The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


29 Days Later

Posted on January 02, 2021 by

On 31 January last year everything changed. On that date – the one when Scotland was officially dragged out of the EU because it was in the UK, despite the SNP’s repeated pronouncements that such a thing would not happen – sane people finally woke up and realised that Nicola Sturgeon had no plan to secure independence.

Almost a year later, a shrinking rump of less-sane people are still clinging desperately to a variety of irrational beliefs (there’s still a secret genius strategy waiting to be unveiled and we simply can’t give away our hand yet; Boris Johnson is an honourable democrat and will cave in if the SNP get a majority in May’s election; magic pixies on unicorns will descend from the heavens and grant Scotland its freedom), but most of us have now realised that 31 January 2021 will be just as pivotal as 31 January 2020.

Because an awful lot of stuff is about to happen in a hurry.

One thing has already happened, of course: the UK exited the transition period and actually properly left the EU, with a last minute wafer-thin trade agreement which is only really fit for one purpose – allowing the right-wing UK media to trumpet that Boris got his deal and is the Churchillian saviour of the nation.

It’s not a line that stands up to even the tiniest amount of scrutiny, but that’s not a problem for those punting it because the average voter doesn’t indulge in “scrutiny”. The TV news tells them what the papers say and that’s about as close as they bother to look because they’ve got lives to be getting on with, lives which will for most people only be affected in small ways which are difficult to notice or become alarmed about individually. It takes the media to join the dots and paint the big picture, but the media isn’t interested in that when there are trivial Twitter spats to fill space cheaply with.

(As this site has pointed out for its entire existence, broadcast media unjustifiably amplifying the voices of foreign-billionaire-owned newspapers that roughly 95% of the population doesn’t buy is the core problem at the heart of politics in the UK. Every national newspaper put together comes to about 5m sales a day in a country of 65m people – just 5% – yet the BBC runs countless “paper reviews” on TV, radio and online every day, forcing them into the consciousness of non-buyers and allowing them to set the political agenda, while excluding any other kinds of voices.)

It’ll be interesting to see how the avoidance of a no-deal Brexit impacts on poll support for independence. We suspect Nicola Sturgeon will be quite worried, and praying that polling is now so consistently Yes that it’s become ingrained as the new normal. If even a few soft-Yes remainers have had their worst fears assuaged by the deal, support will sag back towards 50-50 and the chance to act will have been lost.

(For her part, Sturgeon is still parroting the exact same useless line as she was a year ago. In so far as the UK has a constitution at all, it amounts to “what Westminster says goes”, and with a 12:1 majority in the House Of Commons against a second indyref, in practice “a constitutional route” means no route at all.)

But post-deal polling is only one of the things that’ll happen this month. The second half of January 2021 is when it’s all really going to kick off, as both Alex Salmond and Sturgeon herself appear in front of the obstruction-plagued Holyrood inquiry in the space of eight days, a week and a bit which will also see the trial of Craig Murray in relation to the same subject, and the hearing of Martin Keatings’ case over Section 30 powers in the Court Of Session.

The Murray trial and the Keatings case may not have come to a conclusion by the 31st, for one reason or another. But events at both, and what happens at the inquiry, will give us very strong indications about where we’re going in the four months running up to the election.

This site has made its position clear enough since last January, and we’re not going to rehash all the arguments again. Our view is that if Nicola Sturgeon leads the SNP into that election, any hope of independence is dead until at least 2028.

(Because any significant democratic event will have been kicked down the road until the next election in 2026, and that’ll only be the beginning of the process. The UK took four and a half years to be meaningfully out of the EU after voting for it, and that was with the EU’s cooperation. Scotland has a big negotiating advantage, in that unlike the UK with the EU it actually has some significant leverage, but it’ll still take a while if the UK didn’t accept the process beforehand.)

There is a vast universe of difference between Scotland’s newly-elected First Minister being sent to Westminster on 7 May with a mandate to beg for a referendum yet again (a position which clearly implies Westminster’s right to refuse), and them being sent to Westminster with an unequivocal, internationally-recognisable democratic mandate to negotiate the terms of independence.

If, on the other hand, events this month should make it clear that Sturgeon’s position is untenable, then five criminally wasted years will be over and it’s game on.

The last 12 months, with the coronavirus pandemic providing a convenient excuse for inaction (even though the Unionist side hasn’t let it stop them), have been painfully frustrating for independence campaigners, and the effects of the virus are still with us. But the Scottish Government has finally just about run out of stalling time with the Salmond inquiry, and no amount of COVID-19 can stop it from running its course. One way or another, something’s going to happen in the next few weeks and we’ll all have some idea of where we stand.

We have no idea whether that outcome will be good or bad. Things we learned last month in relation to the inquiry were deeply disturbing. But either way we’ll know, and it’s the waiting that’s unbearable.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 02 01 21 11:57

      29 Days Later | speymouth

    266 to “29 Days Later”

    1. Dave M says:

      I think the pixies on unicorns will be the most likely thing to occur, sadly.

    2. Roger says:

      The warning that Brexit will quickly become the ‘new normal’ is spot on…

    3. Ryan says:

      Is this the beginning of the end?

    4. kapelmeister says:

      Sturgeon is nothing more than a unionist insurance policy against an indyref.

    5. Liz says:

      That last paragraph is pure wicked Stu. Going to be an interesting month.

    6. Molly's Mum says:

      Unfortunately I have a niggling feeling in my independence-sworn mind that the next stalling move might sound a bit like :

      “The most important thing now is for Scotland to get back into the EU – we have a very good case given that NI and Gibraltar both got special deals and my job is to persuade the UK Government that it is constitutionally and democratically unacceptable for Scotland not to have the same. Ian Blackford will be writing to Boris Johnson very soon to say…..”

    7. Bob Mack says:

      Depressing.

    8. Livionian says:

      I can’t wait for the truth to come out! Exciting times (re:salmons) during completely unexciting times (re: Scotland determining her own destiny)

    9. The fact that she and the feeble 48 did absolutely SFA to protect us against this Brexit calamity, hiding behind Covid 19, is utterly unforgivable.

      “All talk about independence must be put on hold” while these bstrds in Westminster got on with the very thing that made independence even more vital than ever. I’m worried about the mental health of the cultists when the scales finally fall as they’ll need a hell of an amount of deprogramming.

    10. David Holden says:

      The secret plan has turned up it was in the cupboard under the stairs covered by the missing ring fenced cash . I been on a blocking fest this morning as so called yes supporters are coming out of the woodwork and shouting and sneering at anyone who questions the dear leader or her pet ginger dog.

    11. Wulls says:

      Yup…….totally agree with this.
      I’ve said for a while the whole Deal/No deal shit won’t have any real effect on Scotland.
      We are out of the EU and no amount of hand wringing will change that.
      It won’t sink in with the beinidorm brits until some of them die because they had no health insurance.
      It won’t sink in until they need to queue for hours at customs.
      What will wake us the fuck up is the Salmond enquiry, the Keating’s case, and the result of Craig Murray’s contempt case.
      I’m betting reporting will be banned.

    12. Strathy says:

      The full extent of Sturgeon’s strategy was to bang on that no deal would be a disaster.

      She bet the house on it. The speeches were written and the TV appearances were lined up. We would have heard nothing else for the whole of January and beyond.

      The details of the deal don’t matter to the public. What does matter is that the arguments are over at last and there is no disaster.

      A large part of the 62% have accepted the result now and don’t want to go back to it. She has missed her chance.

      She will be very disappointed with the results of an election campaign based on – ‘Vote for me and I will plunge you back into years of arguments and uncertainty, followed by the trauma of another referendum.’

    13. Hatuey says:

      “Things we learned last month in relation to the inquiry were deeply disturbing.”

      Is that a reference to the things that we know about that were uncovered by the inquiry itself, evidence, testimony, etc?

      Or, is that a reference to something so far undisclosed about the composition or integrity of the inquiry and its ability to perform?

    14. The other thing that’s p*ssing me off is this “leave a light on for us, we’ll be right back, etc, etc” nonsense. Westminster are going to set about locking us up tighter than a dolphin’s arse at 50 fathoms and there’s nothing we can do about it.

      Or rather there’s nothing our “leaders” are prepared to do about it.

    15. Ian says:

      I suspect NS has her own plan which she’s probably had for a very long time.

      ‘THE eyes of the world will be on Scotland next year, Nicola Sturgeon has promised in a message to mark Hogmanay’.

      No it wasn’t anything to do with independence –

      ‘She added: “And of course, towards the end of the year, the eyes of the world will be on Glasgow, and the COP 26 climate change summit”‘ – The National 31 dec 2020

      I can see her wanting to stall until then and then to ‘step down’ and do a Tony based on her COP26 exposure.

      ‘In January 2008, it was confirmed that Blair would be joining investment bank JPMorgan Chase in a “senior advisory capacity”[182] and that he would advise Zurich Financial Services on climate change. His salary for this work is unknown, although it has been claimed it may be in excess of £500,000 per year.’ – BBC News 10 Jan 2008

      She has been lucky to date in avoiding any broad or serious criticisms. Let’s hope that luck runs out very soon and those in the SNP that do want to push for independence take over.

    16. Hatuey says:

      The sun is shining and I’m actually looking forward to watching this football match. Time for a little bet. I’m going to predict a Celtic win, four goals to one. £5 on that and if it wins I’m basically rich.

    17. GMac says:

      We need to do what the Ladies did with the #sixwords.
      Get on the SNP’s back and get on thier back hard and fast for a plebiscite in May. Even throw a serious unltimatum into the game for them.

      It needs to be announced before May to somewhat protect the Parliament from the Internal Market Bill.

      If its not then I persoally fear the worst, I saw a tweet today where someone mentioned now reqiring 70+ support for WM to cave, 3 months ago it was 50+

      I have said with this mantra that they will want more and more until there is no more to give and it will be too late.

    18. Sharny Dubs says:

      I fear the worst. The empire machine has had too much time churning away in the background. I’m getting the feeling that the enquiry among others will just be another stitch-up.

      There was a time we had light, NS has snuffed it out, hell mend her and her cohorts.

    19. somerled says:

      What i find interesting Stu, is that you believe UK media is biased in its support of Conservatives, Boris & the Union but you don’t acknowledge its mostly the same everywhere. In the USA 90% of media is owned by 6 companies including tv, newspapers, internet & other organisations. They all support Biden & Democrats and continue to lie about election fraud being baseless.

      Ive watched live coverage of senate hearings in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania etc, maybe 30 hours in total with hundreds of witnesses who’ve signed affidavits. There are some crazy conspiracies but also real evidence of massive fraud including connections to China. Georgia & Arizona senators have already said they are cancelling the 27 votes for Biden on Jan 6 Electoral College vote.

      This is more serious than Independence or Brexit but is ignored on biased UK media (also supporting Biden) and conveniently ignored by you and Craig Murray and other Trump haters. There is a very good chance Congress will reject some Biden votes and Trump should be re-elected. Biden wants to follow Obama in supporting Isis with more war in Syria and Iran, Trump doesnt, that is enough reason to want Trump. Biden also corrupt with payments from Ukraine & China. Democrats are now far left Marxists with BLM & Antifa support.

      People who refuse to believe due to ignorance or bias should watch Ryan Dawson on Youtube or Bitchute or his own website ancreport.com. Ryan is Anti-War and Anti Neo Con reporter and no fan of Trump – watch his film Trumps Zionist ball & chain but also knows Biden is dangerous and corrupt -watch Cornpops Revenge film. All the voter fraud and election fraud is available on his website.

    20. Willie says:

      Just read Breek’s giving the heads up that the Mark Hirst trial is going ahead and it would be interesting to read your take on this Rev Stu.

      Certainly doesn’t look like the establishment are in anyway giving up on using the so called rule of law to destroy political opponents. And of course the relocation of the U.K. government civil service from London to Edinburgh, the Internal Market Bill and the Indy lite SNP leadership tell us they have prepared well.

      But who are the leaders of the establishment who so grievously seek to snuff out all democratic process in what is now one of England’s last colonies. We need to identify them and make Scotland a very cold place for them.

    21. Tommy says:

      Here’s my take;

      I’m assuming Sturgeon and her mob will lead us into, and win the GE in May, much depends on the margin of win, either way,a win means almost assuredly no independence for a minimum of 5 years, if even then.

      Harking back a few days to Barrhead Boy, and his not so crazy idea that if ANY ISP party runs on a mandate of a plebiscite independence referendum, we should jump onside… not so crazy, and it will definitely split the vote, perhaps to the degree that Sturgeon doesn’t win a majority, but there’d be no more harm done, because, as I opine, independence via Sturgeon isn’t happening…. now, imagine, the 3 very visible opponents to the “Dear Leaders” ludicrous S30 route, ie, MacNeil, McEleny and Cherry… were, before the election, to jump ship, and join the relevant ISP, taking with them a great many independence supporters, I believe, if those 3 (there may be others), made known such an intention, it could just spur Sturgeon into action, were her majority to be threatened, as it surely would… if she turned around and agreed SNP would run on a similar mandate, all well and good, if she still refused I believe we would have the makings of an alternative to SNP, and on the next GE (2026) we could have a very strong alternative to SNP, which is sorely needed.

      Either way, there’s nothing to lose imo as, before mentioned, I can’t see independence under Sturgeons leadership within that time frame.

    22. Ian says:

      I suspect NS has her own plan which she’s probably had all along. A better paying role.

      ‘THE eyes of the world will be on Scotland next year, Nicola Sturgeon has promised in a message to mark Hogmanay’.

      No it wasn’t anything to do with independence –

      ‘She added: “And of course, towards the end of the year, the eyes of the world will be on Glasgow, and the COP 26 climate change summit”‘ – The National 31 dec 2020

      I can see her wanting to stall until then and then to ‘step down’ and do a Tony based on her COP26 exposure.

      ‘In January 2008, it was confirmed that Blair would be joining investment bank JPMorgan Chase in a “senior advisory capacity”[182] and that he would advise Zurich Financial Services on climate change. His salary for this work is unknown, although it has been claimed it may be in excess of £500,000 per year.’ – BBC News 10 Jan 2008

      She has been lucky to date in avoiding any broad or serious criticisms. Let’s hope that her luck runs out very soon and those in the SNP that do want to push for independence take over.

    23. Ian says:

      Sorry for the double. Internet messing up.

    24. A Person says:

      -Wulls and Strathy-

      Agree with you both.

      Now a deal has been done nobody, not even people like me who continue to think the whole thing is a joke, wants to hear the word “Brexit” again. That’s not fair but it is the reality.

      Any politician wittering on about it will be ignored. If this is Sturgeon’s plan it will **probably** backfire.

      As usual however I would bet she would rather be praised by the liberal London lot on Twitter and in the Guardian than take a pragmatic approach to Scotland’s future.

    25. ClanDonald says:

      If Craig Murray does end up being convicted of contempt of court over the Salmond court case does that mean he could then reveal lots of detail about the court case and not face any more contempt of court charges?

      If so, I say go for it, Craig.

    26. Clyde says:

      Sturgeon has to make a statement in Hollywood this week.

    27. Colin Alexander says:

      I’m finished with the SNP, With one or two exceptions: a plebiscite election or withdrawal from the Treaty of Union followed by an Indy Scotland confirmatory referendum.
      That’s unlikely to happen under Sturgeon or any replacement from her servants of the English Establishment. The SNP honour “England’s Crown in England’s parliamentary” sovereignty. Freedom is never won by such servitude.

    28. AnjaB says:

      “Game on” for who though? Who will be able to appeal to Independence supporters and the soft yes contingent? Who has the drive, the determination and the trust of the public, at least enough to unite the Yes movement and win a plebiscite vote in May?

    29. Lorna Campbell says:

      “… If even a few soft-Yes remainers have had their worst fears assuaged by the deal, support will sag back towards 50-50 and the chance to act will have been lost… ”

      Precisely, Rev. The analyses of the two votes in 2014 and in 2016 showed that the majority of Leave, in 2016, had also voted NO, in 2014 – and we are talking here about the two-thirds or so of a million voters in Scotland, from a voting population of around two-and-a-half million at best. The numbers never stacked up for a second indyref being a walk-over in any circumstances. A half-decent analysis of the reality of our situation, then a decision as to how to proceed in those circumstances, followed by the actual groundwork being done, was the only way forward. None of these was done, ergo we are where we are.

      If we go into yet another election without an absolute, cast-iron guarantee of an immediate move to independence negotiations with Westminster, independence is again on the back-burner for at least another four years, very likely considerably longer than that. If that Manifesto does not contain such a guarantee in its main policy for May, then people really need to consider how to get through to the SNPG that they have had enough. I cannot see any other way than by refusing to give them their second vote. They will not really have deserved our first vote, but, in reality, we need them.

      Their whole strategy has been one of appeasement when appeasement has not worked even once – as Chamberlain discovered in other circumstances. Appeasement never works against arrogance, narcissism and ignorance. At the end of the day, the Scots have to decide whether they actually want independence because there is no easy way to achieve it, and all ways will involve stepping outside the conventions of UK politics and legal convention. We had better start thinking about that Treaty because it will soon become the only way left to us, and, even then, that route will also be fraught with pitfalls which we had better foresee now.

