ emphasis shock and horror.

    I was beginning to think the BBC had gone native!!

  416. Capella
    Ignored
    says:

    @ Liz g – I’m a bit of a geek when it comes to this issue. I’ve spent all day watching it and will probably do the same tomorrow. The wee twists and turns are fascinating.
    The Attorney General – arrogant and bored. His counsel Eadie determined to baffle us with a mountain of detail.
    The Attorney General for (against) Ireland got completely tongue-tied and lost in his page references. Maybe he was a secret agent.
    Lord Keen, Attorney General for (against) Scotland, arrogant and rude about us.

    I do think the 11 judges are very sharp cookies. Nobody will pull the wool over their eyes. Doesn’t mean they will uphold the High court decision but I’ll be surprised of they don’t.

    Looking forward to the presentation of the Scottish Lord Advocate and the UWGB.

  417. Doug McGregor
    Ignored
    says:

    Wales’s results are worse than ours , no surprise there , they have been being deprived of their best youngsters for far longer than us. If we keep losing our best and brightest to elsewhere , is it surprising that our averages go down ( Rev NB could be a good article).

  418. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Galamcennalath @ 6.43.
    Re the SNP rather than the First Minister.
    Something else I noticed….The Supreme Court isn’t using the term.. The Royal Prerogative….Just The Prerogative…
    First time I have ever heard so many plummy voices decline the chance to stick… Royal…in to any sentence.
    Wonder if there was a memo or something?

  419. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    The Unionist at Westminster gave been cutting the education budget (pro rata) since the 2008 banking crash caused by Westminster Unionists. Trying to blame the SNP Gov is just a lie. The SNP Gov has trying to maintain Uni education and keep class sizes down. Despite the budget deliberately being cut down by Westminster. The Unionist councils deliberately cut budgets for essential services and education. They spend the money on grotesque projects the majority do not want. Wasting £Millions/Billions. Borrowing and getting the Council’s into debt. Against the majority wishes and the public interest. Wasting £Billions of public money and not supporting essential services. Including education.

    2009 Labour/Unionists raised £600Billion in tax and were borrowing £120Billion = £720Billion.

    The Tories 2015/16 raised £515Billion in taxes in the UK. Borrowed £100Billion = £615Billion.

    Scotland raises £54Billion and can’t run it’s economy as the majority in Scotland would want. Having to pay the rest of the UK debts and a tax regime which doesn’t benefit the Scottish economy.

    UK Education/NHS spending has been cut. The Scottish Block Grant has been cut. There have been severe cuts from Westminster. Many Councils are not spending money on or protecting essential services, including education. The Block Grant has been cut 10% every year. Now cut £3Billion a year by comparison.

    If education standards have fallen blame the UK Gov, The unfair unequal taxes on the Scottish economy and their debt and tax regime. Spending £600 Billion on projects in London S/E and depriving Scotland of it’s Oil revenues by unfair and unequal taxes.

  420. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    Jacob Rees Mogg talking to Murnahan and backing Keen’s view on legislative authority and where it lies. Oh and also claiming there will be no second indyref because ‘Mrs’ Sturgeon knows SHE would lose.

    Are we feeling the better togetherness, the partnership or the love yet?

    So what was the argument for the union again? A ‘family of nations’. (cough)

  421. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    Do holiday home owners still get reduction of council tax? It was being phased out in many Councils. They have to pay the full amount. They still are likely to have two addresses registered for mail etc. Bills.

  422. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Capella @ 7.45
    Snap …. I find all that stuff fascinating as well.
    I am actually shouting at the screen stuff I want the Judge’s to ask.
    And I expect it will be worse tomorrow.
    Just really nervous they will find a way to agree with that Advocate idiot.
    But hopefully we get to Europe over it all eventually.
    I think that’s how to wake the most people up to their Soverenty!
    Finger’s crossed…

  423. Fred
    Ignored
    says:

    @ Breeks, good post!

    Shortbread plan to kick-off the New Year tae yin & aw with that old wax-work Jackie Burd wance again & ad-nauseum.

  424. Capella
    Ignored
    says:

    Just really nervous they will find a way to agree with that Advocate idiot

    Well, then we appeal to European Court!

  425. Orri
    Ignored
    says:

    Amusingly soon after that shock horror Scotland underperforming for once the BBC skips merrily on to reminding us that some pupils had their studies disrupted by PPI schools being shut before they collapsed. That can’t have helped.

  426. Alastair
    Ignored
    says:

    Time to piss or get off the pot.
    All the constitutional issues, all the polling issues, all the alllegency issues resolveved.
    SNP MP’s , SNP and independence supporting MSP resign. Bi elections and Scottish Paliamentary elections for the Scottish electorate to give an unequivocal mandate for Independence and a final referendum.

  427. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    galamcennalath

    NI has another choice but the brain dead Unionists stand in way.

  428. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Macart @ 7.58
    Reece Moggs is at it Macart, I have heard him over the years,and he knows fine well the Constutional issues.
    He is one of the very few in Westminster who do.
    Forsythe is another one,he is slightly more straightforward about it.
    Where as Reece Moggs is more like an understudy for Chris Ewebank.

