The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

A flock of albatrosses

Posted on March 06, 2017 by

Last year, as we’ve done a number of times in the past, we wrote about the dangers of handcuffing the independence movement to a particular narrow political agenda. Conflating a Yes vote with a number of hardline ideological positions which are more or less unquestioned within the liberal commentariat and the radical left, but actually highly unpopular with the general public, is self-evidently a huge strategic mistake.

Many of those positions are ones which this site supports in their own right, such as abolition of the monarchy and the abandonment of nuclear weapons, but our stance has always been that those arguments – like membership of the EU and NATO – are ones which ought properly to be conducted among the people and elected politicians of an independent Scotland in their own good time, not imposed without debate as part of the package of independence.


This weekend the notionally pro-independence Sunday Herald newspaper – as well as taking part in a media-wide Unionist smear campaign against this site and defending a “Better Together” activist who’d written a deeply offensive clickbait Guardian article claiming that Scottish nationalism was racist – carried a front cover and inside spread on the heated topic of mandatory gender quotas, which the paper supports.

As it happened we’d asked about the subject in our Panelbase poll last month.

The results were pretty conclusive.


By an almost 2:1 margin, Scots oppose mandatory gender quotas for politicians. Even among women just 31% backed the idea, with 51% opposed. (Excluding don’t-knows, the figures for women come to 37% for and 63% against, a more resounding outcome than the Remain vote in Scotland in the EU referendum.)

Support dropped even further – though only slightly – when we asked if the idea of increasing the representation of certain groups via quotas should be extended on the basis of other identifying factors such as race, religion or sexual orientation.


And when we asked respondents to look at the matter from a different perspective by suggesting the same logic might be applied to professions other than politics, support fell further still.


We have no interest in having the argument about quotas again. This site’s view on the matter is well known, and happens to concur with that of the public, but that’s not the point of these numbers.

The point is that a subsection of the Yes movement appears to be hell-bent on doing everything it can to sabotage the chances of independence by hanging a lot of heavy and contentious lead weights around the neck of the simple and inherently attractive proposition that the people of a country should choose that country’s governments.

The coming battle over a second referendum will be difficult enough as it is without giving ourselves all manner of extra, and entirely unnecessary, handicaps.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 06 03 17 11:56

    A flock of albatrosses | speymouth

269 to “A flock of albatrosses”

  1. Macart says:

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Day to day policy is for a fully empowered parliament and government of the day and their electorate to decide.

    Getting that fully empowered parliament first off strikes me as a pretty good idea.


  2. Senlac says:

    Amen to that!

  3. winifred mccartney says:

    I am now at the stage where it is impossible to find an independence supporting or even fair reporting newspaper or news outlet for an indy supporter. I think though now there are too many bandwagons attaching themselves to the indy cause and that they are muddying the water perhaps deliberately to hamper the indy cause – could these be the moles and plants? It will fall to people like wings and other sites to give fair cover.

    It might be better if the National were purely an indy paper – at least we would know where we stand since I certainly felt let down before the Scottish election when they allowed Rise and others to split the vote and I certainly complained. After all every other newspaper is pro union and this despite half of the country being pro indy. It would seem to be impossible to give both sides of any story and I feel the unionists have enough coverage and are given an easy ride on politics shows.

    Any news of the poster campaign? The lies are needing outed.

    RD at the Tory Conference and reported widely in media said NS had not asked for power for referendums to be held in Scotland – this was a lie and not picked up by Brewer, Herald or any other media outlet. They seem to be able to say anything they want with impunity.

  4. As an octogenarian and definite Scottish Republican Socialist, I agree that we should not make any preconditions to an Independent Scotland. I would distrust all those who do, including the Herald stable. If the Brit Nat left is not paid by the Ubiquitous Twig than they are doing it for nothing. I also deplore the so called homophobic attack on Stu. He is not, but will learn to be more careful in the future. I was telt, as a young man, that there is no lie too wee,too big or too durty for the Brit State.Just remember who you are dealing with all the time.

  5. c rober says:

    The absurdity of demographic representative.

    What matters is the ability to do the best job , its not the sex or orientation of robots that matter – its the output in volume and passing inspection that does.

    But in adopting such points for being unrelated to ability , as a bonus for one robot over another , then it leads us to failure , you want a gaurd dog then you dont opt for minature labradoodle to appease the allergic burglar.

    The only exception to the rule is when a third robot does the job at the same level or better , while cheaper , as is seen with offshoring for British companies , or usa with Apple , where importing robots is the final straw rather than exporting jobs on the profit line.

  6. Bob Mack says:

    Whoever is best at the job, regardless of any other consideration.

  7. Peter A Bell says:

    I don’t share Stu Campbell’s ardent opposition to ‘positive discrimination’. I am very much in favour of some sophisticated mechanisms by which to correct entrenched social imbalances. But I cannot disagree with this comment.

    “[A] subsection of the Yes movement appears to be hell-bent on doing everything it can to sabotage the chances of independence by hanging a lot of heavy and contentious weights around the neck of the simple and inherently attractive proposition that the people of a country should choose that country’s governments.”

    Being independent is our children’s responsibility. Becoming independent is ours.

  8. Ed t head says:

    I think indipendance is the major goal sorting out the fine points to be done after wards, it’s like going and buying a carpet before you have a house to put it in.

  9. Robert Louis says:

    Very well said. Get independence first, THEN the policies of various parties standing for election to the new independent Scot Parliament can be debated and voted upon.

    I am a bit left wing (quite a lot really), but even I realise that independence is not about left wing or right wing, or green, or neoliberalism, it is about a country running its own affairs. THEN, once we are independent, the people of Scotland can elect parties and representatives who field policies and views they agree with.

    Watch for those who seek to sow division.