    30. Wull says:

      If the SNP pull a surprise bunny out of the hat with a clever Independence strategy that outwits Westminster and gets Indy moving then I will give the SNP all the credit they deserve. But meantime I’m not holding my breath. Still looks like Indy will upset the gravy train and risk some nice cosy, lucrative careers in politics for more than a few whose primary role is to get Independence done.

    31. Athanasius says:

      The curse of the professional, career politician. It doesn’t matter what their avowed intentions are, any change is disruptive to their career, therefore some reason why “we cannae do that” will always be found.

    32. Kenny says:

      I’ll almost* trade Scot independence for the sheer delight of seeing Sturgeon captured and forced to resign when the former First Minister tears her a new one.

      Make no mistake, Alex Salmond’s a phenomenal tactician and a determined winner, and his case is solid. He’ll do us all a great favour by exposing the charlatan, ridding us of her – then I don’t mind waiting for independence.

    33. Bob Mack says:

      Isnt it really obvious we now need to coalesce around another Independence party on the list.

      There is definitely a need given that we fear the SNP are going to stall for God knows how long after May.

      We need representation for our aims as a matter of urgency and that must be preferably one party. I know there are a few and no matter what one is present in your constituency we must back them.

    34. James Che. says:

      What scares me the most is our own lack of planning and foresight,
      We the people have no plan, do not do a plan A. Or a plan B if politicians failed.
      We just sat and watched the circus,
      Are we putting one together before they change the British constitution in 2021, cos that is about to happen, to block Scotland.
      Do we have a plan or are we going to sit and watch it come towards us like hundred miles per train and that will bulldoze us down?

    35. TruthForDummies says:

      Is there a chance of Alex Salmond leading a List party?
      That seems to be our only hope.

      If Nicola has to step down then Joanna Cherry would definitely win a leadership contest looking at the voting in the NEC elections – she is so far ahead.

      I can imagine a dream team of Joanna C as FM and Salmond as leader of the opposition.
      Of course Joanna C would have to stand for HR but probably someone could be persuaded to stand aside for her.

      Then Joanna would definitely put a legally water tight plan B in the manifesto.

      I just hope the politicians who care about Scotland are planning this or similar

    36. Saffron Robe says:

      Another excellent article Stuart which provides clarity in these confusing times.

      I don’t read the newspapers any more but I always read the headlines when I am in the supermarket and the two examples you give are the two that caught my eye and churned my stomach.

      Do you think that Alex Salmond is biding his time until he gives evidence as he has been remarkably quiet up till now although he must despair at Scotland’s plight? Perhaps his hands are tied by the legal process? However, as my Mum remarked, he is not getting any younger and no-one could blame him for opting for a quiet life.

      Dave Beveridge says:

      “I’m worried about the mental health of the cultists when the scales finally fall as they’ll need a hell of an amount of deprogramming.”

      Dave, the despair will be profound. As I was discussing with Andy Ellis, to get an idea of the calamity that will befall them, I would recommend reading Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “Satan in Goray”. What befalls the followers of Sabbatai Zevi is exactly what lies in store for them.

    37. Beaker says:

      @Ian says:
      2 January, 2021 at 12:23 pm
      “I suspect NS has her own plan which she’s probably had for a very long time.
      I can see her wanting to stall until then and then to ‘step down’ and do a Tony based on her COP26 exposure.”

      By which time she will have prepared her replacement. Oven ready I would imagine.

    38. George Rutherford says:

      Have a good one Rev.

      Re, Sturgeon.

      As others have said, she either gas to make a positive move in the direction of independence or she has to start the process of resigning.

    39. Cherrybank says:

      The Yes movement should have as one of its priorities the organisation of a boycott of the BBC licence tax to ‘take down’ the BBC in its current form and its replacement with a new Public Broadcasting Service designed to serve the interests of the Scottish people.

    40. Bob Mack says:

      @Saffron Robe,

      “Injure the body ,it can heal in weeks. Injure the heart ,it can last a lifetime”.______(Iwasaki).

    41. Robert Hughes says:

      Yes , looks like this month will be very ” interesting ” , hopefully the verdicts will go in our favour with aquittals for Craig and Mark , the vindication of Alex Salmond and the comeuppence of Sadie Macbeth ( if , as we all suspect , she’s up to her tartan face-mask in the plot and found to be such ) . Of course there’s no guarantee any of these outcomes will materialise , we can but hope they do . Well O/T but Hatuey as a Celtic supporter I admire your optomism , not sure how safe yr fiver is though , I’d settle for a 1-0 win

    42. 100%Yes says:

      It sounds like Craig Murray has just got his answer to what he and his friend from the EU where talking about and it was the SG who stated a referendum needed to be Westminster approved.

    43. James Horace says:

      Im confused….

      2 weeks ago Stu was 100% certain that Sturgeon was toast as First Minister. There was no doubt about it.

      I have always thought she would safely negotiate the Salmond Inquiry, and anything else before May, but Stu always thought differently.

      Has significant doubt stepped into Stu’s mind?

    44. The Honourable Yona says:

      @Saffron Robe. I’m a fellow Singer fan.

    45. Lorna Campbell says:

      Well: one of the biggest problems they SNPG has is that so many of its people are still living out their student politics. Certainly, by the time you’ve reached the age of forty or so, you should be aware of the realities of life: that nothing is simple; nothing is black-and-white; and very few things worth having are achieved without personal loss. The Irish know that, even the most conservative of them, having lived through a war against famine, against mass migration, the British heel on their necks, civil war and as bystanders (and, occasionally, participants) in the Troubles in NI. They are no about to go backwards.

      The Scots’ battles and wars against the oppression of their big neighbour are long past and, if not forgotten, not exactly brought to mind either. It makes us ambivalent in many ways. Many of us are simply not prepared to do the really hard thing and tell them to f*** **f out of our politics and future. That, however, is what it is going to take, and student politics is not going to cut the mustard. I keep hoping that the FM will see her way to acknowledging that, but I am not holding my breath. I think it might well take a whole new administration to get us out, and that will mean a scorched earth policy against the majority of the MSPs, MPs, civil servants and the cadre of advisers and sundry other hangers-on. It will mean a political coup. Come on, Nicola, take the risk and retire as a Scottish heroine or go under, pulled from power, even if it is to a lucrative, but despised career, somewhere else. You still have time; you can turn the tide; but nothing concrete in the 2021 Manifesto, and your name and face, and your whole administration, will be yesterday’s news and tomorrow’s fish and chips wrappers. You might even witness the utterly humiliating spectacle of your Nemesis returning and leading us to victory this time, while you fiddled as Scotland burned.

    46. Hatuey says:

      “ Sturgeon has to make a statement in Hollywood this week.”

      I’ve seen a few people say this. It’s quite funny on a certain level. Do you really think there’s anything she could say that would fix things?

      Another popular expression is “I fear the worst”. Lol. There’s nothing to fear, it’s all out in the open and right under your nose.

      Brexit, indyref2, the SNP itself, they’re all fucked. When will the penny drop? It’s over. Finished. Done. Gone.

      Stay asleep. There’s nothing to get up for except a pandemic and she’s screwing that up too.

    47. Ottomanboi says:

      “We are committed to a legal, constitutional route to becoming an independent state”
      Whose law? Whose constitution?
      Injustice in the end produces independence, said Voltaire.
      We do need to work very hard on that theme, pdq, for Madame Écosse has dithered enough.

    48. 100%Yes says:

      I’ve donated as well as a lot of other people and money well spent to the Marting Keating case regarding a section 30 order. Nicola Sturgeon is running the full length of the UK shouting from the rooftops that Scotland needs a section 30 order to be granted for a referendum to be legal so why is the SG doing its upmost to stop Martin case from being successful, simply because Sturgeon doesn’t want a referendum and is happy with herself being leader of Scotland but with Westminster making all the decisions.

    49. Saffron Robe says:

      The Honourable Yona says:
      @Saffron Robe. I’m a fellow Singer fan.

      Yona, that is why you are most honourable 🙂

    50. Dave Hansell says:

      Given the current context some of the implicit assumptions in this debate may not last till the spring.

      Let’s take the Brexit deal for starters. Specifically section 31.2 as highlighted and detailed here for example:

      https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/12/29/the-brexit-bill-lets-ministers-enact-pretty-much-anything-they-like-and-labours-not-opposing-it/

      “Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act).”

      A provision which draws at least two pertinent observations:

      1. That as far as using the wide ranging provisions of the deal go Parliament is effectively surplus to requirements. Who needs to porogue Parliament when the ERG Government in Westminster has taken on Henry VIII Powers.

      2. At least the German Enabling Act of the 1930’s had a time limit.

      Then we have the present (ahem,’convenient’) shambles surrounding policy to deal with Covid-19. Which, uniquely, gets worse and more bizarre every day. The latest highlighted in the official UK Government advice detailed in this article from the New York Post:

      https://nypost.com/2021/01/01/uk-allows-mixing-covid-19-vaccines-as-experts-warn-of-risks/

      The scariest paragraph being:

      “For individuals who started the schedule and who attend for vaccination at a site where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown*, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule,” the updated guidance states.”

      * When standard protocol is to record the vaccine, batch number, date of innoculation, body part innoculated, etc on what sodding planet is it anticipated the roll out will be so badly carried out that the first vaccine will be “unknown.”

      And that’s in addition to the more obvious questions which arise such as the total absence of any scientific evidence that mixing vaccines or innoculating outside of the time period in which the manufacturers state the product will do what it says on the tin will have any positive effect or impact whatsoever on the situation.

      An observation supported by what remains of the adults in what is now the biggest lunatic asylum on the planet here:

      https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/vaccine-rollout-based-on-quantity-targets-and-not-quality-outcomes/01/01/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=bfa

      Given the logic of the argument re the futility of asking permission for another referendum from a Westminster Establishment which has given itself powers to bypass Parliament and do what it wants and the fact that last year’s local elections were postponed when the pandemic figures were far better than hey are now, or likely to be in five months time…….

      …..Some of the unstated assumptions here are looking somewhat optimistic.

      In this context it would seem evens at best that any election is going to be held for a Scottish Assembly this year. And even that’s being optimistic. A cynic might well make the observation that when the crazies have no problem by passing the Westminster Parliament what makes anyone think that Edinburgh will still be up and running in five months time?

    51. Gil McCurdie says:

      Depressing if nothing is done in the next week, we can all kiss Independence goodbye!

    52. Thomas Potter says:

      The’Leave a light on for Scotland in the Eu’ is Sturgeon trolling us with her virtue signal backing of Daddy Smith.

    53. Breeks says:

      Please don’t tell me we are still allowing a rogue and a fraud like Sturgeon to dictate what is legal and legitimate.

    54. Effijy says:

      Now in the New Year and dragged out of the EU
      against our will and with N Ireland having a trading
      advantage over Scotland Sturgeon must call a press
      Conference now declaring that May’s election is the
      Independence referendum.

      If not get out and let someone else steer this ship.

      I’d rather die with Covid than live suppressed under
      A corrupt English Tory government.

    55. Republicofscotland says:

      Hopefully Sturgeon is gone this month, the Keatings judgement becomes clear that we don’t need consent from a foreign country’s parliament, its unheard of that a country in a union with another country need the other country’s permission to leave the union, and that the trumped up charges against Craig Murray are dropped, or the case is thrown out.

      Such is the disgraceful way that Murray has been treated in this fiasco, that he’s not even been afford his right to defend himself properly. A bonus would be to see the Lord Advocate and Peter Murrell shown the door as well.

    56. Alf Baird says:

      Lorna Campbell @ 1.56

      You are right to raise the unpreparedness of the National Party bourgeoisie privileged educated classes, their Manichaeism, and their propensity “to be an imitation of the colonizer” (Fanon 1967).

      As Albert Memmi (1991) noted: “..the small colonizer is actually, in most cases, a supporter of colonialists and an obstinate defender of colonial privileges”.

      Nonetheless, much as Rev Stu highlights, Scotland’s colonial reality becomes ever more clearly brought to light each day through:

      – colonial governance
      – colonial media
      – colonial justice
      – colonial education
      – colonial etc etc etc ad infinitum

      Given our nation’s colonial reality, it is no surprise that much of our dominant National Party elite has a colonial mindset and hence aye presents a manifesto that panders more to the colonizer. This constitutes a significant challenge, because: “In a country under colonial domination, getting rid of any desire for colonialism requires liberating the mind” (Fanon 1967).

      However, as Rev Stu also implies, through reference to critical upcoming events and reckonings: “A day necessarily comes when the colonized lifts his head and topples the always unstable equilibrium of colonization” (Memmi 1991).

    57. Beaker says:

      @Lorna Campbell says:
      2 January, 2021 at 1:56 pm
      “Well: one of the biggest problems they SNPG has is that so many of its people are still living out their student politics.”

      Spot on. Too many politicians have a degree in Politics but no experience out with youth politics, and seem to treat the realities of political life as though it is an academic exercise.

      That’s not to say there is no place for younger politicians, but too often political immaturity, inexperience and youthful arrogance arise.

    58. Boaby says:

      A plebiscite independence election is legal
      And legitimate mrs murrell.

    59. James Horace says:

      This reads differently to all of Stu’s salmond inquiry posts of 2020. It’s as if Stu is now a lot less sure of Sturgeon’s departure…

    60. James Che. says:

      Dave Hansell. I have had the same thoughts, I do not think there will be an election in May, a gut feeling that won’t go away.
      If that happens we have to claim our independence through chosen a new people’s government, this can not be interfered with by civil servants if the ordinary council worker, a ordinary doctor men and ladies with a good brain maths, a few genuine independence lawyers, a shop keeper, small crofters and small businesses, a forestry worker, painters joiners every day ordinary people who live in ordinary lives.whom all contribute with their knowledge of how things actually work at ground level and what doesn’t work.
      One of the best things I have seen working in the past for youngsters, was apprenticeships, being four or five years, and gain a recognised qualification at the end. (not collage theory) they got paid for working and gained life experiences to help them through their future with sound employment prospects, something they could always fall back on later in life if needed. Real journeymen.
      In my time I have seen collage grads come in at the top level of management from collage and not have a clue when it came to reality, often bosses of men and women whom have done the job for thirty or forty years. This has to change.

    61. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “This reads differently to all of Stu’s salmond inquiry posts of 2020. It’s as if Stu is now a lot less sure of Sturgeon’s departure…”

      We heard you the first time, mate. But no, I still don’t see any credible way she can escape. The only thing that concerns me now, as it did before, is whether the conspiracy gets REALLY crooked.

    62. kapelmeister says:

      Since Westminster is taking compromise out of the equation in its dealings with Scotland, a break with Westminster is our only possible response, that is to say our only possible response other than allowing apathy to take hold.

      If we can even get half a dozen SNP MPs to break ranks and stop attending the Commons it would be both a psychological and tactical victory. For the real ongoing battle is inside Scots’ minds. We are denied a genuine share in the Westminster parliament, so we, by the same token, must deny its validity to incorporate Scottish MPs. Anything less is playing the part of the colonised.

    63. Paula Kelly says:

      Brexit Is Done. Why is Scotland STILL in the UK ? 3 days and counting SNP ? Enough is enough, SNP had their chance last January. I am giving my 2 votes, yes 2 votes to the ISP and an annual subscription of £60 to a party that actually cares about a Scotland free from Westminster. What utter liars the SNP have proven to be. ISP all the way from today. Please run as Constituents as well as the list seats ( I know you honorably said you wouldn’t compete with the SNP. Things have changed ISP, all honor has gone within the SNP. So why should you honor them ? My money, votes and faith are yours. Please deliver us Independence, before March ( before the Internal Market Bill Guts Scotland, like a fish ! )

    64. CameronB Brodie says:

      I knew the SNP were a busted flush, the minute I found out they support genderwoowoo and not cognitive law. As this means the party is incapable of supporting cognitive democracy. Perhaps this is why certain voices are determined to stop me from proving my case?

      Human Autonomy in Cross-Cultural Context: Perspectives on the Psychology of Agency, Freedom, and Well-Being
      https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/human-autonomy-cross-cultural-context-perspectives-psychology-agency-freedom-well/

    65. Helen Yates says:

      We’ll have to wait until the manifesto is announced to see where we stand, if it’s not to be a plebiscitary election then we know we’re going nowhere anytime soon.

      I do wish the ISP were standing on the constituency as well as the list because there will be a lot of votes to be hoovered up if no plebiscite announced. I know there is no chance of me voting SNP otherwise and I know many others who feel the same.

      Of course there is always still the chance that Alex Salmond might just make a comeback, we can but hope.

    66. John Jones says:

      Slightly OT

      I see that China has cornered the caviar market by breeding captive Sturgeons.
      I contacted them to ask if they would like another one, but they have declined saying that we require guaranteed producers and it doesn’t seem that yours produces anything of any use or purpose.
      I tried to explain that she could do a great marketing deal but it would only work with the gullible, much like saying how good caviar tastes.

    67. John Main says:

      If we are to talk about irrational beliefs …

      One of my favourites is the belief that Scotland can be an independent country and simultaneously be run from Brussels. Perhaps Indy1 would have done the job if the SNP were not so Hell-bent on taking our long-awaited independence and handing it over to the EU for them to manage.