  429. Tam Jardine
    Ignored
    says:

    Whatever the decision post indy on the EU/EFTA (and anything else for that matter)- all would be decided by the people either through our representatives or via a referendum.

    It bears repeating because almost every other democracy in the world enjoys the fruits of this concept: decision making.

    This time it is leaving the EU, the time before son of trident, the time before that it was further devolution, and so on. Our history is full of poll taxes being foisted on us.

    No-voting Scots must realise this line continues forever unless we change. A good question for them is: what’s next in the pipeline? Another war maybe? Complete refurb of the commons? Changes to workers rights? Fracking? We don’t get to decide shit when it comes to the big stuff (and even some of the small stuff).

    Another thought occurs for our No-voting fellow citizens: if you hate the SNP there is only one way to get rid and that is independence. The SNP will exist in Scotland in one form or another until we gain our independence. Thereafter a term I would imagine before it naturally disintegrates and new parties form. And guess what: none of them will be talking about independence!

  430. Brian Powell
    Ignored
    says:

    Jacob Rees Mogg must have the measure of Slab and its supporters than he can be sure the vote would be No. I guess the Tories now own Labour.

  431. shug
    Ignored
    says:

    I have been all over the BBC site looking for the scores for the 4 home countries
    Strangely they only have a chart for Scotland (all bright colours in a downward direction of course)
    Wonder why they don’t show the English results in the same way

    Might ask Kaye in the morning
    Am bracing myself for the usual full on SNP bad story tomorrow

    Do you think they think we still listen and believe them??

  432. Luigi
    Ignored
    says:

    Brian Powell says:

    6 December, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    I guess the Tories now own Labour.

    They always have, mate. They always have. People just weren’t aware of it before.

  433. Legerwood
    Ignored
    says:

    Shug @ 8.46

    You will find all the scores in an article in the Guardian. Would give you the link but cannot archive. It was on the UK section of the Guardian web site.

    Although England did well compared to Scotland etc. it looks like all the 4 parts of UK have dropped a bit and Wales was bottom by quite a margin.

  434. Elizabeth Stanley
    Ignored
    says:

    Ken500

    Holiday home owners can opt out of council tax & pay business rates if the house is let for 20 weeks or more.This is cheaper for many.

    The village I live in has been ruined by holiday homes.We have lost the bank,post office,shop,bakery & butchers.

    I look out at night at this time of year & see dark blank windows in so many houses.

    Of course all these houses will be let at vast amounts of money for Christmas & New Year for outsiders to live the dream of the quaint Scottish seaside village experience.

    The closure of amenities in the village is not all due to holiday homes but they sure don’t help.

  435. Meg merrilees
    Ignored
    says:

    Robert J Sutherland @ 7.11

    Sorry to disappoint but’ it wisnae me’ that posted about the Scottish Government and options for Indy ref templates. Thankyou for the credit though!

    Haven’t managed to watch any of the case yet but will try and catch the real Scottish Advocate tmrw. Think it should start to get a whole lot more interesting from now on.

    Don’t trust this amendment to the Labour debate on Wednesday that TM has proposed:- agreeing to publish a plan for Brexit in exchange for a commitment to invoke Art. 50 by the end of March 2017.

    How can any politician accept this amendment before the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal?
    I smell another smell!

    Plus we still have Peter Bone’s back-bench bill due for its second reading on Dec 16th – to which some MP has ( or 56 MPs have) to shout ‘Object’!!!
    The UK gov has such weasel ways – I hope they fall flat on their face tomorrow.

    Lots of jittery folk posting recently, querying our future and worried about the way forward. Don’t have any doubts! The darkest hour is just before the dawn and we are fast approaching that point. If you’re nervous now, how will you feel the night of Indy ref2?

    Nicola is playing a blinder. She’s been to Europe, Ireland, Iceland; Westminster really worried and since they clearly think of Scotland as ‘Region’, they could be in for quite a shock with Lord Wolfe and the UWGB QC.

    I’m minded of James, the Marquis of Montrose:-
    “He either fears his fates too much or his deserts are small who will not put it to the touch to win or lose it all”
    and that is it in a nutshell, only, Nicola knows what cards she has in her hand.

    We are equal partners with the English Kingdom and Nicola knows that; Fluffy knows it too but has been spreading misinformation.

  436. call me dave
    Ignored
    says:

    Still having problems with the Herald. Might be stopping my subscription and just running with The National one.
    having to ign in every time now and archive not working.

    Watched the Advocate General for Scotland trash Scotland’s case today but the rebuttal tomorrow from Mr Wolffe QC.

    Hope it archives 🙁

    Westminster is sovereign and MSPs have no power over UK’s relations with EU, Supreme Court hears

    https://archive.is/ZHvnx

  437. Rock
    Ignored
    says:

    No more “white papers” before the next independence referendum.

