The mutability of history
Truth matters in public life.
So we’ve sent the letter below to the Scottish Parliament this morning.
TO: official.report@parliament.scot
FROM: Rev. Stuart Campbell
According to the Parliament website, the purpose of the Official Report is to provide “a written record of what is said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and its committees.”
With that in mind I would like to raise a number of issues.
On 10 June 2020 the Parliament held a debate entitled “Showing Solidarity with Anti-racism” (the illiterate and improper use of capitalisation in the title can wait for another day).
The then-Cabinet Secretary For Justice, Humza Yousaf, gave a speech which the Official Report records, in part, thusly:
But that is NOT what Mr Yousaf said. It is a substantial rewriting of his actual words, which were:
“Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white? Take my portfolio, for example.
The Lord President: white!
The Lord Justice Clerk: white!
Every High Court judge: white!
The Lord Advocate: white!
The Solicitor General: white!
The Chief Constable: white!
Every Deputy Chief Constable: white!
Every Assistant Chief Constable: white!
The head of the Law Society: white!
The head of the Faculty of Advocates: white!
Every. Prison. Governor: white.
And not just justice:
The Chief Medical Officer: white!
The Chief Nursing Officer: white!
The Chief Veterinary Officer: white!
The chief social work adviser: white!”
This is not a matter of semantic pedantry. Firstly it ought to be a matter of principle that the Official Report records what was actually said, not some edited version. It is arguably acceptable to strip out “um”s and “er”s, but not to change the substantive content of the speech by inserting words which were not said and compiling individual sentences into longer ones to misrepresent the delivery.
In this specific instance, the editing entirely changes the tone of the Cabinet Secretary’s words. He issued a string of sharp, accusatory and exclamatory sentences, each clearly separated by pauses, in an angry manner. What the Report presents reads very differently, like a calm list with no particular inflection.
Tone is of course to SOME degree a matter of personal interpretation (although I doubt any reasonable observer watching the speech either live or on video would doubt or dispute the Cabinet Secretary’s anger), but no amount of personal interpretation justifies material ALTERATION, such as the addition of words to the speech or the combining of multiple sentences into one, in order to better fit that interpretation.
My questions, therefore, are as follows:
(1) How did this happen? How did the person transcribing the speech for the Report come to take it upon themselves to make these changes?
Is the Report in fact a transcription at all, or are the compilers of the Report provided with text copies of Members’ speeches which are then entered into the Report without verifying whether they match the speech as delivered?
If so, is there any disciplinary process if Members are found to have provided inaccurate text?
(2) What rules govern the alteration of Members’ speeches by the Report? Is there a “style guide” available and if so, can it be read by the public? Please provide a copy of the guide if possible.
(3) There is a facility on the Parliament website for Members and witnesses to request alterations to the Report, but not, as far as I am able to ascertain, other observers. Is there any formal procedure by which other observers can request corrections when the Report plainly and materially does not accurately reflect what was actually said in the chamber?
I hope to receive a response to these concerning questions promptly.
Sincerely,
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Editor
Wings Over Scotland
We’ll keep you informed when we get a reply.
No breath holding will be carried out on my part…..
Should you have said “We’ll keep you informed if we get a reply”?
“But answer came there none.”
Lewis Carroll.
If Yousaf did submit a speech to be inserted into the official report and then changed it afterwards it would be he who submitted the false record. Which would be pretty scandalous tbh.
Rev says:
But that is NOT what Mr Yousaf said. It is a substantial rewriting of his actual words, which were:
“Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white? Take my portfolio, for example…
He actually says “those”, not “people”.
Details…always details…
They’ve even politicised the job of the stenographers in Parliament… did they intervene and ask for the record to be changed?
Typo alert, Rev; ‘gave a speech with’ should be ‘gave a speech which’, just above the big block of blue text.
There you go, doing that journalism thing again!
I full expect the reply to note that June 10th is International Bring Your Prejudice to Work Day, so Yousaf was just entering into the spirit of the occasion.
Excellent keep the pressure on, the clip clearly shows that what you claim is the truth, the attempts to soften up Yousaf’s racist rant by tinkering with the transcript is an attempt to get Yousaf off the hook.
I’m sure I’m not alone in looking forward to see what the reply is, when the video evidence is there for all to see.
Yes, I recall being surprised by that speech at the time. It struck me as absurd to make such a speech in a country that is over 90% white. Sarwar then followed it up with this condemnation. I wonder how far anyone white would get in Pakistan? I wonder how long before being extradited, a white person making such a speech would last in Pakistan? As you say, Rev, the entire point of keeping a record at all is to have that record verbatim. No point otherwise. It loses all its efficacy otherwise for those who wish to consult it.
Sadly, this type of rewriting the “official” record is commonplace.
In the U.S. Congress, they included in the “Congressional Record” texts of speeches that weren’t actually delivered! The members simply dropped off the texts of the speech at the CR office.
Plus connected members edit their own comments.
The Biden White House routinely edits Biden’s remarks for the “official” transcript, to try and render them into recognizable English.
The major media is just as bad. They don’t object to the above, plus THEY ALSO edit remarks of the politicians they interview.
The bottom line is: nothing you hear from government should be trusted.
Five will get you ten that they hid behind the “substantially verbatim” wording.
The NI Assembly archive site says the following:
It is important to understand that a full report is not simply a verbatim transcript of what goes on; rather, it is an edited version. The proper definition of the report is based on that contained in Erskine May (the parliamentary “bible”) and was adopted in 1907 by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates at Westminster.
It states that the report “… though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument”.
https://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/io/leaflets/leaflet_06_hansard.htm
See also Erskine May:
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/6465/the-commons-official-report
He was told to let Val McDermid rewrite it. What with her expertise in fantasy queens and Fantasyland, fantasy people with fantasy facts. Fa Fa land never dies.
When Police Scotland decided, long before the Hate Crime Act became effective, that his speech was not racist, did they base that judgment upon the transcript or on the video?
Even the corrections need correcting. You left the lead paragraph unchanged, but it’s also in need of correction.
“BUT why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by THOSE who are white? Take my portfolio ALONE:”
Humza is going to rue piloting the AC Act through Holyrood. Until it came into force few people other than political wonks were aware of his WHITE speech. Now it is all over the world. Barbra Streisand effect. People will be monitoring everything he says in the future.
It is not what you say that matters. It is how you say it. I trust anyone who gets fobbed off by the Police Scotland script on his speech takes the call handler to task.
(If I had been doing the script I would have merely said it was made before April 1st thus did not come under the act, rather than trying to argue about the merits of the speech itself.)
Come to think of it the trancript whould show the word white as WHITE, given that he shouted it out.
If this is truly about the people in these positions being white, then I can see the outline of a solution.
I propose every person on that list be forced (and paid) to work one week every calendar month from the Canaries, or some similar sunshine destination.
They’re mostly pen pushers anyway. They can easily arrange their workloads to spend every fourth week on a sun lounger.
And then they won’t be white, ever again.
However, if this is really a situation where “white” is code for something else, race or religion, say, then I’m stumped.
Unless … compulsory dismissal, followed by replacement hiring under strict DEI guidelines. That could work. It would mean re-jigging employment law to make being white a dismissable offense, but, for the architects of the bottle return scheme, the HCA, and the gender self-id laws, no limits need be recognised. If the SNP/Greens can drive solid fuel stoves from Scottish houses, the SNP/Greens can drive white people from the public sector workplace.
I hesitate to suggest that all Scots should be compelled to be vaccinated with something that destroys colour vision, because of the fear that somebody reading here might just seize on it as a good idea.
The Glinner email recently showed how TRA’s were rewriting history by altering historical photographs to change placards at demos in the late 1960’s to trans slogans.
A few days ago I went looking for details of a murder in England in which the person who had been caught literally red handed was let off OJ Simpson style only to find any record of it seemingly expunged from search results including it appeared the list of unsolved murders on Wiki. Wiki has previously been found to be deleting records of these type of murders and when challenged on this stated that as the media do not give these types of murders a great deal of attention it showed that there was little public interest. Duck Duck Go stated a couple of years ago that it was going to censor its search results Google style to thwart access to information which it deemed to be hateful. I have previously commented on this, we are heading into a China style restriction of access to information.
Anyone who has not seen it should look up the final interview with George Orwell.
Has the speech by his colleague in the Labour party, who shares his anger in White people having majority of the top jobs in Scotland been changed?
Imagine if the next Pakistani Parliament election was being fought between two parties led by white Christians of Scottish descent, both of whom expressed their contempt for brown people.
Democracy, is it, aye?
“Red
Ignored says:
15 April, 2024 at 3:25 pm
Imagine if the next Pakistani Parliament election was being fought between two parties led by white Christians of Scottish descent, both of whom expressed their contempt for brown people.
Democracy, is it, aye?”
Actually if they were brown Christians they would be assasinated as apostates.
I saw a picture of Mayor Lufur Rahman’s cabinet in Tower Hamlets, London. 12 brown Pakistani men (incidently twice as many members as most London boroughs – but I guess he had to reward his backers by nice 20K tax payer non jobs.) Checking the stats – 1/3 of TH residents are Muslim Pakistanis. I suspect that 1/2 of TH resdents are women. Not very EDI to have 100% BROWN MEN! Looking at his party representation on the Council one Pakistani woman has slipped through the net. I am sure she will be agood girl & vote as instructed by one of her male colleagues.
Red @ 3:25 pm
“Imagine if the next Pakistani Parliament election was being fought between two parties led by white Christians of Scottish descent, both of whom expressed their contempt for brown people.”
‘Contempt for the people’ is the norm within a colonial society, as is the ‘hypocrisy of elites’, and the ‘hateful racism’ upon which colonial rule is based (Cesaire). That about sums up this colonial administration, dodgy minutes an aw.
Email from For Women Scotland re contacting your MSPs today re repeal of the Hate Crime Act:
“PLEASE CONTACT YOUR MSPs
As per the tweet and the Daily Mail article, the Conservatives are bringing a motion in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday 17th April to repeal the Hate Crime Act.
It is worthwhile writing a short email to ALL EIGHT of your MSPs asking them to support the motion. This should be sent today (or tomorrow at the latest).