  10. Smallaxe says:

    Independence means Independence, after which, we the people will decide in which direction Scotland travels, of course.

    Peace Always

  11. dalriadan39 says:

    Needs saying often and loudly.

  12. Christopher Whyte says:

    I know you’re pointing out a specific issue here (gender parity, which few support), but the wider issue really needs to be at the forefront of the next independence campaign.

    The promise of a radical-left Scotland post the independence vote is a dangerous, and frightening thing to promise. Few people sit on the extremes of the political divide, and the argument that Scotland needs a “radical” voice for its future just isn’t based on reality. As someone who, politically, sits somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky on the political spectrum, I accept that I’m a minority who can only really hope for a centre-left government that generally leaves me alone and tries to provide better support for those that need it.

    But the country, as a whole, isn’t into this. Most people across the world aren’t according to the evidence I’ve seen. Trying to woo the working or lower middle classes with a promise of increased local democracy, gender equality or council tax abolition doesn’t interest them. These people want a secure job that lets them take care of their family, doctors that’ll see them when they’re sick, and decent schools to put their kids into. They’re too fucking tired after an exhausting day at work to get involved in a town hall meeting, and don’t want to be held back in the jobs market because they don’t happen to be a woman. Linking independence into this commentary, as some weird form of promise, is fatal to the movement.

    It HAS to be about the democratic deficit of getting a government we didn’t vote for. This approach is policy-agnostic, and must stay that way. If people want radical policies, they can vote for them in Scotland and have a small chance of receiving something that they like; tied to England, we’ll get right-wing governance with a blue or red tie whether we voted for it or not.

    Individual policies are easy to attack and dismiss (particularly radical ones), in front of a scared audience worried about their next wage. The fundamental argument about our votes mattering is much harder to dismiss.

    The fight for gender parity can be fought later.

  13. Peter says:

    Absolutely agree. I am sick to death of multiple factions holding ‘policy meetings’ or even more laughably writing their own white papers. How about they get out on the streets and actually CAMPAIGN rather than talking psychobabble and pretending that they are in a position to dictate policy to the electorate ?
    Are you listening Robin McAlpine?

  14. Robert Louis says:

    And, already here we go, with people posting about bias quotas etc.. when the ACTUAL point of the article, is that independence should not be tied to any individual policy approach. Gender balance quotas etc.. are used as an EXAMPLE, of the point being made.

    Jeezo. Read the effing article folks.

  15. Gail Hughes says:

    Independence is not about making policy decisions in advance. It is about Scotland having the ability to make them ourselves in the future.

  16. Dal Riata says:

    Independence first. The methodization of it then follows in an independent Scotland.

    As Peter A. Bell says (above), “Being independent is our children’s responsibility. Becoming independent is ours.”

  17. Chitterinlicht says:


    Pick the right fight at the right time.

    You can’t dilute the independence objective with everybody’s ‘different’ sub wish list burning issue.

    Like trying to herd all the animals in a zoo.

    If we do that we will lose.

  18. FatCandy says:

    Totally. We need independence to address the democratic deficit. Everything else should be decided by the people or their elected representatives in elections after independence.

  19. galamcennalath says:

    The phrase which is often used is something like, “we need to start talking about what type of Scotland we want”.

    No, we definitely don’t want to do that right NOW.

    We need action, not talk. And we need to work hard towards being independent so we can THEN decide what type of Scotland we want.

    Any ‘policies’ decided pre Indy will inevitable appeal to some, but not not others. We need to build a broad church in the middle ground. Indy won’t happen otherwise.

    Personally, I am deeply suspicious when, as The Rev puts it, “a subsection of the Yes movement appears to be hell-bent on doing everything it can to sabotage the chances of independence”. Aye, in whose interests are they really working?

  20. Another Union Dividend says:

    Agreed as those opposed to Scotland’s self government (not Yoons) will try to make out that Scotland is bankrupt or its about the SNP’s record in government.

    Meanwhile the unionist propaganda continues in Scotsman 200 to-day with an English GP and described as a Uni Professor claims that in event of independence Scotland’s research funding would be compromised and GP’s ability to provide services would be threatened.

    Has he spoken to any of his colleagues in England recently?

  21. Capella says:

    The tendency of women to agree with prevailing attitudes is no surprise to me, having worked in organisations such as Women’s Aid and done a fair amount of study on this subject.

    Scottish people in general “go along” with the idea that the Big People in Westminster are better at making our decisions than we are. We are too wee, too poor and too stupid. Centuries of indoctrination has told us so.
    How to correct that perception?

    Role models certainly work. Seeing women in leadership roles removes the conviction that it can’t be done (like a dog walking on its hind legs, as used to be said sneeringly).

    However, I agree that adding a lot of baggage to the independence debate is wrong. We need independence IN ORDER to be able to vote for whichever group of representatives will deliver the fair and egalitarian society we all want.

  22. Smallaxe says:

    Robert Louis:

    I agree Independence is the only policy worth our time and effort,
    the other arguments don’t amount to a hill of beans before that time comes.

    Peace Always

  23. Smallaxe says:


    I would go so far as to say that this reason in part was the cause of our failure in 2014.

    Peace Always

  24. RogueCoder says:

    There’s a wider problem with the Yes movement here; most see it as a left-of-centre nirvana where we’ll gets lots of free stuff from the government, everyone will be equal, and we’ll be the most environmentally friendly country on the planet.

    Now that’s all good in my book – but unfortunately not everyone agrees. The 29% or so of Tories who might support independence to stay in the EU will likely baulk at the idea of a government enforcing environmental and business regulation and – heaven forbid! – actually asking them to pay their taxes.

    As for the Left…. they can’t stop squabbling among themselves about what specific flavour of Nirvana they want long enough to form a cohesive political movement.