    Simply promises of referendums on:

    1) Monarchy

    2) Sterling

    3) EU

    4) Nato

  438. Sinky
    Ignored
    says:

    On education can someone not point out that there were record results in 2016 Exam Results

    ? 152,701 Higher passes, the second highest number on record and 77% of those sat

    ? 234,160 National 5 passes, 79% of those sitting exams

    ? 114,635 National 4 passes, 93% of those sat

    ? More than 43,000 National Certificates, Awards and National Progression Awards in courses such as early education, childcare and computer games development, up 27%

    ? A 23% increase in National Certificate passes at SCQF level 6 related to work skills, to 4,920

    A record number of Scottish school pupils have been offered a university place on exam results day, with the majority choosing to continue their studies north of the border…

    The figures also showed a significant rise in the number of pupils from Scotland’s most deprived areas winning a place at university…

    There was also a significant rise in the number of students taking and passing vocational qualifications…

    Meanwhile in England This year’s GCSE results have shown a significant fall – down to the lowest level since 2008.

    On education, including university attainment and lifelong learning, Scotland outperforms England.

    A record number of young people secured a place at Scotland’s universities this year. And, the number of Scottish students and students from deprived areas are up too.

    Scotland has a lower rate of young people not in education, employment or training than England.

    The number of young people aged 16 to 19 not in education, employment or training in Scotland has fallen by 12,000 since 2010. Scotland also outperforms the UK on youth employment, unemployment and inactivity rates.

    Meanwhile in England This year’s GCSE results have shown a significant fall – down to the lowest level since 2008.

  439. Rock
    Ignored
    says:

    And above all, a referendum on the BBC, the propaganda arm of the state.

  440. Robert Louis
    Ignored
    says:

    In essence, the Westminster Government’s case against Scotland having a say in Brexit is simply this; ‘Dear Scots, shut the f*** up, and eat your cereal.’

    What lovely people.

  441. Rock
    Ignored
    says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell,

    “I don’t know if you’ve been watching the news, but Scotland IS currently going to be dragged out of the EU.”

    So much for our pretendy “sovereignty”.

  442. silver19
    Ignored
    says:

    OT: O’Dear looks like BBC Scotland have been caught making up graphs for their Scottish schools world rankings SNPBad story :-

    https://twitter.com/Innealadair/status/806198888063528960

  443. Sinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Richard Keen served as standing junior counsel in Scotland to the Department of Trade and Industry from 1986–93, and is chairman of the appeals committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. He specialises in commercial law, property law and administrative law.

    Keen represented the Scottish football club formerly known as Rangers at their unsuccessful appeal against a one-year transfer/registration embargo which was held on 16 May 2012 and represented Andy Coulson in relation to perjury charges.

    For a time he was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, in January 2014 he stood down and became chair of the Scottish Conservative Party.

  444. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Meg Merrilees @ 9.12
    Night before Indy Ref 2…. think I will be fine cause I will keep busy.
    The night of the result however….. I think now I’m commin tae your hoose…….LOL
    Don’t know about anybody else but when I read…………… The Night Before Indy Ref 2………
    My stomach flipped over ..like when ye were a wean and yir da wiz reading..The Night Before Christmas…
    This has to be it!!!!

  445. ronnie anderson
    Ignored
    says:

    Rock dicing wie Hammers remember Hammers harder than rock.

    Rev unleash THOR.

  446. ronnie anderson
    Ignored
    says:

    @ JamesCaithness Thanks for that link James

  447. Legerwood
    Ignored
    says:

    Sinky @ 9.27 pm

    I believe the numbers from disadvantaged background in Scotland going to University in 2016 increased by 5% to over 3,000.

    As regards the Pisa scores several people have mentioned I thought the following figures might be useful in giving a fuller picture.

    Year Maths. Reading. Science
    2003 524. 516. 514
    2006. 506. 499. 515
    2009. 499. 500. 514
    2012. 498. 506. 513
    2015. 491 (490). 493(493) 497(493)
    Eng 493 500. 512
    Wales. 478. 477. 485

    Note 1 the figures in brackets for 2015 are the OECD averages for the PISA results.

    Note 2 the scores for NI are either higher or lower than Scottish ones but Wales was lowest in all three categories in 2015.

    Note 3 between 2003-06 the PISA scores fell off a cliff for Maths and Reading. Just why is not exactly clear but there is some evidence from other testing at an earlier stage that this drop may have been the result of some change either in P7 or S2. But after 2006 the results stabilised albeit at a lower level.

    Note 4 Science remained OK until 2015.

    There is, however, much more to Scottish Education and it’s outcomes than the bald results here. A more detailed analysis and comparison if Scotland’s relative position can be found in the OECD report on Scottish schools published in 2015. I got the 2003-12 PISA scores from that report

  448. Elizabeth Stanley
    Ignored
    says:

    I watched most of the SC today.

    I thought Eadie could have just texted.Even he could see he was flogging a mummified horse.

    Pannik in comparison was wonderful. He seemed to have few interruptions from their Lordships except for an old cove with a blue striped shirt(showing far too much cuff for a gentleman) who did not seem to understand where Pannik was coming from.

    Of course the real fun starts tomorrow.

    I thought this would be as dry as a bone but it’s really interesting!

    So 10/1?