      We are out of the EU. All we have to do now is get out of the union. I will vote for any party that will honestly and soberly commit to establishing an independent Scotland. I am not interested in a party that intends the break up of the UK as simply the first step in transferring governance from Westminster to Brussels.

      Am I the only one that thinks like this? I doubt it. For a start, all those who claim to be insulted at inferences that Scotland is too poor, marginal or thick to manage its own affairs should be on my side. All those incensed at professional politicians using Holyrood as a stepping stone to bigger, better and more lucrative sinecures should be with me too.

    68. Boaby says:

      If the Snp manifesto consists of asking boris’s permission for a section 30,
      Then the isp should field candidates in the constituency list as well as list seats. Anything less will see holyrood abolished and Scotland’s permanent annexation into greater england.

    69. Bob Mack says:

      @John Main,

      I kind of see where you are coming from but ultimately its about trade isn’t it. If people get the idea like you that European citizenship is a waste of time and there are no benefits tk be had above what we have in the uk deal ,why would they vote for Independence?

    70. Republicofscotland says:

      I think we’ve had three, general elections and three PM’s since the Brexit vote, yet Sturgeon left on a 45% pro-indy vote, and only needing a 6% swing that Brexit gave her, hasn’t done a single thing to bring forward a Scottish independence referendum.

      Whilst Westminster pushed forward with its plans come what may, virus and all, Sturgeon has stuck to the status quo doing nothing on the indy front. For this monumental failure alone she should be shown the door.

      Holyrood had no part in the Brexit deal, infact the Scottish government hadn’t received any correspondence from Westminster in any shape or form about what was going on with Brexit since July 2019, according to Mike Russell.

      What kind of government sits back and allows a foreign government to ride roughshod all over it and its people, then proclaims it needs the consent of that government to do anything about it. No other country in the world would still be in this union, if it were them instead of us being treated like shit by a foreign parliament in a union.

      Sturgeon has a lot to answer for and when we get shot of her, and once the truth is widely known, she’ll be as welcome in Scotland as Margaret Thatcher, or Nigel Farage was. I’m sure with the huge sums of cash she and her hubby have accumulated over the years, they’ll find somewhere more welcoming in the future, I say good riddance.

    71. Denise says:

      My plan is to spoil my first vote. Write Women = adult human female and vote ISP or hopefully Salmond’s party (maybe he’ll join ISP ) on the list

    72. Boaby says:

      Our country is now at a crossroads, time to avert our eyes from gogglebox, corrie, and eastenders, and step up to the plate. Lets walk the walk instead of talking the talk.

    73. Republicofscotland says:

      Alf @2.47pm.

      Alf.

      The Scottish mindset of some in Scotland with regards to not realising that they don’t even perceive themselves as colonised, reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

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

    74. CameronB Brodie says:

      “One of my favourites is the belief that Scotland can be an independent country and simultaneously be run from Brussels. ”

      The Right to National self-determination
      within the EU: a legal investigation
      https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/paperproposal/d0d39dde-15ad-4462-994a-a9e4a2fa24a6.pdf

    75. kapelmeister says:

      I intend to vote ISP 2. But for constituencies the ISP should do one thing, and one thing only. That is, field a candidate against Sturgeon and contest no other constituencies this time. Throw all resources for constituency elections into that one contest.

      If the split Nat vote allows a unionist in it’s only one seat, and besides the SNP might even make good the loss by picking up a Glasgow list seat. And think how glorious an ISP unseating of Sturgeon would be. Assuming she’s still SNP leader going into the election.

    76. Boaby says:

      RepublicOfScotland.4.05pm Yes, not for one minute would any englishman or woman put up with the shite and insults which their westminster(english government) dishes to us on a constant basis. Our ar**’s would have been kicked into touch long ago.

    77. Gregor says:

      Apologies for going a bit off-topic.

      @somerled/public might be interested in this link (re. crowdsourcing tool for organizing anomalies and legal issues:US Presidential Election 2020):

      https://hereistheevidence.com/

    78. Boaby says:

      Kapelmeister. I like the sounds of that.maybe pishart and blackfords seats as well.

    79. CameronB Brodie says:

      “One of my favourites is the belief that Scotland can be an independent country and simultaneously be run from Brussels.”

      One of my favourites is that Brexitania is a social democracy while simultaneously an English Tory despotism.

      European Union Integration and National Self-Determination
      https://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol31/iss2/7/

      “Recent demands for secession in several EU member states bring the issue of self-determination to the forefront of the debate about the future of the European Union. This article explores the European Union’s attitudes toward the international right to self-determination in the context of the rising salience of the greater political union between member states.

      The focus of the European project, in direct contrast to the glorification of nationhood, is on consensual decision-making rather than sovereignty, making self-determination obsolete in a reality of EU integration. This research finds that recognition of, or references to, the right to self-determination of peoples are absent from EU law sources.

      Official EU statements in the United Nations interpret the right to self-determination as the presence of a representative democracy and the ability to enjoy human rights within existing states. This interpretation implies that secession campaigns in EU countries are unfounded.

      The European Union demonstrates a strong preference for various forms of internal self-determination (extended autonomy of regions, minority rights, and language rights) as an approach to address the diversity of peoples and regions within its borders. But the European Union has no legislative competences in these areas and the enactment of such policies is dependent solely on the goodwill of individual member states.

      By analyzing past cases of recognition by the European Union of newly independent states in the wider European region, this article demonstrates that they have been inconsistent and arbitrary, dependent on the strategic interests of individual member states rather than clear normative criteria.”

    80. Mr C M Howie says:

      I don’t disagree with you often. Well written as always btw.

      But you’re wrong here. A plebiscitary election is pie in the sky nonsense.

      The only way it could possibly be even remotely legitimate would be if the SNP put a manifesto to the people with only one clause in it; independence. Nothing else. No mention of any other policy commitment whatsoever, one page, one sentence.

      This is because you couldn’t possibly ascertain what each voter is voting for if they just vote SNP, other than an SNP government.

      Additionally, even if the SNP did that, it would require more than half the electorate, not the turnout, to vote for it for it to have any sort of legitimacy. Which would require the SNP to roughly double their best ever vote share. Its not going to happen.

      Thirdly if the SNP did publish a manifesto like this it would give the yoons an absolute field day, their wettest ever dream. She would be slated mercilessly in the press and no chance of winning a majority with that.

      There is no way out except the legal route. It will have to go to court, everything else is a distraction.

    81. George Rutherford says:

      Our problem is England and the bastards who inhabit it.

      It’s just our geographical bad luck that we are where we are.

      Some other Nations have droughts, some other Nations have famine, Scotland has England.

      We can’t physically move England, so the next best thing is to leave our colonial masters behind and build a physical border.

      Or we could even Nuke the Bastards with their own missiles.

      England wants to stop the world and get off, Scotland wants to stop the world and get on.

      Firstly, we need to get the two fraudsters removed from Bute House.

    82. Margaret E says:

      @Republicofscotland
      Sturgeon reminds me more of Thrasymachus, as the perfectly unjust ruler, perceived by the ruled to be perfectly just. Does that not sound familiar today?

    83. Skip_NC says:

      If the SNP get 50% plus 1 vote on a high turnout in I plebiscitary election why on earth would that not be valid? Laying aside the project fear lies for now, the 2014 result was valid but project fear did not obtain a majority of the total electorate.

      Would a 19% winning margin on a 79% turnout be acceptable?

    84. Intractable Potsherd says:

      Tommy says:
      2 January, 2021 at 12:35 pm
      “… if ANY ISP party runs on a mandate of a plebiscite independence referendum, we should jump onside… not so crazy, and it will definitely split the vote,…”

      The only independence party to have passed the Electoral Commission requirements so far is the ISP (Independence for Scotland Party), which is definitely running on the basis of making May’s election plebiscitary. However, it is only running in the regional lists, which means there is no such thing as “splitting the vote” for independence parties (again, so far – there is a possibility that at least one more will gain approval), because, unless the SNP do much worse in the constituency seats than they did in 2016,then they aren’t going to get any more regional seats than they did last time – which was a very small number. Voting for the ISP means that there is a strong chance that a party whose sole aim is independence as soon as possible will be in Holyrood to keep the SNP honest, whilst keeping Unionist parties and the genderwoo Greens out.

    85. Bob Mack says:

      @Mr CM Howie,

      Sorry but that is nonsense. Do you imagine the Scottish public incapable of knowing what the SNP would be doing by stating their election was in fact a plebiscite.

      You sound like Nicola. You mirror her approach very well.

      So give us an idea of how long you personally are prepared to wait for your “legal approach” to succeed

    86. Hugh Jarse says:

      Mr “Howie”
      Even a referendum doesn’t require 50% of the electoral vote, merely 50% +1 of those who can be arsed to go and vote.
      But you knew that anyway, didn’t you.

      You know what this btl needs, more spam!

    87. wee monkey says:

      Quote.

      “Scotland has a big negotiating advantage, in that unlike the UK with the EU it actually has some significant leverage, but it’ll still take a while if the UK didn’t accept the process beforehand.”

      What would those be then Stu?

      What would an Independent Scotland bring to the table that would entice the EU away from the worlds financial capital and one of their greatest trading partners?? becoming a vassal state of the EU ???

      (A vassal state is any state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire, in a status similar to that of a vassal in the feudal system in medieval Europe. The obligation often included paying tribute & military service for its citizens)

      Very Disappointing.

    88. George Rutherford says:

      Has Boris Johnson actually told us when our english masters might actually decide to give us a Section 30?

      It’s so as I can make a note of it in my diary.

    89. wee monkey says:

      Quote.

      “George Rutherford says:
      2 January, 2021 at 4:31 pm
      Our problem is England and the bastards who inhabit it.

      It’s just our geographical bad luck that we are where we are.

      Some other Nations have droughts, some other Nations have famine, Scotland has England.

      We can’t physically move England, so the next best thing is to leave our colonial masters behind and build a physical border.

      Or we could even Nuke the Bastards with their own missiles.

      England wants to stop the world and get off, Scotland wants to stop the world and get on.

      Firstly, we need to get the two fraudsters removed from Bute House”

      …..

    90. Hatuey says:

      Mr Howie, you make a few logical errors in your comment, a couple of really basic contradictions in fact, but I’ll leave those aside. But this;

      “even if the SNP did that, it would require more than half the electorate, not the turnout, to vote for it for it to have any sort of legitimacy.”

      Where do you believe you got this idea from? Note that I’m not interested in why you think this to be the case or in debating the point, I’m interested specifically in how this quite bizarre idea came to be rattling around in your skull.

    91. twathater says:

      No matter what Stu or the rest of us post re Sturgeon and her betrayals we are overwhelmed by the deluded St Nicla phantasists who will vote for her and her stable of irrelevance, she and her coterie of lukewarm independence supporting adorers don’t feel threatened , as they have been excreting time immemorial (who else ur ye gonnae vote fur)

      The ONLY chance we ever had to force Sturgeon to recognise our serious intent was to THREATEN their hegemony and their comfy slippers, and that was to tell them united that unless THEY did what WE wanted we would NOT vote for them
      BUT NO every time it was suggested you had bloggers and apologists reacting in horror , now look where we are hobbled and tied to a unionist lackey who holds her citizens in contempt

    92. Hatuey says:

      “Or we could even Nuke the Bastards with their own missiles…”

      Nuking is a reserved power.

    93. Willie says:

      One question that no one ever asks is whether or not there is a functioning rule of law.

      Most certainly between what has come out between the office of the First Minister, cabinet ministers, head civil servants, the police and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, it is crystal clear that there is systemic criminal abuse.

      Factor in what we don’t know about other facets of the establishment and you do have to ask how do you resolve this cancer. But let us wait to see what comes out over the next few weeks.

    94. robertknight says:

      I’m desperately hoping Martin Keating’s case shoots Sturgeon’s fox in terms of requiring Westminster approval in the form of an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to hold a legally binding referendum.

      We can, as the saying goes, but live in hope…

    95. Clyde says:

      Our BBC News telling us today that the new “UK Virus” is spreading to more countries around the World.

      This virus is meant to me more lethal and contagious than last year’s virus.

      Did you spot the wee BBC trick there?

      They don’t call it an English virus (where it originated), they call it a “UK” virus.

      This way, it takes the blame away from being an english virus.

      Can’t have england getting any bad publicity you know.

    96. Contrary says:

      Plebiscite in the May election.

      Martin Keatings has a reasonable ‘compromise’ plan if the section 30 case is won:

      https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinJKeatings/status/1345009409097945090

      But a plebiscite vote doesn’t require anything else but the political will. It cuts down on red tape, time taken, the monetary cost, the potential health cost etc. I cannot see any bad aspect to the idea.

      I wish the SNP would ditch constantly harping on about the EU too – it’s something we should decide on, and terms of any membership, after we are established as an independent country. Can we not, please, just get ourselves sorted first, focus on the main thing – independendence – stand up for ourselves with a bit of self respect, instead of going begging to other countries and institutions before we even start – independence is our fight, and our decision, and let’s at least make it look like we are capable of negotiating deals instead of prostrating ourselves ready for another thrashing.

    97. Clyde says:

      England spreading their deadly virus around world.

      I wonder if Trump will call this one the “English Virus”

      Did he not call the first virus the “China Virus”?

    98. Dan says:

      @ twathater

      T’was indeed noted that when the suggestions were made that we properly unify to exert our will to progress and move things forward, interest and engagement t’was but a whimper.
      It was a fine example of the condition known as The St Andrews Fault, which renders Scottish individuals meek, and with a backbone possessing the structural strength of a jellyfish on ketamin.

      It was disappointing because since those initial discussions on pressurising our politicians to actually represent and carry out the big wishes of the electorate that voted for them, there have recently been four relatively successful “flash campaigns” on smaller issues, that did achieve results when folk bothered their arses to engage.

    99. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Contrary

      Good point re re-joining the EU.

      First things first – get Independence, then we can decide where we go from there.

      I am more and more coming to the conclusion, we might be better off joining Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in EFTA.

      Get Independence; establish if either or both organisations would accept a membership application from Scotland – get the pros and cons of both bodies established, then let the Scottish people decide.

      But, one step at a time and the first step is Independence.

    100. Michael says:

      Like it or not, the fact is that even before covid, NS always said that Indyref2 needed to be predicated as an alternative to the Brexit deal, and therefore we’d need to know what this deal looks like. Now we do, but only since last week. Some pretty fast work now needs to be done by the SG or some think tank comparing the relative merits of EFTA vs UK Brexit deal. E. G. EFTA countries need to pay tariffs but are exempt from CFP, whereas in UK we now know its the opposite. Independence will always be the most beneficial option long term (if for no other reason than its better to make your own decisions rather than have others make them for you) and most people will probably agree that EU membership remains the best long term arrangement for an independent Scotland, but what’s the best strategy over the next few years? People will want answers to these questions, and as they will need to find their way into manifestoes before May, they will need to come pretty fast

    101. Clyde says:

      Socrates MacSporran

      Yes, Indy first.

      Alex Salmond preferred the EFTA route.

      Then we can put the EU membership to a Referendum.

    102. kapelmeister @ 4:17 pm
      I intend to vote ISP 2. But for constituencies the ISP should do one thing, and one thing only. That is, field a candidate against Sturgeon and contest no other constituencies this time. Throw all resources for constituency elections into that one contest.

      If the split Nat vote allows a unionist in it’s only one seat, and besides the SNP might even make good the loss by picking up a Glasgow list seat. And think how glorious an ISP unseating of Sturgeon would be. Assuming she’s still SNP leader going into the election.

      The problem with your plan is that NS will be top of the Glasgow list as a safety net. The SNP won’t make the same mistake Labour did in 2011. It might be a wee bit embarrassing for her but she’d no doubt get over that.

    103. Clyde says:

      What do the english offer the world in these Post Brexit days?

      Well I can think of two things,,,

      Disease and Austerity.

      Feel free to add to the list if you can think of anything else.

    104. kapelmeister says:

      Dave @5:35

      More than a bit embarrassing I would say Dave. And it would be another big prop kicked out from under her party regime.

    105. Effijy says:

      Rumours of Starmer saying back me or I’ll resign coming out?

      https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/30/three-labour-frontbenchers-quit-after-defying-keir-starmer-on-brexit-deal

      As with the Scottish votes in Westminster, it just doesn’t matter what
      Labour votes for. Their long term incompetence at holding the most corrupt
      Tory government ever to account makes them completely impotent.

    106. mags says:

      So scotland wants to leave uk and be an independant country but wants to be in the eu to be a dependant country? Have a read at this, EU and China deal https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4090972

    107. Republicofscotland says:

      Margaret @4.33pm.

      Thank you Margaret for your reply to my comment, alas I’m not as well informed as you in Plato or his Republic, so I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter and agree with you wholeheartedly.

    108. Republicofscotland says:

      Boaby @4.23pm. Very true Boaby, very true.

    109. CameronB Brodie says:

      I see there is some confusion as to what EU membership entails, and how that relates to Scotland’s democracy. Though given Brexitania can’t be justified through constitutional law, only parochial legal dogmatism that defies the Treaty of Union, it’s a bit delusional to imagine Scotland currently exists in a state of democracy.

      A World Elsewhere: Secession, Subsidiarity, and Self-
      Determination as European Values
      https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3601&context=facpub

    110. Robert Louis says:

      The question that needs asked is WHY is Sturgeon content to do nothing about independence? Is she just a careerist, is she not actually interested in indy at all (suggesting she is and always has been a britnat ‘sleeeper’), is she compromised (or her husband)?.