    And that’s the problem. As Stu points out, it really shouldn’t be about policies, because they will change as governments come and go over time. What policies a possible Tory Scottish Government in 20 years time might implement will bear little resemblance to anything Nicola implements immediately post-indy. Likewise if Labour ever pull themselves together enough to actually form a government, it’s unlikely to look like anything seen to date.

    Independence isn’t a manifesto; it’s a condition. A condition that will change as government policy does over time. The only question we should be asking is “Who should make the decisions about Scotland?”.

    Unfortunately, like in 2014, the unionists – in a bid to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt – are going to ask for every minute detail of an independent Scotland’s government policy, while simultaneously sneering about “£15bn deficit!” (which we all know is bollocks).

    That’s the thing; the SNP, Greens and wider Yes movement need to STAY AWAY FROM THAT. Never let your opponent define or control the debate. If you do, you’ll be on the back foot, permanently defensive, and incapable of articulating the higher principles about why we want independence in the first place.

    We do need answers on the economy, the currency, and the EU. But they should be broad brush, and demands from unionists for pedantic detail dismissed as “matters for an independent Scotland’s future government”.

  25. Dal Riata says:

    The Sunday Herald can go and do one.

    Save your £1.80, or send it to the WOS fundraiser.

    Don’t be taken in by these con artists masquerading as Scottish independence supporters.

  26. Grouse Beater says:

    It’s axiomatic that the principle of self-governance overrides all other concerns. Here’s to IndyRef2!

    Some thoughts on calling Yes voters racists:

  27. Bob Mack says:

    @Peter a Bell.

    Succinctly put sir, and perfectly correct.

  28. K1 says:

    Yes very much concur with Rev’s point here that independence on it’s own merits: democratic deficit, having our own government decided by those living in Scotland has to be the main driving wheel behind campaigning in second Indy ref. Focus should be on the prospect of Tory governments imposed upon us for next 15/20 years, out of EU, out of EU internal market and how that will impact Scotland…

    Then policies presented by parties that we decide upon. Scotland is not going to become a left wing utopia and those pursuing single issue agendas do more harm to the independence movement than good. Always fascinating watching their agendas being promoted by the msm in Scotland leading up to last two elections and if the same tactic is used again in the lead up to council elections in May, kinda feel it’s almost ‘tactical’ and deliberately against our movement.

    That may seem critical and unfair but when you know that their policies have absolutely no widespread support and you know that they themselves can read the runes it does rather beg the question, wtf?

    The constitutional question has taken precedence over all other considerations in Scotland right now, rightly so, until we have our own government with all the levers at our disposal we are merely arguing over minutiae. Sick to the back teeth wi the ‘left’ arguing wi its other leftish self publicly at such an important junction in out journey toward independence.

    Country first, policies second until the goal is achieved.

  29. 1971Thistle says:

    I agree fully.

    As someone who works in policy communications, you see this all the time. There is no big picture thinking; people just look to see that their own particular soapbox issue is in there, with no concern to the overall impact. I think its known as ‘delay discounting’; the value in long game is never given sufficient weight.

    Ultimately, what’s left is an over-long, over-detailed wish list. Nothing memorable, no call to action, just individual egos satisfied.

  30. scotsbob says:

    We need to focus on the goal of self government for Scotland. I’m sure one of the unionist tactics is going to be one of distraction. We saw it last time with the independence from UK but tied to the EU line.

    Incidentally, I really hope we can raise the last £1800 so we can have raised more in a week than Slab did in a whole year.

  31. Glamaig says:

    totally agree its about democratic deficit. On this site there was an analysis of how many UK GE results had been decided by Scottish votes, and how many Commons votes had been decided by Scottish MPs.

    I think the result for the first was 1, 1974, the government which lasted for 6 months, the answer for the second was in single figures.

    am I right in saying that since 1974, not a single vote cast in Scotland in a GE has made a blind bit of difference? Everybody was totally wasting their time voting?

    Could anybody point me to these articles? I tried a search and couldnt find them.

  32. Robert Kerr says:

    O/T but related.

    Wednesday night’s drinking got heated. Joe was upset about the term “Yoon”. I responded that it was no worse than “Natz” and further that he always referred to the “Scottish Nationalist Party” when he full well knew that it was “Scottish National Party”. Scotland is a Nation, even a Kingdom.
    It got heated a bit more and the “White Paper’ was mentioned. I said I hadn’t read it. No need. Independence was my highest priority not “whataboutery”. I probably shouldn’t have mentioned the Slab conference and asked what use the labour party is.

  33. John Walsh says:

    The point a subsection of the YES movement will sacrifice independence to further their own agenda.
    The British Empire have already started ” Divide and Rule” and willing lackies willingly fuel the flames of division. this weekend Mundell spat an example of getting the soft yessers to turn on Stu over a mountain out of a molehill satirical joke.
    The challenge is countering the co-ordinated forces of media supporting unionism . and helping them by trying to advance whichever YES arm own agenda distracts from the main message.
    Debunk all Yoon reasons not to be an independent Scotland.
    We require a Scottish Free State act from WM Parliament before we are Indy .
    Westminster will never willingly allow the dissolution of the Act of Union.
    Once independent we can start squabbling over policy’s.

  34. Smallaxe says:

    T.May is right in one consistent statement, Brexit means Brexit. No, if buts or any detail, she is aiming for one goal only as should we.Independence is the goal, there will be no penalty shoot-outs and probably a biased referee.We need to field our best team.

    Peace Always

  35. Sandy says:

    Spot on, Stuart. Just like the Yes-to-No Brexiteers that want Scotland out the EU or demand another referendum on it as a condition of their Yes vote, these issues need to be left till after independence. Only then can we freely and sensibly make choices in these (and other) matters.