  449. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Sinky says:
    6 December, 2016 at 9:27 pm
    On education can someone not point out that there were record results in 2016 Exam Results

    If you mean the full on UKOK yoon monstering hysteria today, at the SNP and education rankings, they’re based on tests set by the OECD PISA itself, not by exam performance by OECD country. You can try some yourself. After 10 years of England getting Goverised, they’re completely static.

    http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-basedtestforschools/mathematicstests/

    Kids are stoopid:D

  450. davidb
    Ignored
    says:

    Pisa rankings should be treated with caution. They are not necessarily measuring an average performance at random.

    School kids in the far east attend cramming schools. Dig around and you will read reports about teenage suicide rates there. I read a story a couple of years ago in the Economist about Chinese “lower achievers” being publicly shamed. Is that what we want in Scotland?

    Most weans learn to read and count. Indeed, in a world where nobody knows what the future economy is going to be, is there any point worrying about maths scores? How many of us ever used trigonometry after they left school? Does it matter what 2/7 of 5/8 ‘s is for most of us?

    Lighten up. Schools really should be about learning to socialise. Be creative. Learning to think. Not every kid is going to get a Nobel prize – although obviously plenty Scots do get them.

    I couldnt care less what the Pisa rankings say. There’s no way of spotting the cyclists on steroids, or the lady shot putters that used to be men.

  451. Macart
    Ignored
    says:

    @liz g

    Rees Mogg knows his eggs right enough. The sound bite is pure theatre for a specific audience. He also knows fine well the insult he gave the First Minister and the lack of respect was calculated.

    So I’m guessing from now on its peachy to call him Mr Mogg or the current incumbent of No.10 Mrs May. S’up to him right enough, but we can do lack of respect too when push comes to shove.

    As for his pronouncement? He may consider in the months to come that both he and Mr Keen may have politically very unwise to push that line. Their choice. 🙂

  452. Rock
    Ignored
    says:

    In my view, the 11 twats in the UK Supreme Court are the lowest of the low.

    They don’t give a damn about the law.

    Their only purpose is to protect the establishment. They can and do fudge any law to do that.

    The bastard Denning said it was better to keep innocents locked up than to admit that the judges had been wrong.

    If it helps the Establishment’s cause, they will misuse Scotland, without conceding a millimetre to Scotland.

  453. Nana
    Ignored
    says:

    O/T

    John Pilger /The coming war with China tonight 10.40pm

    https://twitter.com/ITV/status/806181528564690944

  454. Robert J. Sutherland
    Ignored
    says:

    I see our resident nihilist is back again. I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion we need to listen carefully to what he writes then believe the exact opposite! =sigh=

    But otherwise a great discussion on here today (though it’s sometimes hard to keep up with all the ferment).

    And (hopefully) big popcorn day in court tomorrow…

  455. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    The bastard Denning said it was better to keep innocents locked up than to admit that the judges had been wrong.

    He’s long dead Rock. He may have said what you say he said but he’s far more famous for saying that he’d have hung the Birmingham Six. If they were later found not guilty, too bad.

    When you are in a courtroom, you wait for the judge or judges to enter. When they do enter and take their seats, everyone stands and bows to them. But its not a bow to the judges as people Rock, it’s a bow to the Law.

    Keep that in mind.

  456. Nana
    Ignored
    says:

    Crikey don’t panic folks, reading my last post at 10.20 I should have put ‘tonight’ and the time on a separate line.

    Keeping you all alert!!

  457. Paula Rose
    Ignored
    says:

    Just a quick comment on education – I was full of hope for my future as I got to the end of my secondary education, any future in what I wanted to do was trashed by Thatcher, I ended up never really getting anywhere. For our young people to do well at school they have to see a future of promise.

  458. Elizabeth Stanley
    Ignored
    says:

    Rock,not a surprising view from you.

    What smacked me in the face was how middle aged,white,male most are.

    Of course you could cast your eye around most of the top careers in in UK & find similar.

    How would you encourage a more diverse make up to take up a law degree?

    Why do you think all are corrupt? I’m sure Peat Worrier would be upset or couldn’t care less about your rather hostile views on those that practice law.

    Denning is long dead.

  459. Elizabeth Stanley
    Ignored
    says:

    High fives heedtracker.

    Great minds & all that…..

  460. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Elizabeth Stanley says:
    6 December, 2016 at 10:42 pm
    High fives heedtracker.

    Great minds & all that…..

    As has been pointed out a lot lately, Leave campers raged at the EU for enforcing European Law on the UK, what we had no control of, so take back our Great British Law making from johnny foreigner. And now the same tory Leave creep show, led by the Heil, are all now hysterically monstering UK Law, UK judges and UK courts. We’re shackled to lunatics.

  461. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Paula Rose @ 10.36
    Also a child of Thatcher.
    Any potential I ever had stymied,but worse than that,the hope that Blair could put it right (by then I knew better) crushed!
    My community desimated .
    Never again my friend… I have made sure three more are wise to it.
    They will never have to learn,they already know.

  462. Bob Mack
    Ignored
    says:

    The thing is this. Mr Reed stated that Sewell is only applicable in legislation and not to conventions. Slap in the face but ?. What Mr Reed should remember is that there are indeed several pieces of legislation on the horizon necessary to facilitate Brexit, and here the Scottish government would have again legal recourse to demand that Sewell be recognised.as it is most certainly about legislation and not convention.