At this point we are not asking anyone to give a long explanation or enter into emails back and forth with MSPs – just a quick email stating the facts: the Hate Crime Act has clearly been a disaster and an unsustainable burden on Police Scotland, and you would like them to support the motion for its repeal.
How to Contact your MSPs:
The easiest way is to go to the web site: WriteToThem.com and enter your postcode. On the next page, scroll down to the MSP section where you will see the name of your constituency MSP and, to the right, Write to all your regional MSPs.
You need to write two emails. First, click on the name of your constituency MSP. Write your email and fill in your name, email address and postal address (this is just to allow your MSP to confirm you are a constituent) in the boxes underneath.
Copy your text before clicking the Send button, and the confirmation Send It button on the next page.
Then paste your text into a second email to your regional MSPs, fill out your details underneath and press Send. This will be sent to all seven of your regional MSPs.
It’s really worthwhile making sure your emails are sent to all your MSPs, regardless of whether you think they’ll agree with you or not. Scottish Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been especially quiet on the Hate Crime Act and they need to know the strength of constituents’ views. We hope many SNP politicians will now be having second thoughts as well.
Follow us on X/Twitter where we’ll update with any developments in Parliament this week.”
@London Scot, during his initial rule of the area it was more Bangladeshi/Indonesian rather than Pakistani Muslim. Private Eye at the time covered his rise and fall in detail including the actual dismantling of the council as it had been deemed FUBAR. After a five year ban from holding office he was back in charge of the area which is classed as the most densely populated in Britain.
Madness has prevailed in Germany.
“German citizens will be able to change their sex on legal documents without undergoing surgery or hormone therapy, under a new bill passed by the Bundestag last Friday. It stipulates that an oral request is sufficient, eliminating the need for expert assessment, which was previously mandatory. The law comes into effect in November.
The legislation on ‘self-determination’ in gender was backed by 374 MPs, mostly from the ruling ‘traffic-light’ coalition, with another 251 lawmakers against and the remaining 11 abstaining.”
Oh dear, oh dear, “thusly”.
Though it sounds like an Americanism to me I hope you can keep it north of the border.
Stu.
There is a high probability that the response you receive to your request will hold a new invented paradigm of open truthfulness,
When twisting the truth,
I know it as word-smithing.
Devious
Crooked,
Torturous ramblings
Reviewed context,
Curveball
Circuitous
Garbled
Warped truths
And
word laundering.
I too look forward to your reply, it Reminds me of that old black & white si-fi.
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE……
“You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Very good. Good luck getting a meaningful response.
Also notable is the increasingly loud delivery as he goes through the list, suggesting anger and fully requiring exclamation marks as in your transcript.
His speech was a racist rant!! Whoever commentated that a white Scottish person so ranted in a Pakistani Parliament that they were all brown what would the Pakistani people think!!! ?????
Colin Dawson says:
15 April, 2024 at 2:23 pm
When Police Scotland decided, long before the Hate Crime Act became effective, that his speech was not racist, did they base that judgment upon the transcript or on the video?
Neither. They based their “judgment” on who pays their salaries.
Quick query: Rev, has anyone asked Humza Yousaf “If this situation is so unacceptable what has he or the SNP done to rectify this?” because other than throwing his toys out the pram in pique of indignation the casual observer would reasonably assume the answer is NOTHING!
A high heid yin House Jock gordon Brown admits there’s no real case for the union, we’ve been telling him this for years now.
“The former Labour prime minister, a key figure in the Better Together campaign, warned those on his side they must put forward a “positive argument” if they wanted to keep the UK intact.
Speaking with the Financial Times, Brown said: “You’ve got to put a positive argument. You can’t just say the SNP have failed, therefore independence is off the agenda […] In the long run, the forces pulling Britain apart are greater than the forces holding it together, unless something is done about it.”
Down with the union.
ROS
The UK was the first country in the world to allow sex change without surgery it happened way back in 2004
Republicofscotland 4:40
Did you see Germany has banned Yanis Varoufakis?
The German Police bust in to the venue to break up a meeting where he was due to give a speech.
He presents his full speech on YouTube.
Interesting that he notes Germany is now going to be linked to TWO holocausts by their compliance to do as they’re telt.
Anton Decadent
Ignored says:
15 April, 2024 at 4:31 pm
@London Scot…Thank you for your clarification re. the ethnicity of LR’s cabinet and party. Nevertheless it would appear that the current governance of TH is 100% from one ethnic group and 100% male apart from one woman backbencher. I have a friend who used to be a Conservative Cllr in TH. Eye raisng stories of corruption (selling off the old Town Hall cheap to a mate who then made millions in converting it into a hotel).
Stuart, i somehow get the feeling you may receive some kind of response stating you don’t live in Scotland so we can’t give you a reply. OR, as soon as they see your name they will laugh then bin your letter.
The response, should you get one, gives me something to look forward to but i will not be getting my hopes up, You’ve skewered them *and* you’ve told them who you are. LMFAO! 🙂
“‘Contempt for the people’ is the norm within a colonial society, as is the ‘hypocrisy of elites’, and the ‘hateful racism’ upon which colonial rule is based (Cesaire). That about sums up this colonial administration, dodgy minutes an aw.”
Aye, Alf.
Contempt for the Scots rolls easily from the tongues of some folk.
Folks, why is the combatant previously known as “John Main” now posting under the username Hatey McFatFace or whatever it is? Did he get red-carded? What for, John? Apologies if i’ve got that wrong but, you know, similarities and all that. LOL!
@Geri says: 15 April, 2024 at 7:22 pm
Germany is now going to be linked to TWO holocausts
What? Where’s the second one then?
Spill the beans. Don’t keep it all to yourself.
Incidentally, which country holds the “Holocaust Hall Of Fame” award for most holocausts?
I’m thinking both the RF and PRC have to be top contenders.
Maybe we need to set a historical cut off date, as otherwise we could be here all night arguing about Genghis Khan, or Attila The Hun. And Rome defo gets an honourary mention too.
Geri.
The Germans never met a Jeno-side they didn’t like, Namibia, WWII and Gaza, Scholz is a disgrace, though there is the odd sane voice within the Bundestag.
“Germany’s Finance Minister Christian Lindner has blamed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for overseeing Europe’s “lost years.”
“The past few years under the responsibility of a commission led by Ursula von der Leyen have been lost years for competitiveness,” Lindner told reporters upon arrival for a Luxembourg meeting of Eurozone finance and economy ministers.
“Unfortunately, Ursula von der Leyen did not use her term in office to strengthen the European economy, rather setting other priorities.”
The Rev at his investigative, journalistic best.
Stoker
I’m guessing he simply uses two user names.
Here’s one for your collection, Mark Beggan:
The Watchers and The Nephilim corrupt the world.
Ref: Genesis, Chapter 6. Also The Book of Enoch.
Fallen Angels, the sons of God, lusted after and had sexual intercourse with human females thus creating a race of giants on earth. The book of Enoch was, strangely enough, later dropped from the bible. Now i wonder why? LOL!
@ Ruby Tuesday…
FFS! Not you too? Ruby was enough to make me think of that song when I saw your posts now there’s no escaping it. LOL!
You’d be surprised how much of the official report is edited – watch pretty much any debate and compare with the transcript. Especially if it is one of the members who don’t make a lot of sense when they talk.
There is a thing called an interlinear bible. What that is, is a bible that has been translated very strictly, from a translation point of view. No play allowed. And the words that cannot be translated are left untranslated.
This is a bible that is vastly different to the mainstream ones. They are all basically (religious) lies. It is mind-blowing reading what is actually written. It is a totally different book to what they present.
There is a whole academic world involved in this and interestingly the Vatican are the ones paying for most of the research.
Mauro Biglino is an expert in translating interlinear bibles and worked for many years for the Vatican until he published what he really thought the old testament was about.
He wrote a book about it called (IIRC) The Gods of the Bible. It is worth a read.
So what happens when you translate the old testament bible in a linguistically strict way. First thing is the God of the old testament is not the only God. All the way through ‘He’ is not in the singular. And he is not immortal.
This guy Mauro is an impeccable academic. Crazy I know. But look around…
@Stoker says:15 April, 2024 at 8:40 pm
The book of Enoch was, strangely enough, later dropped from the bible. Now i wonder why?
It was the “rivers of blood” speech.
After that, the progressives insisted he had to be airbrushed from history.
Thing is though, he may yet have to be rehabilitated.
(Ignore the childish cocksucker.)
The Book of Enoch is well worthy of scrutiny. Very interesting indeed.
How come absolutely no one has picked up on the fact that these two posh entitled arseholes never even used the word, white, never mind, WHITE.
What they both said if you listen carefully was actually, WIGHT, WIGHT, WIGHT. And that puts a whole different slant on it, for sure.
Northcode @ 7:58 pm
“Contempt for the Scots rolls easily from the tongues of some folk.”
Apparently so, for some of those not culturally Scottish; yet, as postcolonial theory confirms, this is also the case for the culturally/colonially assimilated native who no longer desires in any meaningful way to be culturally connected to the subordinate (i.e. ‘inferior’) native group.
@ stoker
The book was never dropped by the Order of the Knights Templar or the Masonic order.
In Inchinan Renfrewshire There’s a modern church, with the old windows of the original church, depicting Enoch and Muriel s machine not to forget one of the finest roses.
I think I may have stuck upon something of a solution – how about we allow the inclusion of emojis in the record of what was said in Hollyrood?
Neale Hanvey was in good form in the Commons around 10 pm last night, having secured the adjournment debate . The Cass report’s evisceration of gender affirmation. The chamber was almost empty, what a surprise.
Well worth catching up with his speech on iPlayer
Most of the history we are taught has been falsified, IMHO.
Isn’t this falsification a hate crime against white people?
96% of Scotland’s population would be fully justified in reporting the persons who falsified the record under the Hate Crimes Act.
Very good action to ensure the record is accurate since they can’t ignore your letter. But those who follow the ideology of identity politics will still lump you with right wing fascists even if the record is corrected.
There seems to be more of a potential result to me in nailing down the hate crime legal reporting process that, as you’ve pointed out, Police Scotland are choosing not to follow. Are you waiting for the response to the MSP’s letter that was sent to them before taking further action on that front?