    Without independence we are forever constrained by Westminster’s agenda and priorities (which will almost certainly never embrace any of the measures we seek to create a better, fairer country). It puzzles me how so many seem to find that a hard concept to grasp.

  36. MajorBloodnok says:

    As far as I’m concerned if someone doesn’t seriously discuss whether we get free unicorns on day one I’m not even bothering to vote.

  37. liz says:

    Yup getting really fed up with folk stating what is their opinion and then daring people to disagree with them.

    The SH has been getting on my nerves for a while & yesterday was the last straw.
    I will not be lectured to by people who have just arrived on the scene telling me what is right and wrong.

    The Haggerty one ignored all reasonable comments pointing out the absurdity of equating Claire H with racism, enough is enough.

    I muted/blocked a few of those yesterday. Apparently we are acolytes now for supporting WoS.
    Radical feminists do my nut in as well.
    Criticising all of those who disagree with them.

    From now on I’m not arguing with any of them but automatic block.

    We have an indy ref to win, that’s all that’s important

  38. Mike says:

    You cant trust any of the printed media. The National is run from the Herald and the Sunday Herald is nothing but a Red Herring. It doesn’t support Scottish Indy its supports drawing subscriptions from pro Independence supporters.
    Folk need to understand the significance of the difference.
    The Sunday Herald is defined more by what its NOT reporting than by what it is.
    The Sunday Herald has NEVER challenged any story or claim made by the pro union media it simply writes bland pro Indy rhetoric every now and again to appease its subscribers.
    It no more supports the principle of Scottish Independence than the SUN in Scotland does.
    The answer is to stop subscribing to ALL printed media until the learn to balance their output.
    And that specifically includes the BBC.

  39. Smallaxe says:


    Where have you been? your presence would have been most helpful in the early hours of this morning, Next time, bring a note!

    Peace Always

  40. galamcennalath says:

    There many tactics which the Unionists will deploy against us.

    One certainly will be to push the idea that iScotland will be the most left wing country in Europe verging on communism.

    Let’s be honest, there are those on the radical left for whom that is the dream. And when those lefties push their vision, the media (acting in the interests of the Union) will give them disproportionate attention. Then anyone from the centre to the right who actually believes this, will oppose independence. Job done.

    The radical left love talking and planning and making noise. Then when rejected at the ballot, as they always are, they believe they have been defeated with honour having fought the good fight. We don’t need such shite in our all important quest for self determination. Defeat is too awful to consider. We must do what it takes within the bounds of the democratic process to win.

  41. Rab Dickson says:

    I am someone who will be in the minority.
    I am not perturbed by, nor intrinsically opposed to, some (well monitored) system of gender quotas. And that is a change of long time position for me.
    Where I do agree with the article is in the premise that there is a danger of the independence cause being hijacked by folk with very narrow personal agendas.
    I am tired of utter narcissists posing as journalists and activists pushing some glorious vision that will only ever exist in their heads and not in the closes of Govan, Pollok or the Raploch.
    I am tired of hectoring and lecturing about what I “need to do” by folk I’ve barely heard of and if (going by their witterings) I don’t really want to.
    The goal of independence is paramount…..after that is achieved, take your chances at the ballot box with any ideas for your new utopia that you think we need.
    Until such time, entertain yourself by taking pouty selfies or writing glorious manifestos that your pals all read and nod along to.

  42. Big Jock says:

    Must have been a slow news day if that old chestnut has come up again.

    Regards all the hysteria about the tweet….

    Murdo Fraser insulted the entire Irish nation comparing them to Nazis. He is an elected list MSP. The press fell silent. Stu makes a quip about an MP in a toxic party and he is some kind of animal. We know the agenda folks same as 2014.

    Advice sought from fellow wingers. When your work colleague turns up in a suit and Union Jack socks , also a Newco supporter. How do you react?…answers on a postcard please.

  43. Murray McCallum says:

    Regardless of the detailed issue (EU, NATO, gender equality, etc) it comes across badly when an independence supporter tells a voter what the detailed future of an independent Scotland is going to be like.

    It never ceases to amaze me how many Scots have the ability to over complicate any issue. This includes seeking to determine detailed future policies they currently have 0.00% control over.

  44. galamcennalath says:

    Sandy says:

    It puzzles me how so many seem to find that a hard concept to grasp.

    It’s probably because the Unionists don’t want to reduce the debate to it’s essence ie who is best to rule Scotland. They don’t want people to adopt the simple attitude, ‘let’s get Indy then we can decide how we do things’.

    It’s why they keep asking questions like, “but what currency will you use?”

    In some ways the white paper of IndyRef1 muddied the waters. Did we need a comprehensive plan? Probably not. All we need is to accept the vision that we should and can decide things for ourselves,

    The Yoons will go to great lengths to keep the waters muddy.

  45. Snode1965 says:

    I agree with Stu,and many of the comments above, that the democratic principles of independence should be paramount.
    One massive fly in that ointment…Better Together relentlessly battered the Yes camp on every minute detail of policy proposal last time, using any uncertainty as a weapon against independence.
    Going into the next referendum with only broad ideals and no detail, will be attacked and mocked by the Unionists.

  46. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    A very timely and apposite article, Stu. A salutory reminder to all the bandwagon jumpers and special-pleaders: without the “main door prize” of independence, the rest is just so much useless hot air.

    Once again “chapeau” to Peter A. Bell for another resonant quote:

    Being independent is our children’s responsibility. Becoming independent is ours.

    Yes, I think if we can do that, we can take our rightful place alongside our parents and grandparents, who came through hard times the like of which we’ve never seen, yet still managed to bequeath us a society worth cherishing, protecting and building upon.

  47. orri says:

    Gender or any other quotas is a step beyond ending discrimination into areas where any achievement is tinged with suspicion that those who benefit haven’t got there on their own merits. It undermines what it hopes to achieve.