  463. Still Positive.
    Ignored
    says:

    I take exception re Rock’s comments about lawyers. One of my sons is a lawyer and he is definitely not corrupt in any shape or form.

    When he was still at uni, his dad and I asked him what he planned to specialise in. We breathed a sigh of relief when he said he could not do criminal law as he could not defend anyone he thought or knew to be guilty. We were very proud of his stance.

    He does mainly personal injury and child custody cases.

  464. HandandShrimp
    Ignored
    says:

    The Pisa rankings are interesting and it is likely that the introduction of CfE has stalled educational improvements as the new system beds in. However, there are radical changes in hand and one would hope that they will bear some fruit. However I would caution against putting all one’s hope in a system be it CfE or Free Schools or whatever. Educational attainment is about a lot more than just schools. The parents and the pupils have to also buy into the process. Where all three work together an incredible amount can be achieved with surprisingly limited resources.

    On the actual graph if they were to pan out to the bigger picture it would become apparent that the difference between the years is relatively small. The UK and most of Europe are flat lining along at average. Our schools are not bad they simply not at the top of the heap in these tests. However, I would be more interested in what Estonia is getting right rather than Singapore. The Far Eastern schooling system is a different culture and incredibly taxing on those students that do not make the grade and even on some of those that do. We might gain more from an education system achieving results closer to home.

    To be honest though I am not convinced Pisa rankings are the top political news story of the day.

  465. Rock
    Ignored
    says:

    heedtracker,

    “When you are in a courtroom, you wait for the judge or judges to enter. When they do enter and take their seats, everyone stands and bows to them. But its not a bow to the judges as people Rock, it’s a bow to the Law.”

    What law?

    The law that protects the rich and the powerful?

    The law that protects the likes of Carmichael and Coulson?

    The Scottish justice system is rotten to the core and the vast majority of lawyers, especially judges, are the lowest of the low.

    If anything, the UK Supreme Court is even worse and illegal.

    Still Positive,

    “We breathed a sigh of relief when he said he could not do criminal law as he could not defend anyone he thought or knew to be guilty.”

    He must be one of a very few of his kind.

  466. Rock
    Ignored
    says:

    Judges ARE enemies of the “plebs”.

    The “plebs” voted for Brexit.

    This legal farce is going on because the Establishment doesn’t want Brexit.

    If the Establishment had won, the “plebs” would not have been heard by the eleven twats in the UK Supreme Court.

  467. Tam Jardine
    Ignored
    says:

    I haven’t caught up with the snp education baad for today- it’s just the same old shite I am sure. As anyone with a passing interest in education will know- the roots of underachievement in education stem from wider economics issues and the deprivation and social problems that stem from those issues. Trying to solve underachievement or low attainment is laudable but as long as our society suffers from inequality and deprivation we are saddled with the consequences.

    And last time I looked the treasury and Westminster is responsible.

    Of course the BBC will pin it on the Scottish Government but that displays a wanton disregard for the root causes.

    I would be interested to know how this is measured- for someone getting 5 Bs at higher might be an underachievement but for someone in the same year that may have represented a significant over-achievement.

    One thing is for sure- our young folk are living through great times and gaining a real education on how the UK works. The generally pro EU bairns will not have missed the democratic deficit even if they don’t use those terms.

  468. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Still Positive @ 11.00
    I take exception right there with you.
    Rock doesn’t speak for me ,a fair few Winger’s,and No One speaks for the Rev.
    One of my kid’s is doing a master’s in law ,and like you I am so proud.
    I will never let anyone….. anyone tell me she has no honour..
    And don’t you either.
    The one thing people who over generalise about the law tend to forget is that there has to be one.
    And what people in general should always try to remember is… divide and conquer is maybe a bit of the propaganda that the kid’s in the Uni bubble are no aware of,till they are asked to pontificate on camera about ….We are trying to work out a better way.
    But educating our own lawyers…has to be a given.
    Rock…never has anything to say…just faults to pick..
    So don’t worry too much!!!!X

  469. Meg merrilees
    Ignored
    says:

    Here’s an interesting article re the Treaty of Union which is good preparation for tomorrow’s
    stint by the Lord Advocate FOR Scotland.

    The gist of it being that the Treaty of union is an International treaty. Ratification of the Treaty expressed that it had been finally accepted and was beyond alteration. The treaty was entered into without limitation of time and some articles express quite clearly that they were intended to be perpetual.

    4 paragraphs from the end they quote Mc Cormick v Lord Advocate 1953
    “.. the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of the Westminster parliament was a distinctly english principle which had no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional law. In particular, the Lord Advocate had conceded in that case, that the Parliament of Great Britain could not repeal or alter fundamental and essential conditions of the Treaty and associated legislation; these included…the preservation of Scots law, subject to amendment (Article XVIII)”

    Article 18 is the very point the Scottish Government will use tomorrow in its argument.

    http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx

    Sleep well tonight everyone – tomorrow will be historic!