Thanks for this Rev.
Do I have time to go watch “Dances with Wolves”?
Maybe ScotGov Hansard has a list of words that are forbidden to use.
Maybe the list is secret so that nobody knows what the words are.
‘Truth matters in public life’ …. apparently.
@Mac says:15 April, 2024 at 10:12 pm
Ignore the childish cocksucker
Fighting talk Mac.
If I thought you could stand unaided, I would want to make you take that back.
But instead, I’ll play the game your way.
childish cocksucker
Looked at in a certain light, that’s borderline noncery, Mac. You’re going to have to watch yourself – people are going to get the wrong impression.
This a C&P of comment received by OTS. If it’s at all typical of general feeling then the Saturday BIS gathering could be ‘interesting’:
Robert T
‘On receiving notification of the BIS march I sent this to Pensioners For Independence and have still not received any response:
As a committed and dedicated lifelong independence supporter aged 73 I am disgusted and dismayed that Pensioners For Independence have seen fit to align themselves to the snp, BIS and the green party who have removed all signs relating to independence from their Scottish Greens Spring Conference 2024 poster, they have also indicated their willingness to work with the anti independence Labour party in Scotland without any reservations or restrictions, so much for green independence dedication.
To advertise Humza Useless as a speaker for independence is an insult to genuine independence supporters, he and his predecessor the betrayer Nicola Sturgeon have done more to frustrate and derail the independence process than even the unionists in Scotland and WM, they have FORCED the reviled GRA and HCA on Scots despite overwhelming opposition to those policies, they had NO MANDATE from the electorate to introduce
those policies and yet the mandates they were given to secure independence for Scotland lie in a sealed coffin unused and ignored.
Nicola Sturgeon in her desperation to undermine the fight for independence through a plebiscite election deliberately and maliciously engaged the English supreme court to judge whether HR had the ability and right to hold a referendum (what did she expect the outcome would be) as if to ensure complete defeat she further ensured that the case would be presented by her English Lord Advocate whose presentational skills were abysmal.
You advocate ending pensioner poverty in Scotland which I am fully on board with but THAT will ONLY be accomplished by Scotland’s independence where our abundant resources are used to benefit and provide for the people of Scotland.
Sturgeon PROMISED a national energy company and reneged on it, whilst families and PENSIONERS were suffering unaffordable excessive prices by profiteering greed driven energy companies, the same energy companies that Sturgeon gifted our shoreline resources to in a reverse priced auction that had a ceiling price , similar energy auctions have been held elsewhere where the same size of shoreline parcel has been sold for billions of pounds more.
No one in their right mind puts a ceiling price on ANY valuable item.
Hopefully the Branchform investigation will expose and prosecute the fraudsters behind the theft of the RINGFENCED independence fund and we can see who abused and misappropriated donations made by genuine independence supporters many of them pensioners who donated dream money from their meagre funds.
My wife and I have attended many indy marches organised by AUOB and HOF and we have enjoyed the camaraderie and the friendliness of our fellow indy supporters and speakers, our daughter even came up from London to participate in the Glasgow and Edinburgh AUOB marches but we will not be attending this march because apart from PFI we do not believe the organiser and certain speakers are genuine independence supporters.’
From comments, here:
https://offtopicscotland.com/post/spoiled-for-choice
I’m not really a gambling man, but if I wanted to get rich quick, I’d get down the Bookies and place a huge bet that when the SNP get pumped next election, without a shed of grace, ALL the blame will be put on the toxic alliance with the Greens, and the real issue, the cynical betrayal of every Independence supporter in the land, won’t even warrant a mention.
We see you, SNP, and it really isn’t pretty.
‘Humza Yousaf will be speaking in public, in Glasgow, this coming Saturday.
Do you think he will make any reference to the Hate Crime Act in his speech?’
POLL:
https://twitter.com/offtopicscot/status/1780139294553731079
Listening to wee Rishi responding to George Galloway in the HoC, then a clip of David Cameron (Lord Snooty) talking utter pish to Kay Burley…
It is amazing that neither of these balloons were elected into their respective jobs by the public.
Seeing now why the wheeled Cameron back in through the back door. What subservient groveling little apologist turd of human being. The shite he talks is just extraordinary. Wall to wall.
And then we have Yousless of course, another person in a position that no one voted him into.
Very strange times. It is like the electorate are just being stepped around.
While waiting for a return reply to Stu’s request does anyone mind if I ask a question to something I am unsure and curious about after reading some Acts of the UK parliament.
Please ignore if you do not want to know, cannot help or do not want approach the subject so early on.
Q: Why does ” Crown” come under the Crown of England or, of Great Britain after 1707?
Why is it not the “Crown” of the United Kingdom? Or , of the United Kingdom of Great Britain?
Lord Snooty’s speech where he was trying to spin the disaster of the Ukr@ine war saying how it was great value for the US and how it had not cost any American lives (which is untrue) was also grotesque and obscene.
Over half a million Ukr@inians at least have been killed, press ganged and conscripted and sent into a futile meat grinder, with rifles pointing at their backs if they think about retreating. People like Dave Cameron are bathed in their blood.
Their cokehead president is now completely detached from reality. His time in office must surely be coming to an end.
The world would be greatly improved if him and that increasingly desperate pyscho Bibi were disempowered. At least then there would be a chance, a tiny opening, for sanity to re-enter the scene. But then again probably not…
It’s not just what you say, it’s the way you say it. For example, it is possible to say ‘ thank you’ in an unpleasant way.
Everyone is rightly horrified at the ethnic cleansing and genocide happening in Palestine but the on-going slaughter of a generation of Ukr@inians is arguably as bad if not worse.
And for what? The calculation is it would weaken Ru$$ia.
So not only did they die for nothing, their deaths achieved the exact opposite of what they were designed to achieve.
Hundreds of thousands of people killed, millions maimed, because some neocon wanker thinks s/he is playing 4d chess, when in reality they are pig ignorant Ru$$ian hating morons. The truth is they just see it as Ru$$ians killing Russi@ns, Slavs killing Slavs, and for them, that is a win-win.
Everyone is just a shade of Palestinian to them. Even ‘their greatest ally’.
For avoidance of doubt, I reckon that if there were enough Scots with Humza’s charm & discipline, Scotland would have been enjoying it’s independence decades ago.
That said, his party’s treatment of Margaret Ferrier was about as un Scottish as it could get, and I remain ignorant as to how, let alone why (& default to likelihood of having driven myself irrational in thinking about it)
Accordingly, assuming my memory & judgement isn’t too corrupted from processing all the unnecessary, it’s worth observing that that speech is dated bang around the time someone decided to credit BLM/ Colin Kaepernik’s contract dispute with escaping round 1 of the seasonal flu assisted attacks on private property and first world sanity.
In such context, it’s perfectly normal that he’d be spitting fury at the protagonist the wider world had chosen to project as responsible for everything bad* – what’s quite interesting here though, over and above the timing, is why the official report might oil any flames with missing words alleged to be:
“isisissisis”, etc,
rather than (say) managing to improve on mine with more colourful versions of:
“(English?) man that speaks with forked tongue”, etc.
🙂
*admittedly, even then, it would have been hard to imagine quite how bad it was still to get
The governments of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho and that of Humza Yousless are becoming indistinguishable.
Given a choice between a labrador, trying to pilot an Airbus A320, surrounded by cretins… or President Comacho.
I’d be choosing Comacho. At least you can understand his idiocy.
The SNP idiocy is different, they are so far gone there is no understanding them nor helping them. It is not just that they are cretins, there is a thick streak of nonce perversion running through them as well.
It is really remarkable to me that I would genuinely vote for President Comacho before I would Humza Yousless and the SNP. Comacho all the way.
Ain’t the internet wonderful? Twenty years ago, such blatant re-writing of history would have been easily swept under the carpet by the establishment. Kept well away from public eyes and ears.
Not now , No No No – it’s on YouTube for all to hear what was really said, and the manner in which it was said. The official re-edited version could be construed as mild racism or even misunderstood moaning (poor soul). But the real way it was said (shouted) revealed a degree of hatred and venom IMO. No wonder they tampered with it. Bad look. Very bad look.
Speaking of the internet, this so-called Hate Crime Bill has now circled the planet several times. Humza Yousaf and his crowd of green woke dopes have certainly put us on the map. They have made Scotland a complete laughing stock. What an embarrassment.
Some people may hate you, and politicians can usually cope with that. But when you become a joke and everyone is just laughing at you – the end is nigh for sure.
stuart mctavish 11.08 “…and I remain ignorant as to how, let alone why…”
as anyone might until the penny drops that none of these people with their ‘charm & discipline’ wants independence. Margaret does, as do others who have been sacrificed. Worth processing.
SteepBrae
Agreed.
She also signed Neale Harvey’s self determination bill. The knives were out as a few of those who added their signatures are now ousted.
Low life cretins & what a betrayal. Margaret campaigned tirelessly across the country for half the eejits in those seats only for them to stab her in the back.
The fckn Royals travelled on trains during lockdown & brought COVID with them. That’s never mentioned tho. Their hypocrisy would give ye the boak.
Mac
I seen that. What a wanker. They’ve defunct weapons to punt. Must keep the military $ flowing.
Trouble is, if this is allowed to continue, these bastards have no one to blame when others start to look closer at their neighbours & who can just be eradicated. The USA is proving absolutely lawless unless the UN puts it’s foot down. I won’t bank on it. Looks like they’ve been bought & sold too.
There seems to be a common theme of unelected eejits & eejits going rogue against public opinions across the board at the mo. This won’t end well.
Luigi
Absolutely. That’s why they want to shut it down & only want their narrative being told.
AI will soon sort out the internet. Propaganda galore. All written by a “free” press (here’s today’s memo) of course LOL!
James Che
Others may correct me but I think it’s cause the (idiot) Scots give their consent to a foreign monarch & Great Britain is what’s stated in the Act of Union?
They’re here by consent. Remove consent & they’re still the English monarch. Both parliaments fall & there’s no more “Royal accent” pish or some lakey bending the knee to form a government.
The monarch is the King of Scots but not of the Scotland.