    This is not as bad as the ridiculous idea of an elected equivalent of the Lords being imposed on Holyrood random selected from a candidate list based on various metrics.

  48. Proud Cybernat says:

    I agree that NewIndyRef should not in way be prescriptive about how a new indy Scotland would be. But neither should it dissuade us from at least imagining a better future with the freedom independence brings. Subtle difference.

  49. Bob Mack says:

    Unionists just love division. It is the weapon of choice.

    A classic example is “loki the Scottish rapper. Remember he supported independence then was suddenly given funds by unionist backers to write a book because he openly criticised the Rev. He was being used as a lever to sow division, but probably believed he kept his principles intact. Some hope. Bought and sold.
    The current crop of indy supporters offer them that choice of division in abundance.
    When each defends perceived insult or slight to their revered aspect of class culture or orientation they rush to headlong to defend their corner regardless of all other considerations.
    It is this weakness that is exploited ruthlessly.

    Indy first then choices after.

  50. Gregory Beekman says:

    A friend of mine voted NO in 2014 because of the White Paper. He didn’t want an independent Scotland that was “shaped forever” by SNP policies.

    My friend was after more referendums post the vote for independence. For example, let the people decide if we should retain nuclear weapons (not the SNP), let the people decide if we should retain the Queen as head of state (not the SNP) and so on.

    It’s a persuasive argument and one I agreed with.

    I think that massive White Paper tome was a mistake. For New Indyref, we need something shorter and more to the point – and not one that is basically an SNP manifesto in disguise.

  51. Smallaxe says:

    Big Jock says:

    Advice sought from fellow wingers. When your work colleague turns up in a suit and Union Jack socks, also a Newco supporter. How do you react?…answers on a postcard, please.

    Sorry, Big Jock but I do not have a postcard.However, as regards your question “how do you react”, do you mean before or after an ambulance is called to try and get you to stop laughing. 🙂

    Peace Always

  52. Marker Post says:

    The real point here is that, if we stay in UK, then we will have a Westminster government dictating the big policies. EU? Westminster says we have to leave, whether we like it or not (we don’t). Nuclear weapons? Westminster says we have to keep them (and pay for them), whether we want them or not (we don’t). The monarchy? House of Lords? Austerity? Disability benefits? High-speed rail? Nuclear power stations? The list goes on.

    Looks like Brexit will be the tipping point, and the BBC won’t be able to keep that particular disaster off our screens in the run-up to Indyref 2.

  53. LesRoches says:

    Another good article and debate today.

    The priority is that the good ship Independence should be launched.
    After that it’s course and how we choose to embellish it can be decided by the Scottish people after that.

    One other comment regarding the financial target to beat Labour Rev, does you calculation take unto account all monies pledged by people who are contributing over a twelve month period via Paypal and not just the smaller amount paid for the first installment?

    Best wishes to everyone taking part.

  54. Fireproofjim says:

    Absolutely agree.
    There are monarchists and republicans, capitalists and socialists, Catholics and protestants, EU supporters and EFTA supporters, Greens and Tories in Scotland, and all manner of immigrants.
    No manifesto of the Yes campaign can favour any of those varieties of opinion, and to try to do so would alienate many people.
    The holy grail is Independence, just like any normal country, a simple, all inclusive welcoming country, which will work out the details later.
    Any person who supports independence is my brother or sister, whatever else we may disagree on.

  55. yesindyref2 says:

    Another timely article and one I totally agree with. Independence is about the ability to not just make, but to implement policies that reflect Scotland as a whole, not the UK as a whole with its different attitudes. What those policies will be is up to the manifestos of parties after the YES vote is achieved. Including then ex-unionist parties.

    Annoying weekend, seeing the issue of the “racist” slur of Khan and Heuchan’s acceptance of that, bypassed in an attempt to turn it into a sexist issue purely based on the fact that Heuchan is a woman and has been abused.

    But what about us? Are we to be left abused as being considered “racist”, in the haste of these columnists in both the Herald and The National (and probably elsewhere) to turn the issue into one of furthering their own interest and agenda?

    It makes me angry, and somewhat nauseated.

  56. TD says:

    This is a trickier question than it might at first appear. Certainly the Yes2 campaign should seek to attract support from the widest possible range of opinion. So a right wing, misogynist racist homophobe (perhaps someone like Trump) who happens to support Scottish independence should feel comfortable voting “Yes”.

    One way to attract the widest possible support is to try to avoid causing offence to anyone. But this risks being seen as bland and uninspiring. When the campaign starts, how should we respond to the questions that will be asked by our opponents and potential supporters regarding the big political issues e.g. currency and being in or out of the EU and NATO? It is not credible to respond “We’ll figure that out once we are independent.” There needs to be a credible, policy based view of what independent Scotland will be like on day one.

    It would be nice to think that all the tricky issues can be left for the independent parliament to deal with. But the SNP (as opposed to the Yes2 campaign) as the party of government need to have day to day policies for running the country now and right through to independence. They do not have the luxury of opting out of policy positions and the SNP’s position will inevitably be conflated with the Yes2 campaign’s position. Like it or not, the SNP’s policies will be seen as representing the entire independence movement’s position. This can work either for independence or against independence – if the SNP are seen as competent (which broadly I think they are) then this will be supportive of the idea that seems so natural to most of us here that Scotland is of course able to run its own affairs. But there needs to be policy.

    As for gender quotas – I think that is one where we can safely kick the can down the road. It is highly contentious with strong views on both sides. It is not a battle we need to fight at the moment so the Yes2 campaign should stay away from it and my personal view is that the SNP, in government, should do the same.