      Why was salmond set up?

      You see, I agree with the above article, but I just keep thinking WHY? Why is the FM so very, very keen to just do nothing, given what England is doing to Scotland? Why just empty talk? And in that reality, WHY are so many SNP MSP’s and MP’s keeping so quiet about it??

      None of it makes sense, other than the SNP has become corrupted from top to bottom, with the intention of helping London and the murderous Tories.

    111. Republicofscotland says:

      Robert @ 5.58pm.

      Robert like many I’ve thought long and hard about the questions your comment poses, and have come to the conclusion that Sturgeon is content to govern in a devolved parliament within this union, in Scotland’s political arena she’s a big fish in a small pond, and as long as the SNP are in power that appears to be enough for her.

      AS for other SNP MSP’s or MP’s speaking out, the SNP has in my opinion become a personality led party, speaking out against Sturgeon could have dire consequences to SNP MSP’s or MP’s lucrative careers.

      Sturgeon is the equivalent of David Miscavige, the head of The Church of Scientology, speak out against her and your career could take a nosedive.

      There are some brave souls within the party, such as Angus B. McNeil, Joanna Cherry and of course Chris McEleny who’ve spoken out. I think there must be many more waiting for the departure of Sturgeon to come out of the shadows.

    112. robertknight says:

      Robert Louis @ 5:58

      I think we’ll have to wait for the Murrells to publish their memoirs, no doubt from the comfort of their UN funded pied-à-terre in Geneva, before we find out the whys and wherefores. And even then…

    113. Kenny says:

      Couple of things:
      I’m kinda wondering now why Joanna Cherry didn’t call the SNP’s bluff when they bent the rules to exclude her? She’s eternally popular – and more so when she expressed interest in Ed Central. She’d have skated it, she must know this? I can only imagine that she felt perhaps they’d do something underhand to prevent her taking the seat?

      And, I’m now thinking, given the utter shenanigans and subterfuge of the Salmond Inquiry, that the former FM will already have zero confidence in that kangaroo setup. I reckon he’ll decide not to show his hand during it. Why would he? It seems there’s a rule for ‘us’ and an entirely privileged one for them. As I said earlier, Salmond’s as smart as the day is long and there’s no-way he’ll play their game if the result leaves him marooned.
      I’m completely unaware of the process for a judge-led inquiry, but if the outcome of the Scottish Government one is unsatisfactory, or merely leaves further questions unanswered, perhaps Mr Salmond has a continuing plan? Maybe the former First Minister is waiting for a definitive – and genuine – announcement* for a plebiscite election this May before formulating his future approach? Then, when no such announcement is forthcoming, he’ll nail her.
      *Sturgeon’s not got the balls, she’s a 100% sell-out.

    114. Sensibledave says:

      Robert Louise 5.58

      “ The question that needs asked is WHY is Sturgeon content to do nothing about independence? ”

      People keep asking the question … so I will keep answering it. It’s because she doesn’t think indyref2 can be won at this time.

    115. Alf Baird says:

      Republicofscotland @ 4.12

      Thanks for that. It kinda reminds me of Memmi’s remark that “colonialism is a disease (which) destroys both the colonizer and the colonized and in the end both are ruined”.

      Willie @ 5pm

      Regarding what passes for the “functioning rule of law” and the ongoing lack of action considering the evidence already presented to Holyrood, perhaps we might look to Fanon (1967) who explained that the nationalist native can “expect little from a colonial justice system”.

      As Rev Stu @ 3.25 implies, it looks like a lot of heid bummer reputations are on the line as Scotlan’s rotten unionist (i.e. colonial) establishment haes ivver mair o’ its mankit naitur brocht tae licht.

    116. Liz says:

      The main reason that I can think of, is Alex S would not stand by and watch her botch up indy, daily.
      Handing sovereignty to WM, he would have stepped in, so he had to go.

      As for, is she pro indy?
      I think she was and was happy to follow AS into 2014.
      She has said being FM is so much harder than DFM, so I think she realised she couldn’t achieve indy, she never had the strength or the strategy. She’s been outmanouvered at every turn.

      There is also something very nannyish about her, she’s a control freak, she thinks she knows what’s best for us, so she tries to micromanage our lives.

      I can’t wait for her to go but my worry is she’ll use ‘ the new variant’ to hinder the Holyrood Investigation.

      Still far too many think she’s wonderful

    117. Republicofscotland says:

      Sensible Dave ‘6.18pm.

      Dave.

      I’d love to read your reasoning behind that assumption.

    118. TruthForDummies says:

      @SensibleDave

      That’s not the reason. The reason is she knows she can win plebiscite election or an indyref. But if Westminster doesn’t agree with the result what does she do?
      She doesn’t have a plan for that and doesn’t have the stomach for the necessary inevitable fight.

      She needs to stand down and hand over to a team that will win us independence

    119. Beaker says:

      @Republicofscotland says:
      2 January, 2021 at 6:09 pm
      “As for other SNP MSP’s or MP’s speaking out, the SNP has in my opinion become a personality led party, speaking out against Sturgeon could have dire consequences to SNP MSP’s or MP’s lucrative careers.”

      Historically, most political parties have been personality led. The SNP adopted it under Alex (Alex Salmond for First Minister).

      Problem is that the SNP has become a one person show. That makes it bloody difficult for a replacement to come in. She had the advantage of standing on the same platform as Salmond. No one else gets that privilege. Exposure is limited to the odd briefing or an appearance on QT. Also included is the ability to make an arse of yourself at Westminster.

    120. Republicofscotland says:

      Beaker @6.29pm.

      Fair points there Beaker.

    121. Contrary says:

      Socrates M, exactly that yes, one step at a time.

      Kind of drives me mad when everyone is spouting opinions about whether or not to join the EU when we don’t even know what an independent Scotland looks like – how on earth can we know what would suit us.

      People should be forming opinions on things like:

      – Do we want our own currency? (The correct answer to that is yes btw)

      – What kind of electoral system do we want? (I’ve no idea, I just don’t want the inherently corrupt one foisted on us by Westminster. I’d really like to see some serious proposals for a complete overhaul).

      That at least gets us started with fiscal and political autonomy – much of the rest can be determined through policy, though there are a fair number of big questions to be answered true, but why not establish the basics first (our own currency allows us to plan building an economy, plan for things like taxes, customs, trade etc etc. Electoral system tells us how we are able to make our voices heard and make our opinions reality, and hopefully guide us on less corrupt paths in future, it establishes how quick we can be up and running).

      Very few people express opinions on these fundamental matters, as though they are something to be decided ‘later’ (later is now in my opinion!), but then they will happily start discussing the EU. Even the rational SNP politicians do it. Who cares – we need to be a fully functioning independent country before we join anything, there’s a lot of hard work involved in doing that, and there are no short cuts.

      If we have strong proposals in place it also gives the dithering part of the population more confidence, and a clearer vision of what their vote might mean (if we are ever allowed to vote for independence, but let’s assume that’s a possibility), and good if it is a swift painless transition.

      IF things do start moving fast, we may be looking at making an awful lot of important decisions in a short period of time – it would be good if we all knew our own minds on at least some of the important aspects – or know who’s opinion to trust for specific things. (That is, not the SNP leadership in their current state, on any matter, but we may end up being stuck with them, so it’s good to prepare).

    122. CameronB Brodie says:

      “Holyrood, perhaps we might look to Fanon (1967) who explained that the nationalist native can “expect little from a colonial justice system”.”

      That’s why I’ve been trying to rip ‘our’ justice system a new one. Or at least point folk towards practical (post-colonial) knowledge, that would help them appreciate the fact that Scots law and democracy are not in safe hands.

      Self-determination theory and work
      motivation
      https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2005_GagneDeci_JOB_SDTtheory.pdf

      “Cognitive evaluation theory, which explains the effects of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation, received some initial attention in the organizational literature. However, the simple dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation made the theory difficult to apply to work settings.

      Differentiating extrinsic motivation into types that differ in their degree of autonomy led to self-determination theory, which has received widespread attention in the education, health care, and sport domains. This article describes self-determination theory as a theory of work motivation and shows its relevance to theories of organizational behavior. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.”

    123. John Sm. says:

      Liz @ 6:22pm

      Something which always stuck in my memory, a niggle more than anything, was an emailed, multi-question, online questionnaire sent out from SNP HQ, I think it was during 2015(?) and not too long after Alex S. had stood down and Nicola S. had taken over and was riding high in the polls. The questionnaire asked new(?), perhaps all party members their opinion on a wide variety of subjects.

      One question asked which stuck in my memory was along the lines of “Who would you like to see as being the next leader of the SNP”. That may not have been the exact wording, but it was along those lines and I half jokingly responded “Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond ?”.

      I remember at the time pausing and thinking, god, I hope if my answer is the same as lots of other members that Nicola Sturgeon’s not of the insecure type.

    124. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “The only way it could possibly be even remotely legitimate would be if the SNP put a manifesto to the people with only one clause in it; independence. Nothing else. No mention of any other policy commitment whatsoever, one page, one sentence.”

      This is a crazy, off-the-wall idea, but maybe you could try reading the article I linked to, in which it clearly lays out precisely that plan.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-snp-manifesto-2021/

    125. John Digsby says:

      @Michael

      Minor correction that the EU-UK deal is tariff free and CFP-free.

    126. Mr C M Howie says:

      Fair enough, I probably read that at the time and forgot about it. Great minds think alike I suppose.

      However, that neglects all the other issues I raised with it. It’s just a non-starter.

      If you don’t get more than half of the electorate its very easy for your opponents to say, quite correctly, that most people don’t support this, therefore it doesn’t have legitimacy.

      That means nobody is going to recognise you, and you’re done before you even got started.

      If you were to combine an overwhelming victory in such an election with an overwhelming victory in a consultative referendum say in September, you may have something you could approach both the EU and Biden admin with.

      You may find both parties are in a position uniquely sympathetic to us, but that still doesn’t mean they’d agree to recognise us with the UK govt, a permanent UNSC member that does have serious soft power like it or not, loudly objecting and stating its unconstitutional.

      Then you’ve just got a big mess and no guarantee of anything. It has to go to court, there is no other way without a s30, which isn’t going to happen. Martin Keatings’action is a start.

      I’m not just sounding off either, I have a masters in international relations. This is my field. This wouldn’t work, maybe for a small poor country which didn’t have the objections of one of the most powerful countries in the world it could because essentially nobody cares, but that’s not the position we are in.

      We are strategically in a very important location for NATO and home to the third biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet, and the closest ones to Moscow give or take. We would be attempting to cut in half one of the most powerful countries on earth, and take all their oil and gas.

      It absolutely has to be 100% airtight, completely legal and constitutional, we are taking on one of the biggest kids in the playground you don’t do that with a cobbled together plan that is really just wishful thinking.

      I actually think this route would most likely lead to UK troops on the ground in Scotland and Scotland possibly going the route NI went and nobody wants to see that, plus it doesn’t achieve anything anyway.

    127. Saffron Robe says:

      It has been heartening to read many of the positive contributions on this thread.

      Dave Hansell says:

      “An observation supported by what remains of the adults in what is now the biggest lunatic asylum on the planet.”

      Unfortunately Dave, in a society undergoing mass psychosis, it is the sane who are considered mad.

      Republicofscotland, your analogy re Plato’s Cave is a very good one:

      “On the walls of the cave, only the shadows are the truth.”

      As regards Nicola Sturgeon I think she is of extremely limited vision and as such is unable to grasp what the rest of us can plainly see. She simply does not see the dangers facing us or perhaps does not want to see them. It is exactly like Plato’s Cave as Republicofscotland says. Nicola Sturgeon is sitting watching the procession of shadows on the wall. She does not have the ability to unchain herself and rise up into the light. She is most certainly no Moses and it is significant that Moses was aware of his own limitations, as all true leaders are, and asked G-d to allow Aaron to be his spokesperson. We have absolutely no chance of Nicola Sturgeon leading us to the promised land of a free and independent Scotland.

    128. Republicofscotland says:

      Saffron robe @7.43pm.

      Yes, well Put, I thought the allegory was quite fitting.

    129. CameronB Brodie says:

      Placing politics above the law is a direct route to a state of totalitarianism. Brexit breaks just about every principle of constitutional law, so abiding by it can’t be considered supportive of law and order. The only thing Brexit supports is an exclusionary and colonial re-interpretation of the British state’s legal obligations towards Scotland.

      Socio-Legal Positivism and a General Jurisprudence
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248451

    130. CameronB Brodie says:

      That was perhaps a bit stodgy.

      Introduction to the special
      issue on ‘Social Theory
      and Natural Law’
      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1468795X12472533

    131. wullie says:

      Mr C M Howie says:
      who’s oil and gas are you referring to. theirs. It is not theirs it is ours.

    132. Mr C M Howie says:

      Unfortunately right now its theirs and its worth about the same as hte UK’s entire national debt.

      So if you want to take you better be damn sure the way you go about doing it is 100% legal or that isn’t going to work out very well for anyone.

    133. stonefree says:

      @ James Che. at 3:24 pm

      “One of the best things I have seen working in the past for youngsters, was apprenticeships, being four or five years, and gain a recognised qualification at the end. (not collage theory) they got paid for working and gained life experiences to help them through their future with sound employment prospects, something they could always fall back on later in life if needed. Real journeymen.
      In my time I have seen collage grads come in at the top level of management from collage and not have a clue when it came to reality, often bosses of men and women whom have done the job for thirty or forty years. This has to change.”
      So true,…….Apprenticeships are not 6 week courses,the theory is a 5 year Apprenticeship the firm or journeyman pay the cost of say the first couple of years, the next 2 the Apprentice pays their way and the last the Apprentice earning are part repayment to the firm .
      I dislike the drop off of Technical Colleges and City and Guilds , and the growth of “Degrees” coupled with the superior attitude of a “spotty oink”, who is an intern with a career MP.
      Apprenticeships have been devalued

    134. Ron Maclean says:

      @Mr C M Howie

      You’re very belligerent. Who do you represent?

    135. cirsium says:

      @contrary 5.08

      Can we not, please, just get ourselves sorted first, focus on the main thing – independendence – stand up for ourselves with a bit of self respect, instead of going begging to other countries and institutions before we even start – independence is our fight, and our decision,

      Well said. The focus has to be on regaining independence.

    136. Dan says:

      Mr C M Howie says: at 7:39 pm

      I’m not just sounding off either, I have a masters in international relations. This is my field…

      …We would be attempting to cut in half one of the most powerful countries on earth, and take all their oil and gas.

      If you have qualifications in international relations then it may be better to utilise the correct terminology.
      The UK is not a country, it is a State formed by the union of two Kingdoms in a international treaty.
      It may seem like nitpicking or pedantry, but any Pro-Indy supporter should make the effort to stress this point at every opportunity to highlight reality of what the UK is as an entity.

    137. Sensibledave says:

      Republicofscotland 6.18

      So … based on my reading of the various threads over recent months, the consensus of reasons why Ms Sturgeon isn’t pressing for Indy ref 2 are:

      1. She is a Brit State “plant”, member of the 77th, spy or such like and or she has a dirty secret that she is being blackmailed to avoid the revelation.

      2. She is a corrupt trougher tat is putting her personal bank balance and financial security ahead of the cause.

      …. that’s about it! No evidence, no logic, implausible and unlikely.

      3. She is an intelligent person that cares deeply about the cause and is prepared to take all the crap she is taking at the moment … to save the Yessers from themselves.

      She knows Yessers have one more chance to get it right … or that really will be it for a generation. As I have written on recent threads (and as couple of folk started to point out above) … there is no thought out manifesto to win indyre2 …. certainly not one that could survive the scrutiny from a well organised PF2 campaign. I detailed some of the issues and policy areas on the “Parliamentarianism Revisted” thread on 30/12 at 2.12.

      Please remember it is not me that you have to convert … it is the 10/15% of floating voters that are not ideologically committed either way. If you want to convince one of those folk you’ll need a bit more than the grievance and anti English stuff that is so prevalent here. Have a look at the comment and come back to me.

    138. Mr C M Howie says:

      Dan

      I’m sorry to be a pedant but you started it.

      The UK absolutely, 100% is a country. Without any shadow of a doubt, the UK is a country.

      When people come out with this its just simple ignorance of what the word actually means. Its actually a very loose term with an extremely wide definition.

      The UK, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales are all countries. All meet the definition of a country fully and completely.

      Its really not important anyway as ‘country’ is really a pointless word. The sentiment you are trying to convey is you don’t believe the UK to be a NATION. Which is fine, that’s entirely subjective and differs from one person to another. I don’t see the UK as a nation either. I would see my nation as Scotland, I feel comfortable presuming you would too, but both the UK and Scotland could both be seen to be a nation by different people. Andrew Bowie for example sees the UK, Britain, as a nation, whereas Alex Salmond does not. Both are correct.

      However, some do, and it absolutely would meet the definition of a nation, which would also mean it would broadly fit the definition of a nation-state. That is arguable, and again, doesn’t really matter.

      What does matter is the UK is a unitary state. That’s what we want to change.

    139. Republicofscotland says:

      Dave @ 8.44pm.