It’s conditional & until Scots wake up & dump some eejits they’ll never meet or who doesn’t put food on their table we’re stuck with these benefit scroungers who aren’t OUR monarchy.
When asked about the Tories attempt to repeal the unpopular HC Laws, our puppet FM Yousaf said.
“Not at all. I mean what we have seen with the introduction of the Hate Crime Act in the first week, in the first few days in particular, was a series I think of bad faith actors who decided to put in vexatious complaints in order to try to waste police time which is a pretty serious matter,” Yousaf said.”
So according to Yousaf its now vexatious to use the HC Laws to report a possible hate crime.
Here it sounds as though Yousaf contradicts himself.
“Asked if the number of “vexatious” complaints was an indication that the law was too vague, the First Minister replied: “No, it’s pretty clear actually. The law, part of the law of course, the act just consolidates existing hate crime law that existed already.”
He has to make his mind up either vexatious complaints caused time wasting and concern, or they didn’t and the HC Laws are crystal clear, he can’t have it both ways.
Again Yousaf uses the word vexatious here.
“The point is you had a number of bad faith actors, I read the article by The Observer which showed a leader of the far-right for example encouraging vexatious complaints.”
How can a report of a possible hate crime be vexatious.
vex·atious:
“causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.
denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant”
Isn’t that the whole point of the HC Laws to report a comment that has worried frustrated or annoyed someone or a third party.
As for the second meaning sufficient grounds is the keywords, a hate crime can be reported without any eye witnesses just a word for word account which surely is a lack of sufficient grounds, so would that report be considered vexatious?
A wee bit more on Yousaf the Puppets reply on HC Laws.
Yousaf said and I find it hard to believe that this is the truth.
“And as the Chief Constable and Police Scotland have said it had minimal impact on frontline policing.”
I would say that dealing with HC Laws reports takes up copious amounts of police officers time.
Yousaf also said of the purpose of the HC Laws.
“And that’s reports of people being abused because of their race, because of the disability, because of their sexuality, because they were Jewish or Muslim, because of their religion and for a whole range of other characteristics.”
But these characteristics are already protected under the Equality Act of 2010 which covers the entire UK, so why does there need to another layer of obscure HC Laws by Holyrood.
On women and why biological sex ISN’T protected in the HC Laws our FM said.
Asked specifically why biological sex was not classed as a protected characteristic, Yousaf said: “I think that’s a really reasonable question.”
“There was consideration about whether to include sex or not but it was actually women’s groups, so groups that have represented women and girls not for years but decades, such as Women’s Aid, such as Zero Tolerance Scotland, such as Engender, Scotland’s, such as Rape Crisis Scotland who met with me as justice secretary at the time and made the very public comment that they thought the Hate Crime Act was not the right framework, they thought it was too narrow a framework to cover the very wide-ranging pervasive nature of misogyny.”
Why isn’t the HC Laws the right framework it covers just about everything else. Again the 2010 Equality Act covers biological sex, so why didn’t the HC Laws.
“In the Equality Act 2010 the protected characteristic of sex protects people from being discriminated against.”
Our FM wants a standalone bill to cover misogyny
“Asked if a misogyny laws would cover trans women, Yousaf said it would “because they will often be the ones who suffer from threats of rape, for example, or threats of disfigurement.”
I don’t have figures to hand but I’m pretty sure that non-transwomen suffer far more rapes and abuse that transwomen, which surely must be miniscule at best.
I think that the levels of hate crime in Scotland are being exaggerated by those MSPs who voted for it, I get the feeling that these laws are being introduced to protect not everyone but to protect specific groups from fair and free comments, to halt genuine criticism on events or actions that the general public thinks are wrong, and to curb criticism of our very mediocre politicians.
James Che @1003…
1706/7 Acts created the “Kingdom of Great Britain”: The Kingdom of England, (Including Wales, following the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-42), plus the Kingdom of Scotland.
1800 Acts created the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”: The Kingdom of Great Britain (1707) plus the Kingdom of Ireland (1542).
The word “united” as it appears in the 1706/7 Acts was used as a common adjective, (lower case “u”), and was not part of the new state’s title. (They could just as easily have used the word “unified”). As evidence, see the name of the unified parliament as per Article III: “That the united Kingdom of Great-Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be stiled the Parliament of Great-Britain”.
The 1800 Acts did incorporate “United” in the state’s name as a proper adjective (upper case “U”) or Eponym, as evidenced by the name of the unified parliament as per Article III: “That it be the third article of union, that the said united kingdom be represented in one and the same parliament, to be stiled “The parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.””
The 1706/7 Acts are often misinterpreted/misrepresented, (through use of an upper case “U” in post-C18th versions of the text), to the extent that the term “united” is often shown incorrectly as “United”. It is therefore understandable that many claim, wrongly, that the “United Kingdom” was created on 1st May, 1707 when the “United Kingdom” was actually created on 1st January, 1801, and subsequently amended w.e.f 5th December, 1922.
Hope that helps.
As far as I know Patrick Harvie, Lorna Slater, Ross Greer, and Maggie Chapman do not have children. Why are they so obsessed with the future of a country and planet they have no stake it, and in other people’s children? You tell me.
Oh that’s right, big salaries and feelings of power to cover up their impotence as ineffectual human beings. A party of nutcases and freaks and weirdos who have banded together to get revenge on us all for making them feel bad and small and mad. In this respect they are just like Sturgeon, just like Yousaf, though Yousaf is a father. The more things change, indeed…
James Che…
PS.
The Irish Free State having been created on 6th December, 1922, by 1927 Westminster finally accepted that the Irish were not for turning and the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act (1927) was passed.
With the costs involved in removing all trace of the former Kingdom of Ireland from the Union Flag and Royal Coat of Arms throughout the entire British Empire being estimated to be astronomical, both Crown and Ministers agreed that only the title of the state and parliament should be revised.
“Alteration of the style of Parliament.
(1) Parliament shall hereafter be known as and styled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and accordingly, the present Parliament shall be known as the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, instead of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
(2) In every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression ” United Kingdom ” shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
Not only was this was the easiest and cheapest option but also avoided any affront to the Unionist community in N.Ireland, keen to see a visual symbolic association with the UK contine. (For example, the Saltire of Saint Patrick appears today on the badge of the PSNI).
Apologies for going o/t
Geri.
Robertkknight,
Thanks for both for your responses,
Will add some further context on topic soon,
Will get back to you both later on if able to, poor spouse is ill again today,
loved the way US, UK rushed to the aid of the gangster state; not enough iron dome missiles, let us shoot down those drones for you? protecting you against retaliation you deliberately provoked and all because the mossad have our westminster bumboys in 4K technicolour, balls deep in a kid, on some hard drive; these are the -hard- principles which shape political decision making … but it is antisemitic to suggest this “tribe” acts as a collective entity or has an inordinate influence in politics, business, the courts, law, academia, the press – and if you suggest such a thing, they will sue the shit out of you, get you fired, or even thrown in jail, to prove what powerless victims they are.
iranians played it smart; slow stuff to probe defences, exhaust the batteries, faster missiles for when it gets serious (and they gave plenty warning, next time, maybe not and times 100); the money side is stark – cheap drone 2K, sea ceptor missile 100K, all paid for by the taxpayer
while we had fireworks, north sea oil – brent (does not have to come thru hormuz) – is up to 92 bucks a barrel
Scotland should cut its power and hydrocarbon exports to the parasite neighbour
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cv2yx01j8rdo
wetin be dey political implication?
Imagine a situation, living on a street, your next door neighbour, who styles himself “your best mate” buys himself a really long extension cable from B&Q, sticks it out his window, and into your window, and then to plug it into your socket, to run his house. “better together”, nothing exploitative about that, the broad shoulders.
– what kind of sad, pathetic, cuckold idiot would put up with that?
In other news, Humza is now doing standup :
“Women and girls will be protected, and trans women will be protected as well, as they will often be the ones who suffer threats of rape or threats of disfigurement for example.
“When a trans woman is walking down the street and a threat of rape is made against them, the MAN MAKING THE THREAT DOESN’T KNOW IF THEY ARE A TRANS WOMAN OR A CIS WOMAN. They will make that threat because the perception of that person [is] as a woman.”
– yeah … maybe an opinion poll from the suprise-sex community would be in order
this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAbIL8C2JJ0
basically never happens
@Mac says: 16 April, 2024 at 10:13 am
Over half a million Ukr@inians at least have been killed, press ganged and conscripted and sent into a futile meat grinder, with rifles pointing at their backs if they think about retreating
No, no, no, no, Mac.
You’re never going to advance the Indy cause with pathetic lies like these. The key to successful lying is to lie big, always. You have to lie so big that nobody can believe it credible you could be lying.
So it’s ten million killed, and twenty million maimed, and the reluctant are slowly clubbed to death, not for thinking about retreating, but just for thinking.
How could the retreaters be shot, FFS? They’re out of ammo!
See what you did there, Mac? You torpedoed your lie by not thinking it through. Your lies have to be consistent.
Lie big, lie often, lie consistently. It’s not rocket science.
Off you go now and do us proud.
@Confused says: 16 April, 2024 at 5:45 pm
Taken you a wee while to surface.
I reckon you’ve been drowning your sorrows since Sunday morning, when you discovered there were no bodies for you to exult over. Go on, tell me I’m wrong.
if you suggest such a thing, they will sue the shit out of you, get you fired, or even thrown in jail
Take a dump now. Don’t let them take your shit!
Haha, I reckon you’re safe enough, Confused. You may be on the receiving end of mocking posts like this one though, because its “retaliation you deliberately provoked”.
Friendly, supportive mockery though, not hateful at all.
@Luigi says: 16 April, 2024 at 11:41 am
Humza Yousaf and his crowd of green woke dopes have certainly put us on the map. They have made Scotland a complete laughing stock
Scotland became a complete laughing stock over a year ago.
The party of Independence gerrymandered an incompetent into becoming leader because it valued virtue signalling more.
They broadcast to the world that Scots lack the ability to run our own government, and so we have to bring in talent from other countries. They did this knowing full well that even though Yousaf’s talent barely registers on any scale, to them he was still preferable to the alternatives.
The laughing hasn’t stopped since, because the joke continues and there is every chance nothing will change before May 2026.