  57. Andy Anderson says:

    I agree Stu, Independence is about sovereignty and self control of our affairs and not about specific issues regarding Trident, NHS, LGBT or anything else.
    To me we ‘just need’ to talk to soft no voters about this and correct their misconceptions generated by years of poor press regarding the EU and the ability of a Scottish nation to support itself economically. Having said this it takes time and just a wee bit of patience to get a no voter to get of their hobby horses and start to open their mind to discuss things rationally. If you can get them to accept one fact error correction with time they open up. Takes about a year to turn someone so start now!!

  58. Dr Jim says:

    Nobody ever won a fight with themselves, but Scotland has a long and proud history of doing just that and it’s why we lose

    The “Enemy” knows this and uses it to their advantage and Hey Presto Scotland fractures again

    If the people of Scotland don’t stand together instead of standing on their principles we all lose then the principled ones can start arguing all over again about who’s principles were the worst ones (If it hudnae been fur you)

    It seems our distant ancestors had a better grasp of who the enemy was and what to do about them than us present day so called intelligent people

    Win the big fight first then the small arguments you have later when they’ll actually mean something

    Having said all that there is an element appearing who are not what they say they are by pretending to be Yes or SNP and expressing fracturing views about voting intentions whether these are paid Trolls or whatever they are the best place to leave them is alone, they’re perpetrating a fraud on us all and it’s as likely a Unionist ploy as any

    The sort of crap Ruth Harrison gets up to with her mental claims of nobody wants a referendum which is aimed directly at the uninformed the bewildered and the downright stupid

    Scotland must not doubt itself!

  59. Ken500 says:

    The anti Independence movement is in disarray. Independence is coming soon. When Article 50 is triggered?

    Once more nursery provision is in place. More women will come forward. There is a high no of women in employment. Main carers have to care for young children. One to one us beneficial for younger children. Two years maternity provision? Put up child benefit so women can have more choice.

    The Herald/National appears to be one step forward, two steps back. The Green policies are unpopular. It could put people off Independence. Especially among older voters who are more likely to vote. Radical policies should be reigned in. Land reform and banning cars can be counter productive. Imply an attack on property rights, or on people who need their cars in rural areas.

    Mundell misrepresented himself to get elected for years. That was dishonest. Any complaints are with him.

    Trump’s adminstration and the Tories are mainly white middle-class males. That is visible. Non representational. Careers which involve rotating shifts tend to have less women. Childcare is easier to arrange for fixed or flexible hours.

  60. Bootsy81 says:

    I’ve always worried that the Yes movement was being too closely aligned with the further reaches of the left hand side of the political spectrum. I admire the activism and passion a lot of people on that end of things demonstrate and that kind of energy is vital to the movement, but there is always a danger of it alienating the quieter, middle of the road or reasonably conservative parts of society which, if we’re being honest, most people in the general public fall into.

    For instance I saw a debate online today about a Conservatives for independence group made up of Tories who support independence on the basis of it keeping us in the EU and the single market. I was pretty dismayed to see more “typical” yessers basically saying they could sod off, that they weren’t “proper” indy supporters because they were Conservatives. That kind of thinking baffles me if I’m honest. It’s the height of arrogance to think we can gain independence by casually dismissing support, wherever it comes from.

    Some people seem to think it will spoil the party if it’s not achieved as a purely socialist victory or something. I don’t get that way of thinking. To my mind an independent Scotland will most likely be rather similar to the one we live in currently. We’ll probably get rid of trident, eventually, spend a bit more on public services, probably pay a bit more in tax, maybe get a long overdue oil fund set up. But by and large things will most likely stay the same in most of our life times I reckon. We may even see some Scottish Conservative governments. Wouldn’t surprise me.

    I’m fairly liberal but I can see why people rail against plainly stupid left wing policies like gender quotas. I honestly don’t think Scotland will be ultra progressive for too long if it goes indy and I can see a lot of left wing yessers being ultimately disappointed with how an independent Scotland shapes up. It’ll probably be more progressive than rUK is likely to end up under the Tories, but I don’t think it’s going to be the socialist utopia many would like to see. Maybe I’m wrong but the key thing is to win independence first, and that will likely mean embracing even those you disagree with politically. So all you loonies lefties, go out and hug a Tory! 😉

  61. Craig P says:

    If we are doing quotas based on characteristics of the general population then 10% of our representatives will have to have shit for brains.

    We’ve made a start with James Kelly MSP but that leaves around another dozen idiots to be elected.

  62. Breeks says:

    KISS. Keep it Simple Scotland.

    Independence is the realisation of sovereignty.

    To quote a source I read recently, Yes Collective I think it was, “It’s not about the decisions made, it is all about who makes them”.

    Every issue discussed should at some point be couched in such terms. Every spokesperson lined up for an appearance on TV or Radio should have this at the front of their mind and at the top of the agenda. What bearing has this argument upon sovereignty? And what bearing does sovereignty have on this argument?

    Every question or scenario put to them must be screened through the “sovereignty filter” before answering. It’s not about the currency you choose, it’s who chooses it. It’s not about being in or out of Europe, it’s who decides we are in or out Europe. It’s not about immigration, it’s who decides our immigration policy.

    Choosing Independence means we choose everything.

    Of course, the matter and discussions have to go further; you cannot just shout Independence and pull up the shutters, however the next filter after relevance to sovereignty, should be objective practicality. It’s not whether we should do something or whether we shouldn’t, it’s whether we can. This will be the primary battleground. Unionists and the media are going to pump out all sorts of tosh and propaganda telling us we cannot do this, or we cannot do that. Whether we can or cannot is an objective argument. Whether we should or should not is a subjective argument. If we plant our feet on objective certainties, not subjective aspirations, we will forever have evidence to back up our arguments.

    Keep the chat Sovereign, keep your opinions objective, and leave the subjective opinions to the population. Do it professionally, do it with confidence, and we will wipe the floor with them.