  470. Legerwood
    Ignored
    says:

    HandandShrimp @ 11.08

    I agree with you about the PISA scores. They are a narrow snapshot but if used with this in mind they have some use but are by no means the whole picture.

    If you want a fuller picture of what is happening in Scottish schools and their standing across a range of measurements which are not purely academic and against countries with some degree of similarity in education and social parameters then the OECD report published last year gives a much better picture. It also demonstrates that in many areas Scotland is more than holding its own against countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Norway and others.

    But politicians will always latch onto something such as the PISA scores and try to spin them as a picture of the system overall.

    Not sure of the extent to which the most recent scores give any indication of how well or otherwise the CfE is working. Perhaps to soon to put any change in scores down to CfE. Again the OECD report covers CfE and it’s workings.

    As you say there may be more important issues right at this moment but the opposition parties at Hollyrood cannot handle important issues in any shape or form.

  471. Still Positive.
    Ignored
    says:

    HandandShrimp @ 11.08

    Agree. As a retired English teacher I can say the parents’ input is crucial.

    My former school was featured in the BBC Scotland slot at 10.30 and John Paul Academy in Summerston, Glasgow includes some of the most deprived children in Glasgow – Maryhill, Possilpark, Temple and Milton to name a few.

    The Headteacher has changed since I worked there and I can’t imagine he is as good as the one I worked under.

    He changed everything: bringing in compulsory uniform and blazers to give the pupils confidence; he also could pop into your class at any time and the pupils knew that so it improved discipline and he gave the pupils hope by signing up to local college initiatives to allow pupils day release as well as encouraging University visits.

    Many schools work hard to encourage pupils and teachers are right behind the initiatives.

  472. heedtracker
    Ignored
    says:

    Rock says:
    6 December, 2016 at 11:37 pm
    Judges ARE enemies of the “plebs”.

    The “plebs” voted for Brexit.

    This legal farce is going on because the Establishment doesn’t want Brexit

    Carmicheal was found not guilty under the present law. It wasnt him what was liar, it was MP personality.

    The “plebs” will get Brexit. If as seems likely, SC sends Art 50 goes back to the Commons for a vote, all MP’s are going to be judged by the 17 million Leave votes, Heil, Telegraph etc and will vote accordingly, Lab and Tory. UKIPers await.

  473. Big Phil
    Ignored
    says:

    @ Rock,
    law abiding citizen me thinks not. why do you always have to pigeon hole every single person,its soldiers,its sovereignty, its plebs, its the lawyers turn now. Dont take offence but you are a DICK.
    Do you actually wake up in the morning and just hate everyone? if thats the case ,Please have a long lie tomorrow.

  474. Valerie
    Ignored
    says:

    *waves at Heed*

    Good to see you posting, you have a fan club here, so get rid of the nasty Slovene hinger on.

    Have enjoyed reading everyone commenting on the SC action (except for Rock).

    Seriously, Rock, that amount of bile will make you sick.

  475. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @wull
    I’ve seen q good number like yourself who wonder what on earth the SNP are up to, but I think they know exactly what they’re doing. First of all is to put Scotland’s case to EU member states, and to do this they have to be totally reasonable and open about what Scotland’s rights and needs are – the Single Market basically. They show they are open to having a fair deal offered to them. BUT we all know that won’t happen.

    Secondly they are trying to be as appealing to as many people as they can, previous NOes, YESsers who voted Leave.

    Third they are waiting for Article 50 to be invoked, and fourthly and more recently, but perhaps even more importantly, the UKSC case in front of us right now. Bear with them. Stay suspicious by all means!

  476. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    @Rock
    Too many times you’ve made ridiculous comments about Law, and those who interpret it and administer it.

    Law is what stops someone up the street from you taking your property, and if you resist, killing you. Unless you have your own army. Law is what prevents Government deciding that at the age of 59 you’re no longer useful, and terminating your existence.

    Judges are those who will decide what the Law is, and how it should be interpreted in your case. Advocates are those who will do their best to put your side of any argument, to protect your interests – and your Rights. Solicitors are those who will help you put together your arguments, so an Advocate can put that case in court, for the Judges to decide.

    Without Law, you and I are serfs. Bow down and kiss your Baron’s arse.

  477. Big Phil
    Ignored
    says:

    Glad the The Heed is back.I Like your style Big Yin.

  478. Orri
    Ignored
    says:

    One remarkable thing about the tetchy “rebutal” of the Lord Advocate’s intervention is that it’s the equivalent of asking the judges to simply reject it out of hand rather even consider it.

    The ludicrous thing is it consists of two points that make no sense in the context of the current state of the law.

    First the idea that this doesn’t concern individual rights or devolved laws is exactly what this appeal is about. Unless the Government wins the opinion in English Law is that it does. The second point is even less safe as once you put the outrage to one side it consists of ignore a legal opinion from someone well versed in Scots Law about how things currently stand because Westminster claims a dubious right to change them to suit its own agenda. Which is all well and good but doesn’t get round the problem that until they manage to change them they’re bound by the law and treaties as the currently exist rather that as they wish them.

    That latter is even more pertinent as, according to Wikipedia, use of RP can even be restricted by laws about to be passed. The shorthand is that it should only be used in a provable emergency and not to bypass inconvenient legislation.