You read that right. There are still another 2+ years of home-grown, self-inflicted damage and destruction to go. I don’t doubt that Yousaf and his coalition of the dopes intend to make every day count as they take Scotland apart, piece by piece.
Better just get used to being laughed at.
“Over half a million Ukr@inians at least have been killed, press ganged and conscripted and sent into a futile meat grinder, with rifles pointing at their backs if they think about retreating”
Throw in that a fighting aged man CANNOT access medical attention without first proving he’s actively in the military.
So Justice Secretary Angela Constance regrets that she should’ve done more to inform Scots about the Hate Crime bill/laws prior to its implementation.
Like the GRRA the HCA is bad governance, if as Constance’s has said the public had been more informed about both the GRRA and the HCA they in my opinion would’ve made it abundantly clear that they wanted neither.
Sandy Brindley, chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland eagerly awaits this.
“It couldn’t be clearer that change is urgently needed. The Scottish Government’s Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill includes proposals which could radically change how survivors experience the justice system, including scrapping the Not Proven verdict, introducing specialist sexual offence courts and a pilot of judge led trials for rape cases.”
Apparently its all to get the conviction rates up, so some judge probably already briefed to get the conviction figures up, will decide an accused fate and not a jury of his or her peers, I was always under the impression that convictions were evidence based, and not based on getting the conviction rate up.
This is a very dangerous road the Scottish government are about to set themselves down, innocent people will go to prison, and the juryless trial will eventually be rolled out for other crimes.
Craig Murray had no jury and he wasn’t allowed to fully present his defence and we know what happened to him.
The SNP Scottish government and its vile coalition partners the toxic Greens, look set to keep on issuing a raft of laws that the public of Scotland neither condones or agrees with.
We really need to get the SNP and the Greens out at every election beginning with the GE, get them out or suffer the consequences of their draconian laws which will just keep coming.
@Republicofscotland says: 16 April, 2024 at 6:32 pm
“Throw in that a fighting aged man CANNOT access medical attention without first proving he’s actively in the military”
Didn’t you read my earlier post, Mr Scotland?
Lies have to be big, repetitive, and consistent.
5 seconds consideration allows anybody to see that your lie would mean that a man of fighting age in the medical profession, electrical power generation and distribution industry, fire fighting service, etc. would be denied medical attention if injured or ill.
Bring us a new lie, Mr Scotland. This one is bust. And have a word with your source in RT.
The result of last week’s Inverness South council by-election will have been quite pleasing to many. Although no strong inferences can be drawn from the result of a 3325 turnout (26%), if looked at as a poll, there are some interesting indicators of how electors now perceive the ‘big three’ Scottish political parties.
Inverness was hardly a Rochdale, though with an independent being elected on the STV system (also would have won FPP) and a surge from Lib Dem into second place (also 2nd if FPP), it is a further pointer that the electorate may have finally sussed the pass-the-parcel game being played by SNP/Lab in HR and Lab/Cons in WM.
Whether it amounts to a sea change contrary to the notion that the political party system is the best form of democracy remains to be seen. But there are only two routes to getting the kind of principled politics we expect: from within political parties, by self-regulation/statutory regulation, or by destroying the party system – which the electorate can accomplish by simply voting for ANY candidate other than a party politician.
However, neither of these prospects are likely to come to fruition, which leaves us in limbo. We are facing the bizarre prospect of electing a unionist administration to HR in 2026 on 35% of the vote while up to 55% – perhaps more – would rather vote for independence, if only there was ONE group to support with ONE voice and ONE agenda. The independence leaning electorate has shown by its indifference that they are never going to be swayed by the many Indy factions we see today.
So, there you have it, Indy parties and Indy independents, whether you are Brochers for Indy, or Pensioners for Indy, or Alba, or Salvo: the electorate has told you they want rid of the scumbags currently representing us. You know you can do better, but you have a lot of work to do to show us. There isn’t much time, though the bar is set very low. Get organised, get united, get the message out, convince voters not to vote for the least bad party, or not vote, or spoil their vote – convince us to vote for a UNIFIED independence organisation.
“And clouds. The clouds in the sky: White!”
RoS @ 6:58
The SNP are already well along that dangerous path you speak of, defiantly stomping along it like huffy teenagers. Stroppy, thin-skinned, immature cretins who will seek to avenge every slight, every perceived criticism.
A jury foiled their framing of AS for sexual offences, and now they’re pushing to remove juries from sexual offences trials.
CM reported on what they did to AS, he was silenced and jailed on spurious grounds without a jury or a proper defence.
People wouldn’t just accept self-id, so the hate crime bill was designed to punish those who didn’t.
Same for the conversion therapies ban bill, to punish parents who don’t comply.
I’m also going to go out on a limb and guess that the people who mugged the first minister all those years ago were white, male, poor and 18-30.
Just in case anyone is in doubt about it, on a personal note, Humza pulled in the Daily Record, the inspectors and was pursuing legal action against a nursery for perceived racism on the back of an administrative error.
Now the first minister in scotland, our most senior politician, is calling his personal critics neo-nazis and critics of the hate crime bill “right-wing” and “vexatious”. He is openly dismissing his opponents and our concerns, he is Othering Scots who don’t agree with him.
From the above examples, do we think the SNP, and particularly Humza, will stop at dismissing the Scottish public? Will name-calling suffice? Or will they start targeting dissenters?
Jury-less trials are a huge danger to justice here, and when you apply it to the hate crime law (which we’re all too dumb to understand according to the justice minister, so hate crimes are a shoo-in for going jury-less at some stage) you get a very sinister, bleak picture of where this could go.
Lets see tomorrow whether we believe that HY is a mature, intelligent man who can calmly debate criticism of his bullshit law, or if he’s the kind of man who would happily send dissenters to jail without trial.
If George Galloway is reading…
Yes they overthrew the socialist government of Iran and replaced him with the Shah.
But the same people who overthrew the Shah, replaced him with the Ayatollah.
The Shah in some very revealing interviews said himself, if you pull up the Ayatollah’s beard, underneath it says, “Made in London”.
They overthrew the government in Tehran twice, first with the Shah and then second with the Ayatollah.
They wanted Iran as this Islamic fundamentalist enemy. The Shah was a dupe on the road to it.
@Alf Baird
I wonder if there’s an Ashpaddle hidden among we Scots ready to leap to our aid in defeating the evil Mester terrorising us.
We need burnin’ peet, a speedy Teetong, a Sickersnapper, and of course a reliable boat fit for a King – that’ll be Scotland’s ferries oot the runnin’ fer the task a expect.
If we can find a lovely Gem-de-lovely among us tae that’ll be job done and Scotland liberated.
“And, if not dead, they are yet alive.”
A final sentence that could apply to the people of Scotland – alive and still kickin’.
I’m fairly sure this is a route to Scotland’s liberation no-one else has thought of.
Thanks for the pointer. A great Orcadian tale.
That’s a remarkable observation Mr Wings, R.L. Stevenson would have been proud of you:-)
Verbatim may not be important but ‘tone’ is everything
‘It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it.’
It could of course be, that the ‘stenographers’ understand nothing about how to write ‘tone’ BUT that is no excuse and indeed suggests , yet again, that the current Government falls well short of acceptable in capability.
It is a remarkable omission given the new ‘hate’ laws where ‘how’ something is said must be part of the process of deciding whether the person contravened the law.
Galloway is a weasel.
He can gob off about Iran being occupied by the Brits & it wealth looted..
Ummm Hello! *Waves* Scotland here…
That prick lied to school weans the oil was running out & we’d have super Devo Max if they voted no during indyref.
Another of life’s losers. Is happy to help the Brits keep looting Scotland but get him on a soapbox for overseas causes & he never STFU…
It must that champagne socialist Labour affliction.
It has been a long held thought of mine that that the best move the electorate could make is to avoid the candidate for any party candidate.
Vote only for independents who you align with and can vote freely puting his constituents first with influence of party whips, coalitions or bribes leading to Ministerial posts.
The current parties all put themselves first and the country second.
They all sell off long term benefits for our future for the sake of appearing competent now.
Labours Gordon Brown thought he and the party looked good with PPI building £50 Billion worth of schools and hospitals but crippling institutions today as the have to pay back over £300 billion with interest.
Tory Liz Truss threw the economy under a bus waiting below the Cliff we were thrown off costing more than £60 Billion but good does it look offering everyone a spending spreed that they can’t afford.
Without parties we can see the end of Think Tank propaganda institutions, no more old boy seats in the House of Lords, no more billionaires financing parties to impose their will.
No more covering up for the crooked and perverted to save face for a party.
“Lets see tomorrow whether we believe that HY is a mature, intelligent man who can calmly debate criticism of his bullshit law, or if he’s the kind of man who would happily send dissenters to jail without trial.“
Look, building a banana republic is not as easy as you think and dissenters like yourself are not making it any easier.
Just another reflection of the biased and corrupted processes of government in Scotland.
Yousaf’s speech was angry stacatto and the miss recording of the transcript by putting words in to change the record, soften it, record what was not said reflects this government to a tee.
Lying in court, false evidence, partisan police, partisan prosecution, criminal leaks that the police can’t establish who leaked it, redaction after redaction, Scotland’s governance, it’s rule of law is that of a failed state.
And now as Rev Stu has pointed out deliberate falsification of parliamentary transcript.
The country’s f****ing rotten!
@President Xiden says: 17 April, 2024 at 7:34 am
building a banana republic is not as easy as you think
Exactly, and if you already have a solid track record of failure …
Then there’s the “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” syndrome in play too. Yousaf never won his position fair and square. It was a gerrymandered process with a predefined script and result. As he lies awake at night, he will be thinking that they who undemocratically put him where he is can just as easily and undemocratically remove him when they don’t need him any more.
A leader cursed with that kind of insecurity can’t take the time to build a lasting consensus, think things through, or take pains with the detail. It has to be a mad scramble to bulldoze as much as possible, then throw up as many facades as he can, and get them painted in gaudy rainbow colours, before the ground falls away from under his feet.
That will be his legacy. A Hollywood/Hollyrood film set of the facades of buildings/policies, with empty, useless space behind them.