  63. Black Joan says:

    If the various People’s Fronts of Judaea cannot see that we are all doomed to decades of Tory rule if we don’t campaign with one voice for independence, then they are doing the BritNats’ work for them.

    And if there is another NO vote good luck with trying ever again even to dream of socialist ideals — Holyrood will be rendered impotent and the notion of an independent Scotland will be a topic for ridicule among our Westminster-forever masters.

    The clear focus needs to be on Toxic Toryism: what it is, what it has done, what it will do without restraint from Europe, and why Scotland does not need to put up with it.

  64. jfngw says:

    @Gregory Beekman

    I agree that the new white paper should be slim on exact details but paint a broad picture of the options that will be available after independence.

    Disagree about continuous referendums as that seems a pretty expensive exercise if you want to decide lots of things this way. I just want to be able to vote for parties that are elected by the majority of people in Scotland, that is their mandate to govern. Presently there is little point in voting for WM MP’s as they are effectively ignored there.

  65. Capella says:

    Re quotas – I can remember when Glasgow University Medical School announced it would increase the quota of women allowed to train in medicine from 25% to 30%. That would have been in the early 60s.
    Of course the quota was once 0%. There was no talk then about “merit”.

    Rosalind Franklin, the woman who discovered the DNA double helix, was allowed to study at Cambridge but was not awarded a degree. Nor did she get a Nobel prize nor any official recognition for her discovery. That’s why most people have never heard of her.

    My mother was 7 when women were enfranchised in UK. Had it not been for the Suffragists and the Women’s Movement of the 60s and 70s, we would still not have the vote.

    This is a big and complex subject – like the absence of Scottish voices in the higher echelons of power and decision making. We tune in to hear debates in the Commons and Holyrood and it’s such a novelty to hear Scottish voices at all.

    But the underlying principle is the same. How do you change entrenched attitudes such as “no for the likes of us” or “we are too poor, too wee and too stupid”?

    I agree that being side-tracked by what the media are calling “identity politics” is silly. But don’t forget that many people regard Scottish Independence as another facet of identity politics. Entrenched Labourites such as Brian Wilson loathe the idea of a Scottish state. They can see why liberation movements anywhere else in the world are heroic. But not at home. Why?

    I believe the indoctrinated cringe is the reason. We have to persuade people that we are entitled to make our own decisions. All of us.

  66. ballevullin says:

    What is required is an indyref campaign that keeps a focus on the need to make our own decisions and avoid the privatisation of everything that continued London control would mean.

    Too much in the way of micropolitics in the independence campaign would not be beneficial.

  67. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

    I agree up to a point.

    The referendum will be won or lost on economic arguments. We have surely reached the effect of democratic outrage,save putting tanks into George Square again.

  68. Craig P says:

    Gregory Beekman @11.08

    I agree that any ‘independence manifesto’ must be short and to the point. I was hugely encouraged that William McIlvanney had been called in to add some lyricism to the White Paper but frankly on reading it I could see no evidence a wordsmith had a hand in it.

  69. yesindyref2 says:

    @Big Jock
    Compliment your work colleague on his snazzy socks. That won’t be the reaction he was looking to provoke.

    Independence would indeed have appeared to a lot of people as an attempt at a high tax Nordic economy, with enforced gender quotas, removing Trident, cutting defence spend, being nice to the whole world, over-taxing entrepreneurs and high achievers, making everyone equal, all that sort of stuff. Not everyone agrees, if even just 25% disagree with one policy so 75% agree, by the time you have 6 policies at 75% a time, you’re down to just 18% of the population agrees with all of them.

    This is about Independence, the whole Independence and nothing but Independence, so help me any God anyone might or might not have.

  70. Bruce L says:

    In terms of real world effects I can testify that this is absolutely having an effect on the thinking of “soft no/yes” folks.

    I have a friend who was a definite No last time, and who, whenever I’ve had the chance, I’ve slowly and painstakingly been trying to talk round to Yes. In the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum this task became a whole lot easier, and I was convinced she’d turned. But the last time I spoke to her the doubts had crept back in, and they were centred almost exclusively on how she wasn’t buying this idea of a “socialist politically correct utopia” where everything would suddenly be wonderful and all the shirkers and skivers of the world would somehow get a free ride.

    Sadly, drink had been taken. So, rather than query where she’d got the notion from, right or wrong I just adressed it head on, and told her that – bottom line – what happens after independence is totally up for grabs, none of what she described is what she’d be voting Yes for, and that she needed to break that association in her mind because it’s absolutely not what she’d be voting for in a second referendum.

    Afterwards, I wondered where the hell she’d got the idea from, because even though I’m as namby pampy lentil munching pinko liberal watermelon-in-sandals as they come (ok maybe not the sandals bit) I’d been extra careful not to let my own political leanings creep into the indy argument other than to highlight the gross injustices currently being perpetrated by the party Ruth Harrison likes to kiddy on she’s the leader of, so she sure as hell hadn’t got it from me.

    Then it dawned on me that this was a direct consequence of exactly what you’re describing here. We underestimate the broad, small-c conservative nature of the Scottish public at our peril.

  71. frogesque says:

    Without independence there is nothing we can decide for ourselves.

    Monarchy, quotas right/left: its all small print. Let’s just get out there and do the job.

  72. Capella says:

    Finally on quotas – as usual we can look to Norway for inspiration on how a small dynamic resourceful country can implement social democratic ideals.

    In 2003 Norway introduced a quota to ensure that 40% of Board members were women. It became effective in 2006. Here’s a handy summary of how that has worked out:

    “Anecdotal evidence shows that the new boards are more dynamic, more open and more innovative than the old ones. This is supported by research demonstrating that increased diversity and more women on boards has the potential to increase firm innovation and board effectiveness more broadly…

    Societal change is hard. If the change requires a significant change in culture over relatively short time, nudging and encouragement are not enough. “

  73. Red Squirrel says:

    Independence first, everything else second.