      That’s not the answer to the to what you assumed, here’s what you typed.

      “It’s because she doesn’t think indyref2 can be won at this time.”

      Your above reasons point out what you think she is, not why she couldn’t win an indyref.

    140. TruthForDummies says:

      @SensibleDave

      You wrote bizarrely in defense of NS ‘There is no thought out manifesto for indyref2’

      Now why would that be, why hasn’t the leader put this in place over the last 6 years.

      NS is hiding a lot so I’d be tempted to go for option 1
      There is also option 3 her personality is not up for the fight and it will be a fight.

      One thing for sure, she has no intention of gaining independence
      She and her cabal have to go

    141. CameronB Brodie says:

      “The UK absolutely, 100% is a country. Without any shadow of a doubt, the UK is a country.”

      This is clearly an expression of ideology that has absolutely no empirical justification. So you man has f-all qualifications in international relations.

    142. mike cassidy says:

      I wonder if this is ahead of us at Holyrood

      After the coming election

      The proposed rule changes, which will be voted on shortly after the House enters session, would swap out the words father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, husband, and wife for the words parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, and spouse.

      https://archive.is/Q5kCa

    143. Mr C M Howie says:

      So those are the facts I’m afraid Dan.

      Personally, I see the UK more as an artificial super-state akin to the USSR or even the Hapsburg Empire, Ottoman Empire or Nazi Germany, which I would like to see broken up as they were.

      It is my belief, borne out by polling, that the UK doesn’t have a homogenous identity (most people in Wales consider themselves Welsh, Scotland Scottish etc) therefore couldn’t be called a nation-state, and hustory shows it would formed through conquest of one form or another not cohesion and has been sustained largely through for or the threat of force through most of its existence.

      But there are some, Ruth Davidson, who disagree and say our 300 years of shared history means we are now a nation and to them, drawing a line between England and Scotland would be the same as cutting Scotland in half at Perth would be to me or you.

      So its a matter of opinion whether the UK is a nation or not, but its definitely a country.

    144. Mr C M Howie says:

      Cameron

      I’m afraid not champ. If you want to discuss these terms, and in IR ‘country’ is the most basic of all and not used at all as it is of zero use academically and inherently ambiguous, you really need to know what they actually mean. Here is the definition of ‘country’-

      A country is a political state, nation or territory which is controlled. It is often referred to as the land of an individual’s birth, residence or citizenship.

      Now you take your time, read that a couple of times over, and tell us if you think the UK fits that definition.

    145. Lorna Campbell says:

      Alf/Skip: you make interesting points that I have tried to get through in the recent, and not so recent, past. Better Together was not one unit, but an amalgamation or alliance of several distinctly minority groups – Scottish Unionists, English Nationalists, British Nationalists, voters from the EU/other residents. The other side was also, to a much lesser extent, an alliance of YES voters, but led by one party, the SNP, wholly Scottish in origin and pro independence since its inception. Therein lay the real difference in 2014.

      Since 2007, the SNP, the party of independence, has been the ruling party and has won every election. Barring an actual referendum, the normal form that democracy takes in the UK is through the medium of the ballot box. Not one of those groups in 2014 could possibly have won an election in the intervening years; indeed, have not won an election in that time. That is where the deep injustice lies. Basically, apart from the Unionist Scots, who could not have defeated the pro independence Scots, and still could not do so, the other components of the 2014 alliance were not Scots-born, and their intervention is contrary to the UN Charter on both colonialism and on human rights.

      Being forced to leave the EU against our express wishes was most definitely against our human rights, and the way in which Westminster behaves towards Scotland contravenes both the Treaty of Union Articles and the UN Charter’s chapter on colonialism. That the SNPG does absolutely zilch to question any of these actions can only be interpreted as acquiescence. This is to be expected from the Unionists, but from the party of independence? The Unionists of all hues won the votes, but by means and methods that would probably not pass the UN standards of behaviour in such circumstances.

      The ratifying election which catapulted the Tories to power did not afford them a votes majority, only an election one in seats, yet it staled our fate, even though the Scots had voted against Leave in 2016, and every ratifying election since has returned a SNP government. It is not that we do not have the votes or the seats even now; it is that the SNPG has done absolutely nothing to capitalize on either – unlike the Tories. They seem not to have read or not understood the Articles of Union; they appear not to have understood or read the UN Charter; and they appear not to have understood the very underpinning of democracy in the UK – again, like the Tories.

    146. Mr C M Howie says:

      When people go on about this pish about the UK not being a country, what they mean is nation. Here is the definition of a nation. Read that and you will see its much more subjective and really down to how individuals feel.

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

      So what you mean is you don’t see the UK/Britain as a nation. Which is great, neither do I. But some do, and they’re just as correct as we are.

    147. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mr C M Howie
      Away with your contrived mince. The UK is a unitary state founded through the union of the Scottish and English nations. This union didn’t eradicate the political identity of either nation, though English Torydum has almost completed their expunction of the Scottish identity. Which would be a crime against Natural law and humanity.

    148. Sensibledave says:

      Republicofscotland 8.52

      …. because the Independence camp will not have plausible or convincing responses on the issues that will be raised at this time.

      Search Andrew Neil recent interview with Andrew Wilson on YouTube. Wilson had very little of any certainty to say about anything. If you can’t do better than that, then you have no hope.

    149. Effijy says:

      If you look at Covid stats on World Meters
      You can see clearly the Tories are lying through
      their teeth about the number of ICU beds that are occupied.

      France for example has a similar population, a fifth of the new cases,
      and much lower daily death rates but if the Tory figures were to be believed,
      No don’t laugh, the French have 50% more in ICU?

      Please see more Tory horror below-

      Requests have been made to transfer patients in need of intensive care from London to hospitals in Yorkshire, HSJ has learned, as leaked figures reveal that critical care is running at more than 100 per cent of capacity across the south east and east of England.

      And responding to the situation, the president of the Intensive Care Society told HSJ that NHS England would need to do more to focus the “full force of NHS resources” on covid-19 care, including endorsing the cancellation of all routine operations requiring an intensive care bed.

      Senior sources in intensive care confirmed there had been requests in recent days for transfers from London to several major hospitals in Yorkshire, because of a lack of capacity in the capital. It is not yet clear whether the transfers have been made, or will be in coming days. The requests so far relate to small numbers of patients.

      There are also reports of a critical care transfer of a covid-19 patient from East Kent to Plymouth, in Devon, although the trusts involved have declined to comment on the reason for Requests have been made to transfer patients in need of intensive care from London to hospitals in Yorkshire, HSJ has learned, as leaked figures reveal that critical care is running at more than 100 per cent of capacity across the south east and east of England.

      And responding to the situation, the president of the Intensive Care Society told HSJ that NHS England would need to do more to focus the “full force of NHS resources” on covid-19 care, including endorsing the cancellation of all routine operations requiring an intensive care bed.

      Senior sources in intensive care confirmed there had been requests in recent days for transfers from London to several major hospitals in Yorkshire, because of a lack of capacity in the capital. It is not yet clear whether the transfers have been made, or will be in coming days. The requests so far relate to small numbers of patients.

      There are also reports of a critical care transfer of a covid-19 patient from East Kent to Plymouth, in Devon, although the trusts involved have declined to comment on the reason for this.

      https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/london-critical-care-patients-could-be-sent-to-yorkshire-as-capitals-icus-top-100pc-occupancy/7029237.article

      #*#*SHOW FULLSCREEN*#*#
      icu291220

    150. Mr C M Howie says:

      See this is what I mean, there’s no point discussing this with people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

      See in IR you would pretty much never use the word ‘country’. You would talk about states, state actors, nation-states, unitary states, substate, superstate etc.

      What you just typed out there was just a pile of word salad that doesn’t mean anything. You haven’t understood a word I’ve said. Both Scotland and the UK ARE countries right now, they were countries before union and countries after.

      Its a largely meangingless, pointless term, and the UK being a country does not require it to ‘eradicate’ the political identity of Scotland in order for it to be so.

      Its just a matter of fact, do I need to post the definition again? Do you seriously think the UK doesn’t meet that definition?

    151. CameronB Brodie says:

      The thing is, I’ve yet to recognise anyone other than Prof. Baird, as being anywhere near legally competent to discuss democracy btl on WOS. Certainly not the rummy collection of half-arsed, self-proclaimed, intellectuals who claim to be experts.

      Social Construction of Nation – A Theoretical Exploration
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537110802301418

    152. Republicofscotland says:

      “because the Independence camp will not have plausible or convincing responses on the issues that will be raised at this time.”

      Dave, on the above just as Brexit can be a done deal in roughly 24 hours, Christmas Eve, then there’s nothing insurmountable for Sturgeon to push through if she really wanted independence.

      So once again we return to your point, of why you think Sturgeon would lose an indyref if she was so inclined to hold one.

    153. Ron Maclean says:

      Article 1 of the ‘Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States’ (not ratified by the UK) –

      ‘The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
      a. a permanent population;
      b a defined territory;
      c government; and
      d capacity to enter into relations with the other states.’

    154. Boaby says:

      The brexit party was formed in november 2018. They got their brexit.
      The isp was formed in may 2020, lets get our independence Scotland.

    155. Gregor says:

      @mike cassidy

      Pelosi has already broken her own rules re. father, mother, son, daughter etc:

      https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1345414938819485696

    156. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Mr C M Howie –

      Your point may be unpalatable to many indy supporters but is true nonetheless.

      Tonight, by pure chance, the question I prepared for the family quiz was about listing countries which start with the letter ‘S’. Stipulated that the countries had to have a seat in the United Nations, so ‘Scotland’ couldn’t be included. (They had the time it takes for a very catchy tune to play out. In this case the tune was ‘Spanish Flea’ by Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass, which lasts 2mins and 14 seconds.)

      If Scotland ever does have a seat, that means the UK is over. Which means WM’s seat won’t be as big as they’ve become used to.

      That’s really what this is all about, isn’t it?

    157. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I had a daydream tonight.

      I dreamt that a press conference took place, sometime towards the end of January 2021, hosted by Nicola Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie.

      Nicola opened…

      “The UK, as an internationally recognised state, exists because two countries, which were also Kingdoms, entered into an agreement to create a “United Kingdom of Great Britain”, under The Treaty of Union, in 1707. This Treaty is still in force and is the foundation that created the UK.

      “The two countries were Scotland and England – which also included, at the time, the Province of Ireland and the Principality of Wales. The two Kingdoms appeared to enter into this Treaty in good faith.

      “When Ireland asserted its independence from England, the UK became ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, as the island of Ireland was split in two – one part independent and one part still a province of England.

      “The Treaty of Union states a number of “Articles”, which define how the United Kingdom will exist and work. Article 4 states,

      IV. ‘That all the Subjects of the united Kingdom of Great-Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation, to and from any Port or Place within the said united Kingdom, and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a Communication of all other Rights, Privileges, and Advantages, which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom, except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles.

      “Article 4 of The Treaty of Union has been breached by allowing Northern Ireland to remain, effectively, in the European Union single market, to the detriment of other parts of the UK, which have left, due to Brexit. If a signatory to a treaty believes that treaty has been breached, then they have the right to withdraw from that treaty, rendering it ‘resiled’, or, in other words, having no further effect.

      “The introduction to Article 6 of The Treaty of Union states,

      VI. ‘That all Parts of the United Kingdom, for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties, and Import and Export. And that the Allowances, Encouragements, and draw-backs, Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations, of Trade, and the Customs and Duties on Import and Export settled in England, when the Union commences, shall, from and after the Union, take place throughout the whole United Kingdom:’

      “The government of The UK did not consult the government of Scotland when agreeing a deal with the EU. Both Articles 4 and 6 were breached, as Scotland and Wales (and England) will be treated differently to Northern Ireland. That’s the second breach of The Treaty of Union, reinforcing Scotland’s right to withdraw from the Treaty of Union and regain its status, once again, as an independent nation.

      “Therefore, the SNP are proposing that our manifesto for the May 2021 Holyrood election should be, (author’s note: paraphrasing Rev Stu),
      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-snp-manifesto-2021/

      We believe that the Scottish people are sovereign, and we hereby announce our intention to declare Scotland independent and submit that intention to the will of the people in this election for their approval.

      Accordingly, if the pro-independence parties, i.e. the SNP and the Greens, should secure more than 50% of the constituency votes in this election, we will consider that a clear mandate to withdraw from the Treaty Of Union, declare Scotland to once more be an independent state, and seek recognition from the international community on the basis of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of all peoples to self-determination, that self-determination having been expressed by this vote.

      Should the UK Government wish, we are willing to confirm that mandate via a referendum, to be held no later than three months from the date of the election, on the same question as that used in 2014. If no such referendum is requested or conducted, the declaration of independence based on the election result will automatically be considered to stand. We hope that Sovereign Scots will accept this way forward for our Nation. Now over to Patrick Harvie.”

      Patrick Harvie:

      “I agree with all that that the First Minister has stated. The Scottish people are Sovereign and have the right to choose their own way forward in the community of nations.
      As all the propaganda from England is that Scotland is a burden on their finances, no doubt they will heave a sigh of relief that they have finally got rid of us.
      I confirm that, if we and the SNP gain more than 50% of the constituency vote in this May election, we, The Greens, will work with the SNP to attain our acceptance as an independent nation.”

      Daydreams are bra’, iye?

    158. CameronB Brodie says:

      I can perhaps forgive newbies, but it displays extremely poor judgement for anyone else to try and talk down to me. As all they do is provide me with a platform to support cognitive democracy and cognitive justice. 😉

      Extended cognition, personal responsibility, and relational autonomy
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537110802301418

    159. Alf Baird says:

      Mr C M Howie

      What matters is the quite different political ideology and form of nationalism pursued, by the UK on the one hand, and by Scotland on the other.

      There is a world of difference between ‘Trans-National Nationalism’ and ‘Anti-Colonial Nationalism’.

      Only one of these is self-determination, whereas the other involves cultural imperialism and hence colonial oppression.

      Guess what political ideology and form of nationalism the UK is? And now guess what political ideology and form of nationalism Scotland is?

      As Fanon tells us: “Not long ago Nazism transformed the whole of Europe into a veritable colony”. That was ‘Trans-National Nationalism’.

      Now tell us this is not what England has sought to do, and still seeks to do with the other countries of the British Isles.

    160. Derek says:

      @Clyde says:
      2 January, 2021 at 5:40 pm
      “What do the english offer the world in these Post Brexit days?

      Well I can think of two things,,,

      Disease and Austerity.

      Feel free to add to the list if you can think of anything else.”

      A fanatical devotion to the Pope?

    161. Dan says:

      @ Mr C M Howie at 8.51pm & 8.59pm

      Ok, your responses makes the point and acknowledges that different people legitimately view the UK as different things. It validates the point I was trying to make that the UK isn’t an ordinary “country”.
      So why not simply refer to the UK as a State rather than a country to avoid the potential of aggravating either side of the opposing views.
      Of course I guess there are those working in “international relations” that want to cause agitation for their or their backer’s own ends, which may not necessarily have positive aspects for all nations involved.

      Regardless of that, if the UK is a unitary state formed by the treaty of union, then what is your view that aspects of the treaty have been breached pretty much since its inception.
      EG. No constituent part of the UK should have an economic advantage over another, yet England’s population has grown from approximately five times that of Scotland’s in 1700 to the ten times it is now. This clearly and consistently highlights that over several hundred years of UK governance this population growth disparity and the significant economic benefit it gave to England has not been addressed through the implementation of policy to correct the issue.
      Now we have Northern Ireland’s new trade status also deviating from UK norms.

    162. CameronB Brodie says:

      Nice one BDT. It’s more than a shame that our legal Establishment are determined not to recognise the Treaty of Union is part of international law, it is criminal. As the Treaty of Union is part of international law, it is outside Westminster’s legal powers of interpretation.

      LEGALITY, MORALITY, DUALITY
      https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=ulr

      “This Article proposes legal dualism as a novel resolution to one of the central debates in jurisprudence – that between natural law and legal positivism. It holds that the nature of law varies with the purpose for which it is being interpreted. Natural law provides the best account of the law when it serves as a source of moral guidance and legal positivism provides the best account of the law when it does not.

      The Article explores dualism by contrasting it with the defense of legal positivism in Scott Shapiro’s justly renowned book, Legality. Shapiro offers arguably the most sophisticated defense of positivism to date. This Article argues that it does not succeed when the law imposes moral obligations, suggesting a limitation in positivism itself.

      Dualism has profound implications. First, it allows us to hold judges accountable for their moral judgments, even when they are merely saying what the law is. Legal positivism can foreclose this possibility. Second, dualism permits moral argument in support of a particular account of the law, including the theory Shapiro offers, the Planning Theory. Positivism can render unavailable the moral foundation that a theory of law, like the Planning Theory, deserves and that it needs when the law creates moral obligations.

      Third, and more generally, dualism holds the potential to move us beyond decades – even centuries – of stalemate between proponents of natural law and positivism. By recognizing that each theory has its place, dualism can advance discussion to the more productive issues of whether the law creates moral obligations and, if so, under what circumstances.”

    163. Dan says:

      Mr C M Howie says: at 9:13 pm

      See this is what I mean, there’s no point discussing this with people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

      See in IR you would pretty much never use the word ‘country’. You would talk about states, state actors, nation-states, unitary states, substate, superstate etc.