I would like to think that some person or party will come out of the woodwork and make a clear commitment to restore jury trial and the Not Proven verdict – irrespective of what destruction Yousaf might wreak during his brief tenure.
Alba has called for the process to be halted. It needs to go further and pledge to reverse the policy if that policy gets enacted by Yousaf and his gang of wreckers before May 2026.
A must watch…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk0ihHyq2U0&ab_channel=JudgeNapolitano-JudgingFreedom
If Ian Brotherhood is reading, confirmation of exactly what we were discussing a little while back.
The day the country changed…
SteepBrae yesterday @11:45
Cheers!
The overnight correlation matrix came back with gigo – and refuses to compute (or, in any event, brought a promising JK Rolling sidequest to an abrupt end with a man in a red dress!)
That got me thinking about the hate bill, 280 years of attempted post (attempted) genocide cringe programming, & George Galloway, for whatever reason.
George being anything but, I’m guessing that renders any cringe in that particular line of thinking entirely of my own making – conscious or otherwise.
However, I’m now wondering if there’s any advantage to be had in SNP using PM questions to report Hamas and the government of Israel to Police Scotland for their respective hate crimes.. (and invoking the Sovereignty of the Scots’ Crown together with the murder tent precedent to instruct the UK to arrest and detain the political & military leadership of both, wherever possible, in consequence) – or if the threat of same is more than enough (despite the likelihood of the bluff being called, again), regardless.
One glimmer of hope is the rumour that Humza is preparing to step down as first minister.
Word has it that with his wife being pregnant with the baby due in July this will be his reason for standing down.
His wife’s brother being charged with drugs, abduction and extortion in a drug case where a man fell to his death out of a top floor window is also being reported as being another reason to get out.
Of course his unpopularity in his role as First colonial Governor and the impending wipe out on the forthcoming General Election might just have something to do with the rumour.
He and Sturgeon before him have done the damage. So yes, it would be a good time for him to quit.
Yousaf the puppets says on puberty blockers that nothing is off the table with regards to them as for the butchers clinic aka the Sandyford Clinic our FM says.
“I don’t believe there is a case to close the Sandyford,” he said.
“Sandyford provides, we know, some exceptional health care to some of those who are the most marginalised and vulnerable… not just young people, but we know, right across the spectrum.”
Yousaf added “So that’s something that is worth consideration, worth exploring and we’ll take some time to consider that in relation to Dr Cass’s review.”
Joanna Cherry said of this.
“There is no need for a separate review and called for Cass to be implemented:”
If fear that Cherry’s wise plea will fall on deaf ears, as the SNP and the Greens push ahead with their vile agenda that will do great physical and mental damage to young Scots adults, and children.
Geri
Robertkknight.
My sincere apologies for not being able to respond yesterday, I am promised some additional info but bear with I am tired today, so the infomation will come in sections
The British Nationality Act , 1730 4Geo, 2, c , 21
Have you ever read it?
I read it and could not find the words United Kingdom of Great- Britain anywhere.
The other anomaly is that it only mentions the Crown of England, No mention of the crown of great britain,
James Che…
Not quite sure your point. This Act of the Parliament of Great Britain is dated 1730 and seeks to clarify Acts by the Parliament of England in 1702 and 1705 in relation to the status within the kingdom of protestant children born outside the kingdom but to Fathers who were subjects of the English then British crowns.
The “United Kingdom” didn’t exist until 1801 hence no mention of it.
It looks as if the establishments of Scotland are trying in vain to prevent their own foundations from crumbling. It’s as if they can’t understand what sexuality is.
To me it’s like they are stunned by Trans and don’t know how to deal with it. So to appear in the know they have been going along with it. Until now they find themselves in a corner of their own making while the Trans gang dance around them.
How long will this go on until they wake up to the fact they have all been wound up and sent down the garden path.
To be clear here, no amount of academic expertise can deal with this. No amount of PR could sell this to the world. The very nature of male and female has left the top levels of society looking like blushing, confused teenagers when they catch their parents screwing in the shower.
MAC 10:34
The narrative is that it was a combination of the westernized middle classes, the Islamic clergy and feudal land owners who brought down the Pahlavi monarchy, aided of course by the US which no longer found the shah, manipulable.
When the clerics took over the middle classes etc decamped to California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Land_Reform
The SNP used to be big on the urgent need for land reform.
Scotland is quite third world from certain perspectives.
James Che…
Further to my last and contrary to yours.
The last sentence of (4Geo.2)CAP.XXI includes “Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain“.
My own slant on the united/United issue is that in the 1706/7 Acts there wasn’t any desire or perceived need to include the (common) adjective “united” in the name of the new unified state (Kingdom) of Great Britain. (A name in semi-official use since the Union of the Crowns in 1603).
However, in the case of 1800 Acts, an example of the use of the (proper) adjective “United” had been set a mere 25 years earlier, when the United States of Americahad fought for and won it’s independence.
I suspect that by 1800 there were still enough bruised egos needing massaging in Westminster that the opportunity to big-up the forthcoming unified Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland was too good to miss.
I can just imagine some pompous BawJaws equivalent standing up in the Commons in 1800 giving it “THEY, might be the United States of America, but WE, WE, will be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland!” to much braying of “Hear-hear-hear…” from the backbenches.
After all, there was still no love lost between the USA and their former colonial masters, to the extend that by 1812 they were once again at war, so the opportunity to christen the new baby with “United” as it’s first name was undoubtedly a two-fingered salute to those damned Continentals.
“One glimmer of hope is the rumour that Humza is preparing to step down as first minister.”
Wings, who really now represents the marginalised majority in Scotland (not just the independence movement), might not have the power to choose who becomes the FM but he does have the power to deselect the FM.
I’ve alluded to the power of Wings before — people probably thought I was simply demonstrating my ass-kissing abilities, which are formidable, but I absolutely mean it when I say that Wings is the most powerful political voice in Scottish politics today, arguably more powerful than the SNP or any politician.
If Humza is about to step down, or even if he isn’t, he knows that Wings brought down his predecessor (and her husband), and he now knows that he has the full attention of Wings who will, sooner or later, bring him down too. If I was him, I’d definitely jump before I was pushed.
A lot of us come on here and chat about this and that, some even stick to the topic at hand, but if you stand back and look at the overall focus of Wings articles from a distance you can see that the articles are component parts that together make up a case. The case against Humza, as compiled by Wings, is growing and growing.
Wings might not have a seat in Holyrood, but he might as well have a seat in every Scottish news room. As far as public opinion matters, Wings basically is the official opposition in Scotland today.
Heavy is the crown…
Geri.
Robertkknight.
The parliament of England passed the,
The Bill of Rights Act in 1689, it is still in force today in English law Statues as part of the Constitution of England,
The bill of rights also settles the Succession of the Crown to England,
Geri,
Robertkknight.
Uk parliament,
Constitutional law.
Act of Settlement, ( 12&13 Wm 3 c 2)
Also under and known as.
An Act for the further limitation of the Crown and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject [ ” Act of Settlement”]
The parliament of England passed the Act of Settlement 1700/ 1701.
The main aim of this legislation was to ensure a protestant succession line to the Crown and Regall Government of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging should be and continue to your Majesty and the said late Queen…….etc.
It amended the English parliaments Bill of Rights 1689,
Both the Bill of rights and the Act of settlement are still in Force today as Constitutional law.of England and Britain.
This makes sense of the terms and phrases used in ” 1730 British Naturalisation Act under the Crown of England” rather than the Crown of great Britain.
And why, although it strives to be one united kingdom under the Crownof England fails.
Thus another note of anomaly is that the monarch of England is Crowned as monarch in England with the crown of England but does not wear the crown of Scotland ever, it requires a separate ceremony in Scotland that does not quite come up to the requirements of crowning Scottish monarchs in Scotland,
These acts and Statues are for the Crown of England.
Geri,
Robertkknight.
Under the constitutional statues, laws, legislation and Acts of the parliament of England and Englands version of Great Britain we find that the monarch and successor to the throne of England is the Crown of England,
Acordding to the Bill of Rights
And
According to the Acts of Settlement
Both still in force
The Crown of England is mentioned to be for the kingdoms of England Ireland and France and it dominions.
Separate from the kingdom of Scotland and separate from the Crown of Scotland.
And in both instants separate the kingdom of England from the kingdom of Scotland.
The Westminster parliament comes under the Crown and Regall Government of England, France and Ireland,
Or nowadays, the Regall Government of England and Ireland,
Sarwar is the next continuity candidate. He and is ,’team’! Will endeavour to make Humza’s every wish come true. They will try and make it more palatable.
They will keep the lot. Repackage it. If that doesn’t work then It’s start ranting!!!about Gaza or something else. Look!! There’s a Squirrel!!
Sarwar will continue everything his brother has done.
James Che…
Sorry, I’m failing to see your point.
The 1730 Act mentions both Crown of England and Crown of Great Britain as it pertains to pre-1707 English legislation and also applies to post-1707 British legislation, so no surprise then that it mentions both.
Monarchs of Scotland post the coronation of Charles II at Scone in 1651 were never crowned in Scotland as they, (James VII, William II, Mary II and Anne), never set foot in Scotland whilst they reigned.
The royal regalia created for the English coronation of Charles II at Westminster Abbey in 1661, (Cromwell having destroyed the previous set), and used for the English coronations of James, William & Mary and Anne in London, continued to be used for the British coronation of George I and British monarchs thereafter, which given their bling factor when compared to the Scottish regalia was hardly surprising.
British monarchs after 1707, starting with George I, likewise never set foot in Scotland, there also ceasing to be a need for two coronations in a single kingdom. Catholic sympathies meant that it was probably considered too risky for Hanoverian kings to set foot in Scotland during the C18th; the Honours of Scotland becoming redundant were locked away in Edinburgh Castle.
The first reigning monarch to visit Scotland after 1651 was George IV in 1822. He was presented with the Honours of Scotland but was already King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, so why would he (or any subsequent monarch) feel the need for a separate Scottish coronation for a Kingdom which technically hadn’t existed for over a century by then?
After George IV, reigning UK monarchs who visited Scotland were at some point presented with, or were at least accompanied by, the Honours of Scotland as a symbolic gesture, given they remain crown property. (The Honours were given a new lease of life in 1999 when they resumed the parliamentary role in Edinburgh which they’d last enjoyed in 1707).