    The dropping of the word Royal might be telling in that it might remind some of us of an essential stage that must be passed before a Bill becomes Law and that another Royal Prerogative is the refusal to Assent. Obviously Parliament might ammend legislation in order to remove that requirement. A harder sell would be to remove the power to withhold assent. However the subtle point remains that the Queen is actually at least two different people when it comes to her State duties. Holyrood might decide to allow the right to refuse to pass laws in her capacity as Queen of Scots to continue.

    So not only could Holyrood simply amend, repeal or restore any laws affected by Westminster interventions in to Scots’Law and threaten to continue to do so until Westminster ceased their unwanted interventions but attempts at removing of the powers to do so might push it to a request to the Queen that she refuse allow it.

    Obviously dragging the Queen into the middle of a stramash like that is the last thing anyone wants. Funny that May seems to be folding. Nothing to do with that other Royal Prerogative of being able to dismiss mi

  479. Dr Jim
    Ignored
    says:

    Just in

    Westminster has refused to acknowledge the petition on the snoopers law and dismissed the need to debate it citing the new law which states “Get stuffed we don’t care what you think we rule OK”

    There were more legally writ wordies but that’s about the height of it

  480. mealer
    Ignored
    says:

    Heres one for the barrack room constitutional lawyers.

    Q Why can’t the monarch marry a Catholic?
    A Because the acts of Union forbid it.
    Q Why can’t the acts be changed?
    A Because the treaty of union doesn’t allow it
    Q Why can’t the treaty be altered to allow it?
    A Because it can’t be.
    Q Why not?
    A Beacuse it just can’t be.
    Q But why can’t it be?
    A Because it’s not possible.
    Q Why is it not possible?
    A Look,the union has been great for Scotland.
    Q What,because the monarch can’t marry a Catholic?
    A Don’t be silly.
    Q So why don’t we just do whatever is necessary to allow the monarch to marry a Catholic?
    A Are you thick? How many times do I have to tell you? IT SIMPLY ISNT POSSIBLE! END OF!

    They really don’t want to go there,do they? They don’t want to admit that the treaty of union can’t be amended.It can only be withdrawn from.Or Scrapped.

    Has there ever been a petition to either the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster parliament calling for the monarch to be allowed to marry someone of any faith,colour or gender ?

  481. yesindyref2
    Ignored
    says:

    An interesting paper about the Sewel Convention, Keen (AG) and the Scotland Act 2016

    http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7001/Iain-Jamieson-Putting-the-Sewel-Convention-on-a-Statutory-Footing.aspx

    As section 2 does not provide expressly that it cannot be questioned in any court of law, the question whether it is justiciable will remain uncertain until the courts determine whether, and to what extent, they will seek to interpret and enforce that section and thus subject the legislative power of the UK Parliament to judicial scrutiny. It is thought that any sanction for breach of that section will be purely political but it would be controversial.

    Iain Jamieson is a retired UK and Scottish Government lawyer. He headed a small team of lawyers who instructed the drafting of the Scotland Act 1998.

    So, here we go!

  482. Skintybroko
    Ignored
    says:

    On education, we have improving higher results , more students going to university and all achieve bed despite the burden of a reduced budget not in the least helped by Labours PPI legacy.

    Our teachers know the score and tbh it is the supposed education gurus that are the problem – not listening to those on the chalk face and that is not purely a government responsibility they need to have advisers and if you don’t have a background in those things then the wool is easily pulled.

  483. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    Many Lawyers are master criminals. Most of them should be in jail. Blair etc. They make the Law and break the Law. They think they are above the Law including members of the Westminster Parliament. Taking the UK out of Europe because of the lies they have told about the migration crisis etc. That they have caused by their illegal actions. Chilcot was another expensive whitewash.

    The Tory/Unionists liars break the Law every day. They are abusers and killers of innocent people the world over. Their behaviour is appalling. They sanction and kill people they are suppose to protect every day. They abuse their Office and misused and abuse public money in the most criminal way. Keeping it secret under the Official Secrets Act. Many lawyers are devious, greedy liars. Who should be sanctioned in every way.

    The farce that is going on is a disgrace. Another costly distraction. The Tories committed electoral fraud in 31 Constituencies. Thesesa May is an unelected PM. Another useless ignorant, arrogant incompetent liar. The Tory/Unionists are a disgrace. Labour, LibDems and the Greens are no better, The Green liars could cost Scotland Independence. They turn off more than they turn on.

    This farce will drag on until there is another election, which the Tories will lose. Just as they lost the last one and manipulated a EU Ref vote. Fargue is a master criminal. A fraudster and liar. Westminster Unionist are destroying the world economy.