      No point moaning, because you, as someone that has international relations qualifications, initiated most of these responses by using the word “country”…

    164. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @BDTT (9.32) –

      Thanks for that reminder of the WOS position – very clear, and cheering. God only knows we could do with a wee boost right now and that really is refreshing.

      Another thought occurred – if Nicola Sturgeon really is as ambitious as some assure us she is (see Craig Murray’s recent comments re her sniffing about Brussels for possible gigs) then what’s wrong with aiming to secure Scotland’s seat in the UN as a fully internationally recognised ‘nation’.

      Shouldn’t that be an ambitious-enough target for even the loftiest of ‘Scottish’ high-fliers?

    165. Mc Duff says:

      CMH
      The question is, did all the other countries that became independent from the UK beg for a section30. Which ever route they took, legal or illegal, they are all legitimately recognised as countries.
      And I have never really liked the term independent as it implies Scotland gave that up when it entered into a union with England. Did England ever see itself as giving up its independence.
      And what if England wanted to leave the union do we honestly think it would use the term `independent` and apply for a section30. I don’t think so.

    166. Mr C M Howie says:

      Absolutely, and a couple of excellent posts above. Brian’s post was very well written and researched. It has been commonly argued that the Poll Tax also breached the Acts of Union for the same reasons listed above.

      I’m not a constitutional lawyer, which is what you would really need.

      The UK doesn’t actually have a written constitution, it is governed by ‘constitutional convention’ which is a body of legislation and precedents built up over hundreds of years, right back to Magna Carta, which form a de facto constitution.

      With this in mind I have always been surprised nobody from Scotgov has attempted to make the point that a precedent was set in 2012 with the Edinburgh Agreement that a majority vote in the Scottish parliament for a referendum is a trigger for a s30. When this was agreed surely that then formed a precedent that fed into and thus became part of the UK’s constitutional convention. Therefore if the same set of circumstances are repeated in future surely the same would apply. I would imagine if and when it does go to court this will be brought up.

      But in the wider world we are small and unimportant and the people we are trying to gain our independence from are big and important. So nobody really cares if the UK breaches the Acts of Union in what they would see as a minor way, that arguably could be superceded by the mountains of legislation that have contributed to the UK constitution in the hundreds of years since it was signed.

      There isn’t really an international court that Scotland can appeal to here, the ICJ only hears disputes between UN members, we are a substate actor so we would need to do it through domestic courts. My layman opinion is we would be bound to win, so I don’t understand why we haven’t already started the process years ago.

    167. Andy Ellis says:

      @CM Howie 9.59

      Sadly you’ll find a lot more obfuscating and cut and paste from the likes of Spameron Brodie on here nowadays than reasoned argument or analysis like Brian’s. Like you, I’m no constitutional lawyer but have a background in IR and fully endorse your position as above.

      I’ve argued with some of the Act of Union obsessives before, and in the end it boils down to Scots voters having the bollocks to tell, not ask just like every other people. You are right that it’s incomprehensible the SG hasn’t been more forthright in challenging the S30 “you need permission” narrative. Perhaps in the end because they’re not truly independence campaigners in any meaningful sense?

    168. BLMac says:

      What Scotland needs is a decent opposition in Holyrood.

      Not an English controlled one.

      Despite my reservations I’m still going to vote SNP 1.

      Despite the smell, there are some good strong independence people in there, and a shake up may let them rise to the top.

      However, for the list it will be another independence party.

      It was going to be the Greens, but they now seem to be the new home of the bearded penis women rather than an environmental party, so it will be one of the new independence parties.

      If enough of us do this, then we will have SNP balanced against another independence party, and virtually no English parties left.

      There will be no room left to wiggle out of independence.

    169. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @CM Howie –

      What passes for a ‘constitution’ in the UK seems so mercurial that, surely, commonplace myths have to be acknowledged?

      If there is any validity at all in the increasingly-deployed lie that the SNP used ‘once in a generation’ as a campaign slogan, equal weight should be given to Thatcher’s published opinion that returning a majority of indy-supporting MPs would be sufficient to ease the parting of the nations.

      Sadly, mainstream discourse generally is now of such poor quality that ‘normal’ folk are never given the opportunity to hear these questions, let alone change the channel.

    170. Mr C M Howie says:

      Andy

      I wouldn’t like to believe that. NS has been campaigning for independence a long time. But I don’t think there is any doubt something rotten has taken hold right at the top of the party. Stuart on here has made the case to the point where you’d have to be obstinate to just dismiss something is amiss.

      Leslie Evans is one I’m very suspicious of, and Stewart McDonald.

      Just now I’m giving the benefit of the doubt that they are just gradualists but its incredibly frustrating they don’t see the urgency.

      As I’m sure you are aware, if Scotland was to apply to re-enter the EU today, it could pretty much be concluded tomorrow. Literally the easiest negotiation in human history.

      All the EU really requires is alignment with all their laws and regulations, and democratic institutions. We obviously have complete alignment in every way just having been members for over four decades.

      However, that will now begin to change. A lot. The IMB gives them free reign to do whatever they want, and they will remodel our laws and economy in their vision, which will be a low tax, low wage, low regulation, offshore tax haven. The biggest one in the world.

      This will mean our laws and standards and regulations will diverge enormously from the EU once they break this paper thin deal they signed for appearances. And the further we diverge from the EU (this is also why the Scotgov recently tried to legislate against this but it will be ineffective) the longer and more complex any re-entry into the EU would be.

      That, combined with the damage economically that will be inflicted, and the loss of our rights, as well as the electoral advantage we have right now, means the time to act is right now.

      Sadly I think instead we’re in for a decade of protracted court cases.

    171. Hatuey says:

      The UK is not a country. If you did a politics degree and someone told you it was, you should ask for a refund.

    172. David says:

      MAGNA CARTA KLAXON!

      Mr Howie, why should Scotland care about another country’s medieval piece of internal legislation?
      Your mentioning it makes me believe you know and care more about English law than Scottish law, which is a strange thing for someone who purports to be a Scottish supporter of independence.

      MAGNA CARTA KLAXON!

    173. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      You are clearly hostile towards cognitive democracy and those who know how to support international human rights law. So are you sure your punting yourself to the correct audience? Are you sure you studied IR theory?

      Hans Kelsen and the Logic of Legal Systems
      http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=facpubs

    174. A Person says:

      Andy Ellis is correct. Pedantry about the Act of Union just sounds like a bunch of nerds nit-picking. Hoping that the Court of Session is going to just go and declare us independent based on dubious medieval concepts of the king’s accountability to his people or whatever is really sheer laziness, hoping we will be able to achieve a result without any effort.

      It is a **political**, not a legal, issue and will be resolved by political, not courtroom, methods. The only way I can see of our attaining our independence is by having a plebiscite election and triggering a constitutional crisis; or by threatening to have one and thereby getting Westminster to concede a referendum. A way to do so is outlined by Brian above quoting a previous article posted on this site.

      If you’re not up for that, fair enough. But nobody has ever posited another way for us to gain our independence.

    175. Breeks says:

      mags says:
      2 January, 2021 at 5:51 pm
      So scotland wants to leave uk and be an independant country but wants to be in the eu to be a dependant country? Have a read at this, EU and China deal…

      Mags, I’d be cautious about trusting Taiwan as a reputable source of news on China.

    176. Willie says:

      Once in a generation was not and never will be a political position.

      Vote for party X and it will be forever. Never, ever, ever think you will be entitled to vote again – ever. Have you got that you thick Jock bastards. Never, never, never – understand it.

      And understand it they did. Can we have a S30 referendum please Mrs May, Mr Johnson or whoever. No you can’t fuck off Nicola. Oh, ok then, we’ll just weesht for Indy, focus on GRA, and Hate Crime, and then you can take away our poor wee Parly, render it powerless like a parish council and have U.K. civil servants run the country.

      Okay then, that’s fine, happy with that. Alyn’s asked for a light to be left on in Europe and I’ll be off with Peter for a new big international job I’ve been promised.

      And the remaining suckers all lived happily ever after. Pishart got his knighthood and speakers job too before becoming the Suckers Party first member of the House of Lords.

      Ah, day two of 2021 and I’m becoming more delirious with happiness as the year rolls on. Hope these Royal Navy gun boats that went to sea last night in a show of Brittanic strength are giving it to those frog bastard French fisherman. That’ll teach them not to mess with the best,

      And meanwhile in London, they are all singing No Surrender as their NHS overwhelms itself in the COVID surge. Taking it on they chin Churchillian style. Yes I’m delirious with happiness this evening. Tip, tip, hooray.

    177. Derek says:

      Mr C M Howie says:
      2 January, 2021 at 10:29 pm

      “As I’m sure you are aware, if Scotland was to apply to re-enter the EU today, it could pretty much be concluded tomorrow. Literally the easiest negotiation in human history.”

      What about the currency question? We don’t have our own (yet), and it has to be stable for a period of time before joining is permitted.

    178. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis is not correct, as he hasn’t a scooby about the law.

      Declaratory And Constitutive Theories Of State Recognition In International Law
      https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/declaratory-and-constitutive-theories-of-state.php

    179. Xaracen says:

      “If you don’t get more than half of the electorate its very easy for your opponents to say, quite correctly, that most people don’t support this, therefore it doesn’t have legitimacy.”

      It’s just as easy to say that those people didn’t support the losing side either and numerically that number would be higher.
      The only votes you can count are the ones in the ballot box because they are the only ones in the ballot box. You have literally nothing else to count in any legitimate ballot.

      Arguments like that are a fallacy because they make a false attribution of intention to those who didn’t vote, and are a dishonest attempt to count uncast votes solely for the losing side rather than for the winning side.

      If some of the electorate did not vote then you have no idea what side they would have supported if they had cast their votes.

      The best that can be said is that the electorate who didn’t vote didn’t care enough about the outcome either way. Even a deliberate policy of boycotting a ballot by one side cannot justify invalidating the outcome of a ballot because that is still based on the same fallacy, since no-one could know if the boycott was responsible or if many people didn’t care enough either way, so you still don’t know how they would have voted.

      It is manifestly unfair to actual voters to allow non-voters to overrule them.

    180. susanXX says:

      God the spammer is bad tonight, spoiling a – mostly – interesting btl. Glad everyone is ignoring.

    181. Willie says:

      Oh and when the furlough ends the joy of the Northern Brits who have lost their jobs will be absolutely sublime recompense for a proud vibrant world class nation of ne’er do wells.

      GDP slumped between 5% to 7% already no bother to the stalwarts. And with no ability to travel freely into Europe the pleasure of being denied an economic livelihood to be replaced by universal credit will be a true test of our Northern Britishness.

      And with plans already well advanced to sell off our water industry don’t we just look forward to being able to buy as much water as we want from a new ( foreign – offshore ) corporate provider. Just like the care homes really with ultimate company ownership located around the globe w3 can also get a glimpse of our nice new corporate health service that awaits us.

      Oh what a proud people we are in Northern Britain and I can’t help thinking about my old father who told me about people pre the NHS in Glasgow who used to get all their teeth removed in one go to avoid horror dentist bills. Getting the wallies all at once, our resourcefulness as a nation knows no bounds. But these folk, resourceful as they were, were probably the ne’er do wells who elected not to have enough money not to afford treatment. The voluntary poor and no doubt exactly the same class of people as the contemporary fuel poor who voluntarily elect to self disconnect from gas and electricity because of their decision not to put money on the meter. ( and you know what, there’s loads and loads of these folks up and down the country – the volunteer poor )

      Ach I should just have had a drink this evening to temper my happiness at the landscape that lies before our proud nation. I’m all right, the local council owes me a living. Night night!

    182. CameronB Brodie says:

      susanXX
      You’re another one who needs to check themselves in to have their reason assessed. Either argue against the case I’m making, or kindly do one.

      The Neo-Positivist Concept of International Law
      https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230961919.pdf

      “The question “Is international law really law?” has not proved troublesome, according to Hart, because “a trivial question about the meaning of words has been mistaken for a serious question about the nature of things.” Hart defends international law in Bentham’s terms as “sufficiently analogous” to municipal law.

      It is important to see in what way this analogy is viewed by Hart in order to determine whether the reasoning he offers is too high a price to pay for accepting a neo-positivist into the circle of those who hold that international law is really law.”

    183. Dan says:

      A Person says: at 10:51 pm

      Andy Ellis is correct. Pedantry about the Act of Union just sounds like a bunch of nerds nit-picking.

      Just for clarity there is more nuance to it than that, and I don’t wish to be blanket labelled in a derogatory manner.
      I only responded initially because of the legitimately contentious use of the word “country” by Mr C M Howie, who has himself since stated that there are better words to describe the UK as an entity.

      Political anoraks can argue all day long about the finer minutiae relating to this, but for anyone that actually goes out and interacts with the less politically savvy public and acquaintances to campaign and raise awareness to make the case for Scotland returning to self governance, there is another angle.

      Terms used by Unionists such as “breaking / tearing the country in half” have negative destructive connotations and also tie in with folk having a base emotional connection to “their country”.
      Framing discussion in different ways can reduce these emotive factors, and by utilising the words “State” and “political union” which are generally not such emotive triggers, it can help open folk’s minds to being more receptive and considering things in a different way.

      To finish, I agree with many aspects (and have previously stated similar comments btl) to a lot of what Mr C M Howie states in his 10.29pm post.
      I appreciate the interaction with him, and hope as he appears a newish name posting btl, there is no feeling of hostility over our posts which through the medium of the written word may have been felt. 🙂

    184. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s a tip for the newbies reading WOS. Blt is heaving with those who claim to be something they are not. However, they don’t account for all of those who demand I wheest for their relief, which includes a good chunk of folk who are simply hostile towards education. 😉

      Constitutionalism and the making
      of international law
      Fuller’s procedural natural law
      http://www.helsinki.fi/nofo/NoFo5Klabbers.pdf

    185. Alf Baird says:

      Hatuey @ 10.38

      It may be the St. Andrews School, i.e. International Relations according to Oxbridge academics and hence British Exceptionalism, which is, for Scots, cultural imperialism bull that really has no right to be in Scotland. But it has a close connection with dark forces, as do our other ancient uni’s, which are likewise colonial institutions, as is establishment Scotland.

      Thankfully CameronB Brodie can sniff out these ringers at 100 paces whilst the scientific literature he refers to exposes their intellectual paucity. Colonization is always oppression however it may be dressed up.

    186. A Person says:

      Sorry if I was a bit blunt Dan. Just think the legal or rather “courtroom” approach is a bit of a dead end.

    187. Meg merrilees says:

      Briandoonthetoon@9.32

      You have just succinctly explained exactly why David Mundell and Ruth Davidson stated that they would resign if Boris agreed to a border in the Irish Sea.

      So now Boris has established such a border, and we know that a lorry was refused a crossing to N. Ireland because the paperwork was not in order I expect to hear as a headline tomorrow that the two of them have tendered their resignations forthwith to the Prime Minister………

      Or are they just empty vessels making too much noise, come to think of it, when was the last time we heard even a squeak from Mundell???

      Time they were reminded at FMQ’s and PMQ’s.

    188. stiggyboy says:

      George Rutherford say We can’t physically move England, so the next best thing is to leave our colonial masters behind and build a physical border.

      Or we could even Nuke the Bastards with their own missiles.

      And this is why there is so little symphathy my side of the border for Scottish peoples plight ,You speak a general tone of hatred towards the English down to the level of your average Englishman and women in the street many of us having lived and worked in Scotland married into and are part of Scottish families .If everything bad that happens is down to the English rule imposed what is the point in Holyrood in its present form .For me your welcome to go it alone but as far as I see you have no plan for currency and fiscal policy ,on what terms you would leave the UK and how you would trade and re enter the EU ( which for me is swapping one master for another ) Come up with a plan either work for more devolved powers that leads to full independence or choose to not comply or attend westminster and force the issue ,In short put up or shut up

    189. Hatuey says:

      Alf, he’s using the word “country” in the same sense that a 6 year old girl might use it if she was allowed to stay up late to watch the Eurovision Song Contest. Meanwhile he’s telling us to bow at the smelly feet of a politics degree.

      I’m not picking on people who did politics degrees – my dim view of the educated classes goes way beyond the social sciences – but I reserve the right to rope myself if I ever need to spend more than 5 seconds in the company of one.

    190. Clyde says:

      So what would we call the capital city of this UK State, Nation, Country?

    191. CameronB Brodie says:

      A Person
      I’m not suggesting we gain political independence through the courts, but it won’t help us if our politics are hostile towards international human right law. Which pretty much describes the SNP’s approach to politics. Remember, the British constitution is political not legal, which means it require political agreement. It can’t over-ride international law, or be used to strip Scots of legal rights protected under international law, e.g. our EU rights.

    192. ahundredthidiot says:

      For what its worth.

      literally.

      Ian B is quick becoming the most sensible person posting here.

      And that will be me finished.

      .

    193. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry….our FORMER EU rights.

      National Identity and Liberalism in International Law: Three
      Models
      https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1988&context=articles

    194. Hatuey says:

      So, anyway, getting away from the semantics and petty squabbling, I’m detecting that there’s something going on in the background right now that Rev isn’t telling us about. It’s too quiet.