As for the last four Monarchs of the Kingdom of Scotland, neither James VII, William II & Mary II, nor Anne felt the need to be crowned King/Queen of Scots in Scotland using the Scottish regalia, but they nevertheless were.
Royalty generally claims to be whatever it wants. The royal arms of France appeared in the arms of English then British monarchs until 1800, but it didn’t follow that’s what they were in reality.
One united kingdom of Great Britain does not exist if the Crown is that of Englands.
If the Westminster parliament is under the Regall crown of England.
Especially as the parliament of England under the Crown of England put the Scottish parliament under dissolution in England, having no legal remit to do so in Scotland
The treaty of union itself is breached and a none starter due to the parliament of Englands bills and acts retaining these laws of England, on Scotland side it has no obligation as the two parliaments never joined and the two Countries do not come together as two separate kingdoms to be united into one kingdom
England still retains its parliament and its kingdom of England and Ireland under the constitution of England “bill of rights” and the “act of setttlement” still in force today.
Thus Scotland also still retains its separate kingdom and Crown and a parliament of its own if it decides to do so,
Scotland has been a republic state and Entity since the times of her last monarch of Scots.
King Charles 11.
I have to agree with J.K Rowling here when she has a go at the unbelievable HC Laws. We all know which section of society ( a miniscule one) that the HC Laws were forced upon us is aimed at, and crimes against trans folk in Scotland are minimal so basically the HC Laws are designed to shut us up and to give this tiny section of society more protection than Scots women.
“She wrote on Twitter/X: “Women were excluded from his nonsensical hate crime law, now he introduces a ‘misogyny law’ designed to also protect men.”
Rowling said that trans women, whom she called “trans-identified men”, would “receive double protection”.”
James Che, even if you found incontrovertible evidence that everything regarding crowns and treaties was totally fraudulent made-up crap, it wouldn’t change a single thing in terms of where we are now and where we want to go. Not a thing.
I have nothing against you banging your head off a wall, don’t get me wrong, but have you considered that your precious time might be more effectively invested elsewhere?
The useless trougher and SNP MP Stephen Flynn spouted his usual shite at PMQs today on Scotland and its right to have a democratic vote to leave or stay in the union.
It was the usual run of mill rhetoric from the SNP that we’ve heard a million times, the SNP has no intentions of ever ridding us of this bucket of sewage union, of course Flynn and his grifting careerist SNP MPs occasionally need to put a show on for the voters back home to keep the suckers onside.
Get Flynn and his troughing SNP MPs out at the next GE, surely you to must be sick of listening to his and other SNP MPs empty bullshit ripostes to the English PM every Wednesday.
la grande délusion…
ALYN SMITH in The National.
«An independent Scotland would look to pull its own weight within Nato, contributing where it is needed and most effective – not where we imagine ourselves to be more powerful than we are, as the UK seems to think. We have a strong legacy of shipbuilding and our defence firms continue to provide valuable jobs and investment into our communities.
Whether it’s investment in drones, ships or our military medicine, an independent Scotland will take its responsibilities in Nato seriously….»
Would be funny if were not for the history of the guy thinking this crazy stuff.
@James Che;
England’s 1689 Bill of Rights Act could only have settled the succession of England’s monarchy, not Scotland’s. Neither could England’s Act of Settlement of 1701.
All that it meant was that if Queen Anne died childless then Princess Sophia of Hanover would have become Queen of England. Only of England. It would be up to the Scots to decide on the successor to the Scottish throne. An English Act couldn’t pre-empt Scotland’s own choices in the matter.
Remember that the Union of the Crowns in 1603 did not entail a constitutional merger of monarchies; it only merged the two lines of familial inheritance to the two thrones into a single family line. If Anne died childless, that specific line ended, which required opening up alternative lines from more distant relatives.
But the problem for Scotland was that there was really only one obvious successor in the Stewart line, Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, so Scotland had no realistic alternative available anyway, even if it wanted one. It was a choice that was no choice.
However, before Anne died, the Union happened and she became Queen of Great Britain, and the Treaty itself in Article II settled the succession on Sophia and the ‘heirs of her body’, effectively superceding the 1701 Act when Scotland and England both ratified the Treaty.
Sophia herself had also already died, several weeks before Anne did, so it was her son George who inherited Anne’s throne, as the last remaining heir of the House of Stewart, the deposed James the VII/II having died in 1701.
So, as far as the succession was concerned the matter panned out in the only way it could have because other options didn’t really exist.
As for England’s crown, its only a fancy hat. It has no legal or constitutional significance. The real issue with England’s ‘Crown’ is the same as the rest of England’s establishment, in that it presumes an authority over the Union, and especially over Scotland it isn’t entitled to.
@robertkknight;
“The first reigning monarch to visit Scotland after 1651 was George IV in 1822. He was presented with the Honours of Scotland but was already King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, so why would he (or any subsequent monarch) feel the need for a separate Scottish coronation for a Kingdom which technically hadn’t existed for over a century by then?”
Technically, Robert, neither of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England ceased to exist for all sorts of reasons, including retained sovereignties and constitutions. As Alf Baird and I have previously pointed out, those two kingdoms are even now still legally distinct entities under law, and under the Treaty, that cannot change.
TURABDIN @ 16.41
As Mr Smith cites “a strong legacy of shipbuilding” it’s surprising he fails to mention the devolved administrations proven performance in the design and production of a couple of Ferries.
All they had to do was ask and even I know of at least two people with proven expertise in this area who would have brought an awful lot to the table.
Xaracen…
In the legal (law) sense, and in regard to religion, education, legal currency, etc. etc. you are of course correct.
However, in the sense of being an individual kingdom for which a monarch sits upon a throne and has a crown placed upon their head in order to reign, as was the case with Charles II when crowned King of Scots at Scone in 1651, the Kingdom of Scotland has not existed in that sense since 1707. Which is why you’ll never see Charles III following in the footsteps of his ordinal predecessor.
Astonishingly 35,000 calls to NHS 24 in Scotland went unanswered.
Scots are sovereign. Not the monarch.
The monarch was by consent.
England’s monarch is divine right.
Hence the two remained incompatible.
“The useless trougher and SNP MP Stephen Flynn spouted his usual shite at PMQs today on Scotland and its right to have a democratic vote to leave or stay in the union”
Yes, and indeed Mr Flynn is right. Scotland does have the inalienable and legitimate right to decide, by itself, whenever it likes and as many times as it likes, if it wishes to continue or to end the union.
It is not for the crown; it is not for the UK government; it is not for England’s FM; it is not for the self-serving interest of greedy Scotland MPs; it is not for a political frauds as leader of Scotland’s parties; it is not for the BBC; it is not for the leaders of England’s political parties; and it is not for the lord advocate or crown agent of the day to decide if Scotland chooses to end the union or not.
That is a decision for Scotland, and Scotland only, to make.
So why aren’t you getting on with it, Mr Flynn? What exactly are you waiting for?
Are you waiting for Scotland to be completely stripped off its most valuable assets and left as a barren land before you decide to lift a finger, stand up for your country and actually deliver what you were elected to deliver?
Apart of vacuous rhetoric and cheap repetitive waffle, what exactly has Mr Flynn done so far to ensure our numerous mandates for a referendum are fulfilled? Because I see evidence of nothing.
Well then, other than pocketing a nice salary and perks and accruing a generous pension chunk for a comfortable retirement at the expense of SNP voters, what exactly has Mr Flynn been doing since December 2019 to ensure Scotland can exercise its legitimate right to choose the future of the union?
Since December 2019, the SNP has commanded a majority of Scotland’s seats in Westminster. Mr Flynn has been the leader of that majority for a good chunk of that time, so he has no excuse for the inaction of the party under his tenure.
Scotland is represented in this union by its MPs, not by England MPs. The union parliament and the union government are byproducts of the treaty of union and therefore subordinates to it, not the other way round. It is not for the Uk government or Uk parliament to decide if the union continues. It is for Scotland and England as independent entities to decide so, and they can do this unilaterally.
It is therefore about time Mr Flynn changed the broken record of blaming England MPs and England’s government entities for SNP MPs sitting like cowards over their hands, and started taking responsibility for his own lack of action.
The only thing Mr Flynn has to do to ensure Scotland exercises its fundamental right to choose is to recall Scotland’s MPs, to put the union on hold and to hold a vote on returning the Scotland’s parliamentary powers Scotland’s MPs hold to Holyrood. Because it is Scotland’s MPs who hold Scotland’s powers, not England Mps.
Aren’t the SNP MPs constantly waffling that they are in Westminster to settle up and to make themselves redundant, not to settle down? Well then, why the hell have they been waiting for the best part of 9 years to do so?
Once the transference of powers from Scotland’s MPs to Holyrood happens, Holyrood is no longer restricted by the Scotland Act and can call the referendum. England Mps or the crown cannot stop it unless our MPs and MSPs help them to stop it. But in that case, it will not be the crown or England MPs, but our own Mps who would have denied Scotland its legitimate right to choose.
Once the referendum takes place, and only if the result is to preserve the union, Scotland’s MPs can return to Westminster and resume their duties: to legitimise the assault on Scotland’s assets, land and people, and to continue waffling to justify the completely pointless exercise of sending MPs to Westminster.
There. Job done.
Perhaps Mr Flynn should be reminded that Scotland’s MPs were elected to represent SCOTLAND, not the crown, not England, not the Uk union, not the British state. So why are our MPs representing the interests of the crown and the British State instead of those of Scotland?
Perhaps the reason is that they have spent soooooo loooooong pointlessly sitting in the green seats that they have already forgotten what the reason they went to WEstminster in the first place was.
Flynn, as leader of the SNP in Westminster, has had the power to deliver the mandate for Scotland to exercise its choice, which incidentally it is the mandate under which all the SNP MPs were voted in 2019.
If this right for Scotland to exercise its choice has not been delivered yet, despite this current lot of SNP MPs having been already almost 4.5 years into their mandate, and despite Flynn having been the leader of the SNP in Westminster for a significant part of that, then the responsibility and accountability for that spectacular failure to deliver, betrayal to SNP voters voters and reneging of the principles of the party, lies squarely on Flynn’s own lap and Blackford’s before that, not on the UK gov.