  484. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Mealer @ 4.58
    Strictly as a paper exercise…..
    Firstly, I think the “canny marry a Catholic” rule is more a tenant of England’s Law and just put in the Union legislation to marry the two together ( but I don’t know for sure).
    Secondly.. I don’t think they would ever revisit that “law” because there’s still people alive today,who could then claim the Throne.
    In theory it could have a “no back dated clause” but there might be some in parliament who would dispute that.
    So then you arrive at a situation where…. MP’s and Lords would have to put on record why Catholic royalty just by being Catholic were historically unacceptable,and state that is the correct position,no change needed.
    It’s a bit like our Soverenty issues….the only way to win the debate is not to have your opponent’s questions asked.. never mind attempt to get an answer.
    It also opens the door to have a conversation about how stupid and backwards the whole concept of Monarchy is.
    Don’t know if you are aware of ..and I don’t quite know how it actually works.
    But there are still something called the Henry the 8th law’s,
    These are pretty much the same as Westminster is Sovereign and the mean that anything can be done for by and in the name of the Monarch.
    This democracy nonsense has always been able to be gotten around,and the notion that the Royal’s have no actual power is and always has been a farce.
    Like our own Soverenty powers it requires mass knowledge of how Westminster can be constrained to actually do it.
    The founders of America knew this and that’s why their founding documents say what they do.

  485. Smallaxe
    Ignored
    says:

    liz g:

    Have a look at this when you get time,about 42 mins in and see the power of the queen.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjNfXK6QpqY&feature=youtu.be&t=2563

    Peace Always

  486. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    Teachers need additional needs training. Councils should be funding education, essential services properly as is their statutory requirement. Keeping class sizes down. Not spending and wasting taxpayers money on grotesque projects the majority do not want. Over borrowing and spending public money on non mandated wasteful grotesque projects. Against the majority wishes and against the public wishes. They should be funding, education, social care, total abstinence programmes, providing for homelessness and repairing potholes. No going on an over spending tax wasting. Non mandated illegal borrowing and spending spree. The Greens are complicit. Reneging on their own policies and wasting £Million/Billions of public money, colluding with Unionists.

    Spending £30Millions renovating an Art Gallery, refusing a Gift of £80 Million to pedestrianise the City Centre. Spending /borrowing £Millions wasted on a grotesque carbuncle, the majority did not want. Adding to the congestion and traffic chaos in the City. Planning to spend £300Million on a Conference Centre. The present one is subsidised by £Millions of public money and used on average once or twice a month. There is a shortage of teachers, no provision for homelessness in the City. No proper total abstinence rehab provision. Not enough social care provision. No proper road repairs. No essential protection for the children in schools Another whitewash secret Report.

    Glasgow politicians want to build another rail link to the Airport. After wasting what was supposed to be funding previously. Glasgow airport has the best airport bus service in the world. Glasgow has the worst areas of deprivation which need funding. Social care and homelessness etc. That should be funded and rectified first. That is GCC statatuary duty. All councils should be doing that. Instead of wasting taxpayers money.

    The Scottish Gov is raising more money for education. Though the higher council tax bands.

  487. Liz g
    Ignored
    says:

    Smallaxe @ 7.10
    Thanks for that,my friend.
    I had seen the report before but hadn’t quite took on board the implications of the Queens power’s in facilitating this CRIME.
    Just as an aside…..Wonder what the rent is,for the islands.
    Is our share included in the GERs figures per chance????

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could take these islands as part of our settlement.
    Can’t think whatever we could do with them.
    Are they big enough to park a ship….say aircraft carrier size as a support vessel…do you think???

    Stay well my friend…and tell Mrs Smallaxe I am asking for her.X

  488. Ken500
    Ignored
    says:

    A shared Protestant monarch is part of the Act of Union agreement. A separate legal system forever. In Scotland the people are sovereign. Fourth Estate of equal measure. The King, the noblemen, the Church and the people. ‘The Declaration of Arbroath’. Many political systems in the world have been influenced by it.

    A Separate (Protestant) establishment Church. I.e. The Church of England. The Church of Scotland, Education provision was Church led at that time. Parishioners paid a tithe (tenth) for education, poverty relief, law disputes. etc. Led on to two separate education systems.

    The Catholic Church also provided education and poor relief. Catholics had sanctions. It was 1861 before Catholics were allowed to be members of Parliament. So there could not be a Catholic nominated PM. Has there every been a Catholic PM? It could be Masonic prejudice. The Royal Garter Organisation.

    No universal suffrage until 1928. In England the citizens are subjects of the Crown. The Monarch is Head of State. Supposed to be impartial. Not right wing Tories, abusing their subjects. Swallowing up taxpayers money like there is no tomorrow. Taking part in illegal wars causing mass migration and hardship. Destroying the world economy.

  489. Orri
    Ignored
    says:

    The ban on marrying a Catholic has been lifted. The ban on being one hasn’t. In England the pretext is that they must be head of the church.

    Someone mentioned elsewhere that there was a 1704 Act in Scotland that seems to have been dropped. I’d say that it’s actually being fulfilled as it can be read as saying that the next King must be of the Royal line of both Scotland and England rather than just England. Otherwise they might put their role as King of England above that of King of Scots. In that same spirit you might extend that to any devout monarch placing their faith above their duty to the people of Scotland. I don’t think there’s been a Royal Consort given the title King since then.

  490. Smallaxe
    Ignored
    says:

    liz g:

    One word from Betty and a whole populations home is given to the Americans
    to use as a base.Disgusting.

    Look after yourself.

    Peace Always



Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top