      And why has Dangerfield gone so quiet?

    195. Sensibledave says:

      Republicofscotland 9.19

      I’ve given you my reasons … you clearly disagree. Quelle surprise.

    196. Saffron Robe says:

      Brian Doonthetoon your comment at 9:32 pm is superlative.

      Bob Mack, my apologies, I meant to reply to your comment and quotation at 1:32 pm earlier.

      You are right, a broken heart can last a lifetime.

      (I have just finished reading Michael Moorcock’s “The Brothel in Rosenstrasse” which more-or-less tells that very tale, albeit on a personal rather than a national level, although the love of the narrator’s life is indelibly entwined with the fate of the fictional city of Mirenburg which is raised to the ground in a senseless act of war.)

    197. Clyde says:

      Sensible

      You being an Englander, I asked up thread what england will give to the world Post Brexit.

      I came up with two things england will give back to the world, namely,

      Disease and Austerity.

      Could you add anything to the list of what england will give to the world Post Brexit?

    198. Hugh Jarse says:

      Clyde
      Money laundering a gogo, and a bolt hole for the international kleptocrats.

      Also, a good laugh, as in laughs last.
      🙂

    199. Sensibledave says:

      Clyde 12.40

      …. I could spend some time creating a devastatingly witty riposte … but … clearly you are tit, so why waste my time.

      Btw, I am sure the average floating voter will find your views endearing and attractive and not in the least bit ra***t.

    200. Clyde says:

      Sensible

      In other words, you can’t think of anything that engerland will offer the world Post Brexit.

      Apart from,

      Disease and Austerity.

    201. Clyde says:

      Sensible

      China gave the world their version of Covid last year.

      And now this year england are going one better, by offering the world an even more lethal and more contagious version of Covid.

      Go Engerland ra ra ra!!!

    202. Clyde says:

      The English Disease.

      Spreading like wild fire throughout the world.

      We thank you Engerland.

    203. Clyde says:

      Huge Arse

      Yes, so that’s

      Disease, Austerity and Money Laundering.

      Don’t you just luv the english?

    204. Hugh Jarse says:

      Actually Clyde, in my experience, the majority of the English are just like us. Good, bad, and everything in between.

      There’s a South East thing however, an arrogance born of ignorance, which i suffered and observed in my 8 years dawn sawth.

      Living up to our stereotype, and barking at them, invariably shut this type up. It certainly saved me from a few doings!

      Since it’s question time Dave, why are you here?
      Is it altruistic? Helping us poor, inferior jocks to see sense?

    205. Iain More says:

      To quote you Stu.

      “This site has made its position clear enough since last January, and we’re not going to rehash all the arguments again. Our view is that if Nicola Sturgeon leads the SNP into that election, any hope of independence is dead until at least 2028.”

      I think it is dead permanently. I hope I am wrong about that. I expect that Sturgeon will preside over the total demise of Holyrood.

    206. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Here’s a tip for the newbies reading WOS.

      BLT is heaving with tons of useless posts from CamSpam who claims he/she/it supports IndyRef2 but it infests every thread with 20% to 40% of OFF-TOPIC links to quasi-academic papers on, for example: Friedrich Nietzsche and his thesis of watching the paint on walls dry. If you like being disappointed, you will love CamSpam.

      CamSpam is TOTALLY irrelevant. He/she/it claims to be a “rusty academic” and repeatedly promises not to sell you a dummy. Then he/she/it does just that. It craves recognition and reflected glory from genuine academics by linking himself/herself narcissistically to them. A good chunk of folk BTL are simply hostile towards CamSpam and use the following motto. ?

      “See sunglasses in the Avatar? Then scroll on by”

      If CamSpam were anything other than a troll, he\she would stop self-pleasuring itself posting bulk links to useless drivel and do something worthwhile such as posting ON-TOPIC links to articles that WILL HELP us gain Scottish Independence. For example…

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-snp-manifesto-2021/

    207. CameronB Brodie says:

      Remember folks, the “Right to Development” is regarded as “soft” international law. Which means it is regarded as having legal “effect” but has not been ratified by all states, e.g. UKOK.

      We Need to Cut Off the Head of the King:
      Past, Present, and Future Approaches to
      International Soft Law
      https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf2/goldmann_ljil.pdf

      “This article surveys contemporary approaches to international soft law, such as various types of legal positivism, legal realism, critical legal studies, and global administrative law. It scrutinizes to what extent the concept of law endorsed by each of these approaches is able to tackle two challenges caused by the spread of soft law as a means of governance: (1) the fact that international soft law is today often the functional equivalent of international treaties and (2) the contestations of the legitimacy of soft law.

      It concludes that discursive approaches that stress the public character of international law appear very promising, because they link broad concepts of law with considerations of legitimacy. However, since international institutions today exercise public authority not only through soft law or hard law, but also through nonlegal instruments like information, the article argues that one ultimately needs to conceptually dissociate the concept of international law from the concept of public authority.”

    208. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Cameron,

      What relevance does your post immediately preceding this one at 03.45am have to do with the ON-TOPIC matter of THIS thread?

      You are so far OFF-TOPIC and timewasting down irrelevant rabbit holes that it is driving several folk to varying degrees of distraction.

      For many, you RUIN the flow of each thread Stuart makes.

      Cameron, this post is called:-

      “29 Days Later”

      Do you not see how your spamming each thread with 20% of your OCD off-topic posts from the plant Zog are disrupting the chain of thought that each of Stuart’s articles help to generate?

      Cameron, PLEASE post something relevant. Maybe, y’know, something to do with the topic of: 29 Days Later.

      To quote someone on here: I am a bit rusty and would not sell anyone a dummy,…

      Oops, that’s your patter.

      Just to prove actual links exist that ARE WORTHWHILE posting and might help some folk, here is a one I found from the very first day Wings Over Scotland started. Care to show some respect to what the site owner recommended as reasonable behaviour Cam?

      “If people really can’t behave in other comment threads and insist on derailing them with irrelevant and disruptive posts, as a last resort the comments in question will be moved”.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/quarantine/

      In Scotland we have the following problems that are in need of quarantine…

      1). Covid19.

      2). Nicola’s phrase: “Just give me one more mandate. Then I’ll have the pristine set of 6 unused madates. All mint in box, ready to sell on EBay.”

      3). All the McWokeists.

      4). Bid Daddy Alyn Smyth.

      5). CamSpam Troll-posts.

      6). Kevin Vague, Dog Food Salesman,

      7). Field Marshall Sir Ruth Davidson, OBE, CBE, VC., Commander of The Felix Legions, General of the Armies of the North. Emperor of the Roman Latrines, Baroness Rapeclausius.

      Stu., is there any way CameronB Brodie can have his own special section on your website please? That way many, many folk will be happy. Cam gets to post all the links that are important to him and a signifiant number who like to read the BTL debate are left with some of our sanity still intact.

      Thanks.

    209. CameronB Brodie says:

      Al-Stuart
      If you can’t appreciate you are grossly misrepresenting me, which is a classical form of epistemic injustice, misogyny, and colonial practice, then you’re a bigger diddy than I’ve already given you credit for.

      Relative Normativity in International Law
      http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/4/1/1205.pdf

    210. Dandee says:

      Dont think (clyde) likes anything to do with England or the English cant be Clyde Built

    211. Dandee says:

      He uses the same wording as a MR RONALD FRASER.
      Dont need that dribble on here.

    212. David Holden says:

      Well just worked my way through the thread and it was heavy going as usual . Please just ignore the troll and leave him to howl into the void as it is only looking for attention. Scroll on bye .

    213. robertknight says:

      Dandee…

      Indeed. One vanishes as the other appears. Coincidence?

    214. Hugh Jarse says:

      A wee note of caution.
      As the post says, Eck’s inquiry appearance will almost certainly dictate where we go from there. Or not.

      Two things to note however.
      He will only be able to give answers to the questions they put, and the inquiry is only focusing on the conduct of the Scottish government, in respect to the civil case constructed against him.

      I’ll quite happily pass on the popcorn, if ‘misleading parliament’ gets the blockage shifted.

      My real worry is that too many powerful people are up to their necks in the overarching conspiracy.

    215. Dandee says:

      Hugh James,
      I will pass on the popcorn too

    216. Dandee says:

      Hugh Jarse..not hugh james

    217. Tannadice Boy says:

      So there you have it Boris will allow another Scottish Referendum around 2055. Just now on the Marr show. Over to you Nicola for an immediate response.

    218. Bob Mack says:

      Johnson more or less confirms on Marr show he will not sanction section 30 referendum. Once in a generation.

    219. McDuff says:

      Sensibledave 12.56
      And the average English floating voter or MSM was not outraged at Boris Johnson agreeing that Scots are “vermin and should be exterminated”.
      Now that’s rascism worthy of Hitler.

    220. avocado devil says:

      McDuff says:
      3 January, 2021 at 10:07 am
      Sensibledave 12.56
      And the average English floating voter or MSM was not outraged at Boris Johnson agreeing that Scots are “vermin and should be exterminated”.

      erm… citation please?

    221. Breeks says:

      Hugh Jarse says:
      3 January, 2021 at 8:01 am

      …I’ll quite happily pass on the popcorn, if ‘misleading parliament’ gets the blockage shifted.

      My real worry is that too many powerful people are up to their necks in the overarching conspiracy.

      Irrespective of what the Inquiry says, the ammunition Sturgeon and her cabal have gifted the opposition will dwarf the £3million she also gifted the opposition, and Sturgeon has now to mobilise an Election winning campaign from a Pro-Independence grassroots community where her non-existent defence of Scotland’s interests has broken a lot of hearts.

      It isn’t just she has lost people’s trust, but with attitudes like hers and the likes of Wishart on her team, I just don’t see a rosy future for her.

      No doubt there will be Sturgeonistas arriving any minute to tell us the SNP has never been more popular, but within that number, I wonder to what extent the numbers reflect the activists and ‘doers’ are also going to be the ones most switched on to Sturgeon’s inept and dysfuntional strategy. Her strength is people’s ignorance, and that’s a tad Orwellian.

      We should all be feeling good where Indy support now stands, (though I’ll repeat, polling where we are is where we’d be polling with a crash-test-dummy in the driving seat), but with Sturgeon still in charge moving forward, the whole campaign has a glass jaw and everybody knows it.

      And for people like me, who never drank the SNP Koolaid to begin with, I feel extraordinarily deep resentment when asked to warm up to an SNP Election campaign after 5 years of ‘nothing’ while Scotland’s Constitutional strength and integrity has been dismantled, and our beloved presence in Europe were sold down the river, and sold down the river by Sturgeon’s utterly bizarre SNP and unfathomable strategy.

    222. cynicalHighlander says:

      avocado devil it was in The Spectator a few years ago.

    223. Stuart MacKay says:

      Dan @8:29pm

      The UK is not a country

      Stating the obvious can often have a surprising impact. If you stop to consider this for even an instant it’s patently true and blindingly obvious, but on a day to day basis I wonder how many people consider it. So much of the dialog is about breaking up the UK as a country. Take the whole Catalonia debate as an example. Independence is then seen not as a force for renewal but as a destroyer of the status quo. No wonder it’s an uphill struggle.

      So, if you take Breeks’ desire for recognition of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and Andy Ellis’ desire to still to keep the debate on independence focussed on today you could modernise the whole concept and get people thinking simply by reiterating, at every opportunity, that the UK is a union and not a country – just like the European Union.

      The United Kingdom as a name has to go. As does Great Britain. Both imply a single entity so with Westminster as the governing body then ownership defaults to England. Which it exactly what they want. Perhaps British Union (BU) might work. That sufficiently similar to EU to irritate the Brexiters and Little Englanders.

      Although the Scottish Government is dragging it’s feet on independence there’s still a lot of useful work that can be done to unpick the stitching holding the BU together.

    224. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Breeks 10 37
      I agree with your post. I would add that the general situation could be akin to the sketch on ‘Only an Excuse’ broadcast on Hogmanay. Saltire waving Jonathan Watson enters the polling station in 2014 and places his X in the No section. Funny? Not for me but made me think that many of the current elected members are soft on Independence and hard on their own careers.

    225. Willie says:

      Absolutely correct in your assessment Breeks that ignorance has been an advantage to Sturgeon.

      But in any political party the people that do the heavy lifting are the activists who put heart and soul effort into the party. The stalwarts who form not the more somnolent majority but rather the super active crusaders prepared to fund raise, campaign, run the local branch offices with absolute commitment.

      These are the folks now truly scunnered and who could very easily now resile from participation or move to another yet to emerge alternative should things not change. Yes the polls may appear fantastic but fur coat and no knickers may be the reality.

      Never in forty years have I seen discontentment on the scale that now exists. And it’s discontentment, huge discontentment by the party stalwarts.

      Me, I’m SNP 1 and Indy Party 2. But you know what I will be holding my nose to vote SNP 1 on current form.

    226. Kangaroo says:

      Help, this is just vile, please link and comment.

      https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/brexit/britain-has-a-cancer-the-snp/

    227. Republicofscotland says:

      “I’ve given you my reasons … you clearly disagree. Quelle surprise”

      Dave @12.27am.

      Dave.

      Your reasons are very weak, that’s why I questioned them, you didn’t even take into account that like Brexit they’d be a transition period to finalise necessities.

      Getting back to your original point of Sturgeon won’t hold an indyref because she knows she can’t win it. I’d say the truth is the complete opposite of that statement, that she won’t hold an indyref because she fears that she WILL win it.

      That makes me sad, and angry, and I feel betrayed by an FM we trusted to bring independence, and free us from this horrible union, and I’m not alone in feeling that way Dave.

    228. Kangaroo says:

      The Northern Ireland protocol breaches the Treaty of Union. There is no need for an indyref we should declare the breach and walk away. I fear NS has been captured by the bad guys just like Willie McCrae.

    229. Andy Ellis says:

      @Stuart MacKay 10.49am

      Despite my sometime impatience with those having what I regard as extraneous “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” argument about 300 year old treaties and the necessity to have courts decide things, you are correct.

      I am of course aware of and fully support the unique status of Scots popular sovereignty throughout history, but the fact of the matter is the international community doesn’t really care. It won’t act as a deus ex machina to gift us an independence we lack the moral or political courage to take for ourselves.

      No self respecting people asks permission to become independent. The solution to the problem of whether the British nationalist establishment will “allow” us to even vote on our own self determination is political not legal. However complicated some people (both on our own side and amongst our opponents) try to make this the answer is in the end rather simple.

      The prime function of a nationalist government in Holyrood is to make it crystal clear that the sovereignty of the Scots people and the right to self-determination over-rides any pretensions on the part of the Westminster parliament to supremacy. Any government which cannot or will not do so needs to be replaced with one which will.

      The sovereignty of the Scots people is not negotiable or in the gift of Westminster.

      Deeds not words.

      We don’t ask, we tell.

    230. Republicofscotland says:

      Kangaroo @11.02.

      I created an account, you must to comment, a few days back on another ill informed post by Mr North, I then left a comment a fairly accurate one on my opinion of Scotland’s position within this so called union. No one replied to it and I’m not even sure it was visible. I quickly realised on the topic of Scottish independence at least, on this site that it appears to be one way traffic, on how poorly Scotland would fair as an independent nation.

      It makes you wonder who’s running the site, I deleted my account and now pay no attention to it.

    231. Republicofscotland says:

      Kangaroo @ 11.05am.

      Kangaroo.

      If I recall correctly Willie McCrae was murdered ( not captured) by Special Branch, if memory serves me, Mr McCrae was said to have shot himself in the head, then shot himself again, and thrown the gun several metres away from the vehicle that he was in, that had crashed (been forced off the road) a remarkable feat indeed.

    232. Liz says:

      Looks like Alex Salmond is beginning to make a move. I haven’t read the article but caught the headline int he shops this morning.
      https://twitter.com/ladymcbeth2/status/1345491840389308417/photo/1

    233. Sensibledave says:

      Republicofscotland 11.04

      … so you are of the view that Ms Sturgeon, for some reason, doesn’t want an Independent Scotland.

      That’s a huge call RoS and I see absolutely no evidence to back that up.

      Not long ago anyone that didn’t support Ms Sturgeon was a ("Tractor" - Ed)ous coward… now anyone that supports Ms Sturgeon is ("Tractor" - Ed)ous coward! Tis a fickle world!!

    234. Stuart MacKay says:

      Andy Ellis

      I think everybody is in violent agreement over the foundations. It’s only in the presentation of this to the public that there is some “discussion” over tactics.

      You’re right about the international community not caring. Well, it’s not so much not caring as simple ignorance of the details of what the British Union is and how it functions. After all, who here knows very much about Wallonia and Flanders – it’s only a few hundred miles away.

      The press, here in Portugal, were all excited about the First Minister’s statement about Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. It was probably news to many that Scotland was potentially an independent country/nation. Mild interest is about as close to the independence issue as the vast majority of EU citizens and politicians will get.

    235. Ottomanboi says:

      “Independence is not won by parliamentary manoeuvres. It is achieved when a whole people refuses to bow the knee to foreign control. Freedom begins with collective action, not petitions to the oppressor.”
      George Kerevan.
      Authentic Scottish freedom fighter and according to nodding donkeys in the SNP an immoderate extremist.