If in the last 8 years Scotland has not had a democratic vote to decide if it wishes to preserve or to end the union, it has been only because neither Flynn, nor his predecessor Blackford as leaders of the SNP in Westminster, nor STurgeon or now Yousaf as leaders of the SNP party have ever wanted Scotland to have that vote in the first place, and have therefore proceeded to take us all for fools since 2016.
The appalling level of cowardice, complacency and dereliction of duty demonstrated by the SNP lot under the command of Sturgeon, Yousaf, Blackford and Flynn has embarrassed the Yes movement enough, has made Scotland look ridiculous and has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the concept “Scotland’s MP” is in fact a misnomer. The expression “Scotland MP” has become an euphemism for “useless gravy train rider”, “democracy denier”, “UK union preserver” and “enabler of the pillaging of Scotland’s assets”.
AFter 9 years of inaction, no matter how much Mr Flynn thinks he is earning his salary by waffling soundbites and wasting time, it is evident the SNP will never allow Scotland to exercise its legitimate right to choose. At this point, I am not sure that other than ISP, any other political party would do.
If we want this to change, we have to change the rules of the game. Sending MPs to WEstminster is completely pointless unless they are independent candidates elected on a single line mandate: “to end the union”.
If an independent candidate is not an option, then we may as well follow Mr Bell’s suggestion of re-purposing our ballot by writing in it “end the union”.
The kingdom of Scotland exists.
The Scots are sovereign. The monarch ins’t.
It’s by the consent of Scots & we’ve never been asked.
Arseholes dress up like eejits & consent for us as they just did carrying the Stone of destiny out the country cloaked in secrecy.
TURABDIN
That’s fighting talk. That eejit seems unaware the military complex makes all the weapons for NATO & gives the diddy wee countries the stuff that’s fcked, misfires or doesn’t work at all.. LOL
He is so dense. If recent events proves anything it’s that a country requires it’s own investment in that area. Not relying on hand outs on the say so of others that either don’t arrive or dont even work.
Hatuey
“James Che, even if you found incontrovertible evidence that everything regarding crowns and treaties was totally fraudulent made-up crap, it wouldn’t change a single thing in terms of where we are now and where we want to go. Not a thing.”
Disagree.
International treaties mean something. The Act of Union is a recognised treaty. One side is assuming they have all the Kingdom. They don’t. It’s historical record the English rejected the “One Nation” pish. Scots would “swamp” them. Obviously oil has since changed their mind.
P just gave a two hour interview on his History & treaties. Rolled off the tongue . Can you imagine the dunces in Westminster doing the same? A genocide is happening on anothers history – but Scotland is just to forget theirs? Lol
Does the world know of this brave new world of yours where there’s no borders & no treaties? I think you should let them know..
Mia
Well said.
What is the point of Flynn? Absolutely nothing. Not even usurping that burst balloon, Black ford.
They’re career politicians. I doubt they even know what the Act of Union is.
They’ve already had mandates & done absolutely zero with any of them. I don’t think they’ll ever get another one.
Salmond was our only hope. He at least studied form & swallowed the parliamentary rule book from the library. The shower of losers we have in Westminster can only find their way to the bars & restaurants because that’s all they’re interested in.
Only one I see who could be up & coming to fill Salmonds shoes would be Neale Hanvey. Everyone else would be as well to just stay at home. No one would miss them cause they do fck all for Scotland. I hope the whole lot collect their P45 soon – never to be heard of again.
“Only one I see who could be up & coming to fill Salmonds shoes would be Neale Hanvey”
I agree. I have been very impressed by Mr Hanvey’s performances, by his energy, his fighting spirit, his knowledge and experience, and his bravery. At points it was disgusting to watch how the troughers from the SNP occupying the front rows betrayed their country by siding with the colonialists across the floor rather than with their own fellow Scots Mr Hanvey or Mr McAskill. Mr Hanvey and Mr McAskill were only two, but by jove that they did raise Scotland’s voice in that cesspit more with their interventions than the entire collection of SNP MPs pension accruers did in 9 years despite holding three absolute majorities.
If Mr Hanvey or Mr Mckaskill were standing in my constituency, I would not hesitate to vote for them. But not because of the party they belong to, but rather because of their hard work promoting Scotland’s independence, their work fighting for Scotland and their outstanding performances in Westminster.
My problem is that I have lost faith in political parties. I genuinely think they will take us nowhere. Scotland needs to end this union and pronto to stop the haemorrhaging of assets and heritage.
Political parties are not going to achieve that. MPs who talk about going down south “to ensure Scotland’s voice is heard” have demonstrated that they only go there to fill up their bank accounts, accrue a nice pension and enjoy the opportunity of subsidised bars and restaurants.
I genuinely believe the time for political parties for Scotland within this union is over. They have failed Scotland. They have proven that they are easy to manipulate and transform into a tool to fight themselves so the union can be preserved rather than ending it. We have seen it with the SNP, but we have also seen a hint of it in Alba with that rather bizarre exchange of tweets of Yvonne Ridley. Then there is of course the matter of the “green” free ports, that will privatise swathes of Scotland. It is beginning to be obvious that political parties are simply tools ripe to be exploited by infiltration to preserve the union and to continue the pillage of Scotland’s assets.
I think it is now the time to end this “Scotland always the looser” game. I genuinely believe the only way we can do that is with independent candidates. Divide and conquer. We have seen that political parties are far too easy to infiltrate and manipulate from within. Independent candidates are more difficult simply because of the number of them.
Hi Rev, Just read your transcript while watching Humza in the parliament – he doesn’t say “people” he says “those”…..
Mia
Agree 100%
Individual independents are the way ahead.
Westminster is a cesspit of vipers looking for back handers, favours & their next job. Manipulated by the unelected lobbyists groups too & whipped along with external interference from at least two countries I could mention. Ensuring Brits stay on the security council therefore doing everything in its powers to thwart indy.
An individual would be far more accountable. Political parties are over for me too along with any future membership. I’m done with lining the pockets of those who don’t need it. Sending a political party to Westminster is a complete waste of everyone’s time as the SNP proved. Once they got there they immediately set up office & then set about destroying their own mandate (trying to reverse Brexshit/GRR) two causes that would’ve had fck all to do with us if they’d used their mandate or even tried.
I’ve missed Yvonne Ridley tweets. I hope someone can fill me in with the gossip lol.
Xaracen,
It needs to be recognised what covers the heading as the legal entity known as Britain in 1701 under the Act of Settlement,
The Act of Settlement names three Countries of the Realme and Crown of England , in 1701,
These consist of England, France and Ireland.
The kingdom of Scotland is not mentioned as one of those kingdoms until a later article in passing reference to war which I will cover Shortly
The covers line to the succession to Crown and throne of England, and its Regall Government.of those Realms, which make up Englands territorial and political Britain in 1701.
For context of the following is a extract from the Act of Settlement 1707, covering this territory of the realms of Britain,
” And your majesty said subjects having daily experience of your Royal care and concern for the present and future Welfare of these Kingdoms”
( The three named kingdoms under the Crown of England at the start of the 1701 Act of Settlement.)
The English Act of settlement does not include the kingdom of Scotland as in the same realm of the Crown of England, nor does it refer to the Crown of Scotland. Nor does it refer to a residing monarch of Scotland.
It waffles on about religion and the Line of descent and succession to the Monarchy of the Throne and the Regall government of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland,
When Scotland offered the “Scottish Crown” to England, (which according to records it did do), England mistakingly presumed it had attached a offer of Scotland and its territory to England because under English Monarchy this was their believe in devine right.
However there is no mention of the territory or the country being offered to England just the “Crown” of Scotland,
Under the regal rules of Scottish monarchy the ” Crown” was not sovereign over the people, the Country or the territory,
It was a presumption of England that the monarch of England was now the English monarch of Scotland as the Scottish had agreed to the line of Succession to the Crown of England,France and Ireland.
Scotland agreed to Englands line of Succession to Englands throne, it did not agree to any future line of Succession to Scotland,
To Scotlands credit when Scotland offered its crown to England, the Country and Territory of Scotland automatically became a republic territory without a Crown,
The devils in the detail,
I cannot speak for England or the Succession of the Crown to the throne of England personally but suspect that England was…. “well aware”…. that the parliament of Englands Act of Settlement 1701 even with the Scottish Crown Did Not cover the Territory of Scotland,
As the [Act of Settlement was EXTENDED to Scotland… “after”….the supposed treaty of union 1707.]
You can read this on the UK parliament Website today when researching the Parliament of Englands Act of Settlement 1701.
Raising huge Questioning over the “treaty of union” regards a number of issues
1) None of the monarchs after 1701 were monarchs of Scotland, but were Monarchs of England,
2) the Commissioners for the treaty of Union were legally both under the Crown and Throne of England by Succession, as Scotland no longer had Crown or a monarch. Having given it to England.
3) The monarch of England after 1701 and at the time the Treaty of union was being negotiated and agreed upon, Queen Anne was no longer queen of Scotland, the last Scottish Stuart crown had been offered to England, she had become the Queen of England, and could be not use the “said” Great Seal of Scotland, which was only a rude replica anyway, made in the time of William of Orange.
The under lying facts here are,
that the Parliament of Englands Act of Settlement 1701 with reference to the monarch and throne of England, did not cover the Country, Territory, or people of Scotland,
This Parliament of England Act of Settlement 1701 was “Extended” by the supposed joint-parliament of Great-Britain in 1707,
( Scotlands parliament having been dissolved by the monarch of England) in 1707, by the supposed shared Monarch?
, in the kingdom of England
To the Republic of Scotland to cover the territory and Republic Country of Scotland in 1707 , by the supposed Treaty “uniting two kingdoms”
Which only had one Monarchs of England since 1701 Act of Settlement, within the regall parliament of England.
Which does not join Monarchies, kingdoms, Territories or Countries, but sets them asunder.
These two Acts, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement of the parliament of England is Uk Constitutional law of England still in force today. Which covered the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland,
You will find ” The Crown and Constitutional law” in the House of Commons Library.