    236. Breeks says:

      https://archive.is/Sq9sx

      I know it’s only Jim Sillars, but seriously, what the fk are these *#!$!ts drinking???

    237. mr thms says:

      “So there you have it Boris will allow another Scottish Referendum around 2055”

      That would make him, at age 90,the UK’s oldest and longest serving PM.

    238. Robert Moore says:

      The notion that this Country can leave the UK via any route other than a legitimate referendum is absurd. Yes, it really is that simple.

    239. Bob Mack says:

      @ Mr Thms,

      The names change, but keeping hold of assets doesn’t.

    240. Andy Ellis says:

      @Robert Moore

      No, it really isn’t simple. Nor is it correct. Referendums are actually uncommon historically and constitutionally as a means to achieve independence. Even in the (arguably) fairly unique circumstances of places like Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland, there is nothing which makes a binary referendum the sole allowable method to exercise self determination.

      It is true that the right is neither automatic nor unlimited, but it is simply untrue to say it can (or even should) only be available following a referendum rather than – say – a plebiscitary election.

      You assert certainty and exclusivity where there is none.

    241. Sensibledave says:

      Republicofscotland

      If the Westminster government is as malevolent, scheming and underhand as you would have me believe, then I ask you to use your brain and tell me what happens when the SNP produce the next manifesto. I guess there are two possible versions covering the topical subject. Either they will say the election is a plebiscite or they won’t.

      If it isn’t portrayed as a plebiscite then we can probably agree that Westminster won’t care that much. So concentrate on what you think Westminster will do/say if it is portrayed as a plebiscite.

    242. Effijy says:

      Does this idiot even know what he is saying?

      “Former Tory cabinet minister issues appeal to Keir Starmer to build Progressive Alliance

      A former Conservative cabinet minister has issued an appeal to Sir Keir Starmer to lead a cross-party “progressive alliance” to drive through reform to the UK’s democratic system in the wake of Brexit.“

      Stummer wants parties to unite!
      Well he unites regularly with the Tory Party
      On Indy Ref, on encouraging for them in Scotland in SNP seats and he just
      Voted for their Brexit deal.

      Does he mean join up with SNP, the UKs third largest party while refusing their
      democratic rights?

      Has he worked out yet if all none Tory MP’s band together and put forward a bill,
      Then Bojo’s boys kick it out with a majority of 80.

    243. Muscleguy says:

      “it’s the waiting that’s unbearable.”

      Revenge is a dish best served cold. I’m a patient person.

      If just 20% of SNP voters lent the ISP their List vote in May then Holyrood could have a supermajority of Yes MSP’s. Something with international significance. The ISP MSP’s will not let Scotgov off the hook either. There wil be no hiding place for inaction with us there.

    244. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Liz at 11:37 am.

      You typed,
      “Looks like Alex Salmond is beginning to make a move. I haven’t read the article but caught the headline int he shops this morning.
      https://twitter.com/ladymcbeth2/status/1345491840389308417/photo/1

      The Sunday Post has made that story very difficult to find! I had browsed through the online version this morning and didn’t see that story.

      After following your link, I went back to the SP’s web prescence and had another look. Still couldn’t find it. I even checked at Pressreader and, sure enough, the featured front page was there. Eventually, I typed Salmond into the SP search box and hit return.

      A whole list of stories featuring Salmond appeared – including the “missing” one. It was the sixth in the list.

      I have archived it.

      “NEWS SPECIAL: Alex Salmond challenges accuracy of SNP chief Peter Murrell’s sworn evidence to Holyrood inquiry”

      https://archive.is/Grm3D

    245. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Just checked SP – that story is now at the top of the home page!

    246. Ottomanboi says:

      The notion that there is just one route to independence, a legalistic + constitutionalist one, is in the light of history, an absurdity.
      The ‘rule of law’ and constitutionalism are simply toys in the ruler’s box of tricks.
      Scottish exceptionalism based on the fiction that Scotland was an equal partner in the UK is a serious handicap to clearing national politics of such pretentious, imperialist nonsense.

    247. Hatuey says:

      Tannadice Boy says:
      3 January, 2021 at 10:04 am
      So there you have it Boris will allow another Scottish Referendum around 2055. Just now on the Marr show. Over to you Nicola for an immediate response.

      ————

      And the response… let’s reconvene Parliament and talk about covid-19.

    248. Breeks says:

      Stuart MacKay says:
      3 January, 2021 at 11:41 am

      You’re right about the international community not caring. Well, it’s not so much not caring as simple ignorance of the details of what the British Union is and how it functions…

      I agree with you, but I also think you’re wrong. It isn’t that the International community doesn’t care as such, but, with rare exceptions such as a military intervention like Serbia or Kuwait, the International Community is reactive rather than proactive.

      There is no occasion for the International Community to intervene on Scotland’s behalf, because Scotland itself has yet to cry foul over it’s unconstitutional subjugation. Since Scotland manifestly doesn’t care about it’s sovereign rights being violated or the Treaty of Union being repeatedly breached without consequence, then why would anybody in the International Community go out on a limb to defend a Nation which routinely capitulates when it’s sovereignty is usurped?

      If we want the International Community to support an Independent Scotland, then Scotland MUST take the initiative and assert it’s sovereignty, at least make the attempt to be a sovereign entity, and give the International Community first the occasion to react, and second, the compelling and definitive arguments which establish Scotland’s sovereign credentials and legitimacy, and simultaneously discredit the overtures of any colonial usurper to subjugate our Nation’s constitutional rights.

      Until and unless Scotland is fighting for rights, recognitions, and justice under International Law, then we are doomed to fight for rights on an interminable treadmill of domestic UK legislation and arbitrary “conventions of convenience” made up by Westminster and enforced by Westminster’s UK courts and faux jurisdiction in Scotland.

      Scotland currently has no presence outside the UK, as evidenced by Scotland being muted and excluded from International Trade negotiations which dispose of Scotland’s assets.

      Scotland is governed by constitutionally illiterate defeatists who capitulate and surrender Scotland’s interests when they should properly dig in and staunchly defend Scotland’s sovereignty and integrity as a Nation, not a region. Sturgeon’s regime must honestly be the toast of Whitehall.

      If you refuse to believe that, then I invite you to explain the potency and legitimacy of a Section 30 Agreement being necessary between sovereign equals. Why didn’t the UK need a Section 30 type agreement to leave Europe rather than simply exercise it’s own sovereign will?

      The whole Section 30 debacle is a gross misrepresentation of the constitutional reality, and unless and until Scotland wises up and finally decides to dispute the violation of Scottish Constitutional Sovereignty, then such violation will continue unabated, and for as long as we put up with it, we Scots lend credence and potency to the fiction of the UK’s “unwritten” convention of Parliamentary Sovereignty is sound.

      If Scotland wants to start winning constitutional victories, culminating in Sovereign Independence, then Scotland must stop these endless capitulations and admissions of defeat, and raise the stakes above Domestic UK Law and onto the higher plane of International Law.

      We will NEVER do that under a Devolved Legislature codified by the colonial Scotland Act, and Scottish Administration posing as a government, which seems illiterate about, and indifferent to Scotland’s sovereign Constitution being violated.

    249. NellG says:

      I don’t hold much hope for this inquiry to reveal much. Sturgeon will have stage managed this from the outset and has had months to prepare the questioning and answers to each from her side. Perhaps an unlikely rebel will step forward and throw a spanner in the works but I have my doubts. The Unionists on the panel will be under no illusions that removing Sturgeon will pose an immediate threat to the Union so they will go soft on her and won’t probe Alex enough for him to bring sufficient evidence to the table. As other have alluded to it will need to be escalated to the courts so I anticipate she could survive this in the short-term. What might happen due to Alex’s profile is that more people will take interest, wake up and smell the shite emanating from Sturgeon’s gub.

    250. mogabee says:

      “Magic pixies on unicorns”

      And why can’t my fantasies come true? 😀

      I wish you Stu a Happy New Year..!

    251. Terry says:

      @Muscleguy 10.13

      I really, really wanted to spoil my constituency vote and for the list to vote for another indy party – it’s looking like that’ll be the ISP.

      But i Live in the North East so I have a vested interest in the SNP cleaning up on the constituency so their votes matter less on the list – effectively I’m voting for the snp in the constituency to get ISP in on the list!!!

      With the added bonus that more unionists will be kicked out and there could even be an indy opposition party holding snp feet to the first – by god they need it!

    252. Tannadice Boy says:

      @mr this 11 46
      Boris was establishing the new narrative for Westminster and the UK establishment. It took 41years between EU referendums. “Which is about right” he replied to Marr.

    253. Dan says:

      @ Stuart MacKay at 10:49 am

      Highlighting that Scotland is in a political union is an absolute no brainer to me. It potentially opens numerous doors to further the conversation eg. Democratic deficit, population growth disparity, the Queen of Scots not Scotland, our sovereignty, Scottish health service, devolved / reserved powers, etc.
      None of these need touch on the emotive attachment to a country, nor the negative connotations of breaking something.
      Maybe this is just my position due to learned behavior of what works and what doesn’t, ingrained from my time interacting with the public.

      As Andy Ellis says: at 10:08 pm

      I’ve argued with some of the Act of Union obsessives before, and in the end it boils down to Scots voters having the bollocks to tell, not ask just like every other people.

      Well the first step to getting Scots voters to have the bawz to tell folk rather than ask, is educating them so they actually understand their position. They certainly won’t get that enlightenment from the BBC, and sadly also very little from the SNP on that front.

      There’s no doubt Andy is confident and erudite in what he states. there is a time for that, such as when he shredded a recent Baffieman’s blog in quicktime, only to have his comments removed coz they were too hot to handle for the already cosy dude.
      That said, I do pick up from reading btl that sometimes a softer less forthright bordering on antagonistic approach may be a better practice.
      Politics is the art of the possible so yielding from hardened positions and views is required if working with multiple folk and reaching a consensus to progress matters.

    254. wull says:

      Wull @ 12.55.
      I don’t know who you are, but – just to let everybody know – you are not me.

    255. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan 1.01pm

      I hope I’m not needlessly antagonistic to those arguing in good faith, but I do tend to have zero tolerance for trolls, unreasoned “faith based” positions or those like Spameron Brodie whose sole purpose appears to be derailing BTL comments for reasons of his own. As you pointed out however I will have no hesitation shredding what I regard as casuistry and those who assert their frequently erroneous takes on issues as *FACT*.

      As you identify, and others have pointed out here and elsewhere, isn’t it interesting that our own FM has been totally silent in response to Johnson’s “you can have #indyref2 in 2055” appearance on Marr?

      It’s bad enough the the laughably named @theSNPmedia response and rebuttal hasn’t tweeted since early December, but entirely of a piece. What prospect is there of working with multiple folk, encouraging debate and getting the “real” narrative out there when the SNP’s own leadership and media team is effectively asleep at the wheel? We’ll still get #cosyfeetPete telling us Boris will just give in and be oversome by an attack of reasonableness, only minutes after BoJo just specifically said No to a S30 Order and repeated the “once in a generation” mantra that the SNP leadership has done so much to enable.

      If it wasn’t so depressing it would be funny.

    256. Republicofscotland says:

      ” so you are of the view that Ms Sturgeon, for some reason, doesn’t want an Independent Scotland.”

      In a word Dave yes, she’s content to govern in a devolved government, a big fish in a small pond so to speak.

      “So concentrate on what you think Westminster will do/say if it is portrayed as a plebiscite.”

      Dave.

      I very much doubt next may’s elections will double up as a plebiscite, Sturgeon wants Westminster’s consent told an indyref, and she knows fine well he won’t give it, there’s no mystery in that.

    257. CameronB Brodie says:

      The age of the TU has no bearing on it’s active force. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise, simply doesn’t understand democracy, or they are trying to sell you a dummy. Btw, if your man Ellis was actually competent in IR theory, he might be more supportive of international human rights law.

      Law, Race, and the Epistemology of Ignorance
      https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=hastings_race_poverty_law_journal

      “Philosophers and other theorists have developed the field of epistemology which is the study of human knowledge. Critical race theorists have begun to explore how epistemological theory and insights may illuminate the study of race, including the analysis of race and the law. Such use of epistemology is appropriate because theoretical work on knowledge can be used to advance one of the key goals of critical race theory which is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America.

      In this regard, philosophers and other theorists have recently begun to develop an “epistemology of ignorance” which is an examination of the complex phenomenon of ignorance that seeks to describe different forms of ignorance, examining how they are produced and sustained, and what role they play in knowledge practices.

      In particular, theorists have begun to apply an epistemology of ignorance to issues of race, racism and white privilege and are exploring how forms of ignorance operate in enabling racial oppression or domination. Legal scholars have begun to use some of the insights of the epistemology of ignorance in analyzing certain aspects of law and the legal profession.

      No one, however, has sought to examine the epistemology of ignorance at work in the area of race and law in as comprehensive a fashion as this article. This comprehensive treatment makes it possible to reveal the magnitude of the negative impact of the production of ignorance in the legal context on various racial minority groups. Accordingly, this article seeks to explore the epistemology of ignorance at work in the context of law and race and reveal how the production of ignorance has helped enable the dominant group to subordinate racial minorities in America”.

    258. Robert Moore says:

      @ Andy Ellis

      Placing ideology over realpolitik will achieve nothing.
      In the real world in which Scotland finds itself, a legitimate, legal, properly run referendum is clearly the correct way to go.
      So, yes, if you are in the real world & not some airy fairy political theory version, then it is very much that simple.
      Further, if the case is so strong for independence what’s the problem? Convince people. That is how democracy works.

    259. CameronB Brodie says:

      Politics lacks ethical substance if it is divorced from moral and legal theory, which disables the capacity for the public to support democracy.

      Political Philosophy Reader (Levin et al.)
      1.2: John Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance”
      https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Book%3A_Political_Philosophy_Reader_(Levin_et_al.)/01%3A_THINKING_ABOUT_AND_JUSTIFYING_THE_STATE/1.02%3A_John_Rawls%E2%80%99_%E2%80%9CVeil_of_Ignorance%E2%80%9D

      “John Bordley Rawls (/r??lz/; February 21, 1921 – November 24, 2002) was an American moral and political philosopher. He held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard University and the Fulbright Fellowship at the University of Oxford. Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls’s work “helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself.”

      His magnum opus, A Theory of Justice (1971), was said at the time of its publication to be “the most important work in moral philosophy since the end of World War II” and is now regarded as “one of the primary texts in political philosophy”.

      His work in political philosophy, dubbed Rawlsianism, takes as its starting point the argument that “the most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position”. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice by employing a number of thought experiments such as the famous original position in which everyone is impartially situated as equals behind a veil of ignorance.

      He is one of the major thinkers in the tradition of liberal political philosophy. According to English philosopher Jonathan Wolff, John Rawls was the most important political philosopher of the 20th century.”

    260. Liz says:

      Brian Doonthetoon @12.24

      Many thanks for doing the hard work for me! I saw the headline on the news stand, found the tweet but couldn’t find the article. Needed to go out,so was time constrained but wanted to post what I’d seen in the hope someone else could find out more. Glad you did.

    261. Robert Moore says:

      @
      CameronB Brodie

      So what?

    262. twathater says:

      @ Kangaroo 11.02am just commented on that article under Robert T didn’t mince words

    263. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert Moore
      So that means that if we can’t reconnect our politics with practical morals and cognitive reason, Scots will never enjoy the benefits of cognitive democracy.

      Political realism and epistemic democracy: An international perspective
      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474885118799454

      “The article joins the current debate between epistemic and procedural democrats in contemporary democratic theory and aims to put epistemic democracy on a more secure footing. Yet, unlike those who explore the question from the bottom-up by analyzing the relationship between “truth” and the “fact of disagreement” within the context of domestic political discourse, I adopt a top-down approach animated by political realism and situate democracy within the actual world that we live in: a competitive ecology of states and regimes.

      The article thus has two purposes. For those who are interested in the recent revival of realism in political theory, it shows how it can be combined with both the epistemic paradigm in democratic theory and the realist research program in international relations, including the neo-positivist strand that has dominated the field over the past four decades. And for those who see themselves as epistemic democrats, it provides a powerful realist argument to defend their conception of democratic authority against criticisms made by procedural democrats.”

    264. Dan says:

      @ Andy Ellis at 1:22 pm

      Indeed, many on here have commented at some point questioning the silence from the MSM with the several clear opportunities they have to hand to tarnish SNP / ScotGov / Indy, when in the past a deid pigeon in a hospital, or chunk of ice falling off a bridge can generate weeks of negative press.
      Likewise there’s the lack of any significant statement / announcement to the people of Scotland from our FM since that rather noteworthy event that occurred to Scotland a few days back.

      “It’s all gone quiet” said Roobarb, “Too quiet” said Custard…

      However, I do note that we are to get another Covid announcement the morn though…

    265. Luke says:

      Why not use this as Plan B:

      The plan should be to carefully write the manifesto – the franchise – as providing a Scottish referendum on Scottish independence. Then, the franchise should also stipulate that, if the referendum is not recognised, then that lack of recognition, in itself, has allowed the UK to activate our mandate to allow our MPs in Westminster to begin negotiating Scottish independence.

      So what this means is the UK has given us a mandate to activate our withdrawal by their very refusal of a referendum.



    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