  74. yesindyref2 says:

    Q. What currency will we have?
    A. What currency do you want us to have, we can have any you want?

    Q. What welfare policies will Scotland have?
    A. What policies do YOU want Scotland to have?

    Q. What will Independent Scotland look like?
    A. What do YOU want it to look like?

    Without Independence you have no chance of getting the Scotland you want. With Independence you can vote for it and hope you get it.

  75. Proud Cybernat says:

    Keeping it simple…

    (Doffs cap to Mr Peter Bell)

  76. Flower of Scotland says:

    The SNP was set up originally to encompass all politics. It’s end goal being Independence.

    Stu is right, this is all about muddying the waters by the Unionists.

    Scottish Independence is the ultimate goal, then we can talk about the politics.

  77. orri says:

    Re indyref2. There’s a definite push by the Conservatives to delay it until 2019. By which time they think they’ll have managed to sell off the rights to our fisheries and anything else they fancy in order to secure a semi-decent divorce settlement with the EU. Who do they think they are kidding? Do they think that no-one in the rEU will be dubious about any deal involving territory and resources that Westminster might possibly lose control of before the ink even has time to dry?

    Given they’ve toned down the daring Sturgeon to pull the trigger and inferring it’s because she couldn’t win can we now assume the opposite.

  78. Robin Ross says:

    Another excellent article by the Rev.

    Bob Mack is on the right track with his earlier post. ‘Divide and rule’ has been the British State’s modus operandi from day one of the British Empire. It’s a given that the SNP was infiltrated decades ago by the Special Branch. Ditto for all these wee “lefty’ groups like RISE.

    Speaking of which, why, in Scotland do RISE, SSP or even the Greens for that matter exist? Why do they think that their vanity and vote splitting is more important than Scotland gaining independence? Why can’t they keep their powder dry until after independence? As has been alluded, these people do not endear themselves to the older and less radical voter. After independence, then fine, start campaigning for what ever it is you stand for and the best of luck to you. Until that day, it would be a good idea if you stopped playing at politics, because the vast majority of the Scottish public have zero interest in you.

    I truly loathe the UK’s unionist political parties. That they are despicable is self-evident. However, if the next independence referendum is lost, it won’t be only the Tories, SLab or even the Lib-Dems that I’ll blame.

  79. ronnie anderson says:

    As for those luminaries of the Left/ Right/Centre/Up/Doon/Sideway’s/BackTaefront parties, they will alway’s put the cart before the horse.

    Its Me Me Me with them, fuck the rest of us. We need to shout them down & call them out at every opportunity .

  80. Les Wilson says:

    I agree with Stu on this one, we need to be focused on the goal, the rest comes later.

    We need to have some sort of knowledgeable group put together with one aim. To debunk the Unionist headline propaganda attacks.
    We need them to be able to put out a mass communication to all truly Indy groups with a message to debunk the lies, along with how it should be done for best effect.

    We use all the Indy blogs and social media activists to attack
    the message across all ways we can. A mass debunk of their chosen lie of the day. We need to get organised.We need some sort of control rather than being headless chickens.

    We really need to get started but we need that knowledgeable group who can put this into a fine tuned operation.

  81. Mike says:

    Lets face it. It will be the media who determines the battleground that’s our disadvantage and there aint a whole hell of a lot we can do about it except put our ducks in a row and counter every lie every misreport every claim every story every article.
    To believe we can set the agenda is wishful thinking nothing more.
    The best we can do is what is already being done. Online alternate media sources discrediting the MSM. That’s the only way to water down the effects of what will be a continued daily dose of propaganda misinformation disinformation fearmongering and bare faced lies.

  82. heedtracker says:

    The other side of this needing to understand why voters voted as they did 2014. So that when, “the simple and inherently attractive proposition that the people of a country should choose that country’s governments” is met with, we have that now…at the very least people can see at least some of the potential of Scotland running Scotland.

    This is what Project Fear did, 2014. “Want change? vote NO, for faster, safer, nicer, happier…” and the rich still get richer beyond your wildest imaginings.

    Its why we almost never ever hear what life is like for our next door neighbours Norway and Sweden, Denmark etc. BBC blacks it all out and focuses entirely on the greatest country in the universe, and the US too. Its not by chance.

    Its the UKOK way. Just ask socialist worker Lord Darling of Mayfair:D

  83. Vegan god says:

    Here here. All that stuff is dangerous distraction from the primary objective.

  84. Dan Huil says:

    Glad I don’t buy the Sunday Herald anymore.

  85. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Everyone has to feel that they have a stake in independence, otherwise they won’t vote for it. Period.

    One of the slogans for indyref has to be “Your Scotland, your way”.

    Of course we need to have good worked-out basic policies like our own currency, but not get mired in fine detail like last time that only confuses and invites nit-picking.

    Most importantly, being prepared to admit that the first post-indy parliamentary session will involve the hard work of “getting the show properly on the road”, inclusively for everyone, and not the “kumbaya” of some kind of unbelievable and unsellable New Jerusalem.

  86. yesindyref2 says:

    But the price of a pint in Norway is £186, and that’s if they allow you to buy it!

  87. Garrion says:

    I was worried about this. It’s a great way to divide and conquer. Conflate the question of independence with a whole bunch of fringe ideas and you confuse the issue.

    I dont know who is worse, the idiots who punt their completely unwanted political agenda onto the yes movement, or those who clearly use the technique to deliberately hobble the movement.

  88. Glamaig says:

    eventually found the articles I was looking for

    which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government.


    The impact of removing Scottish MPs from the records of historic Commons divisions is also estimated. Of approximately 3,600 divisions to occur between 26th June 2001 and 26 September 2014, 22 (0.6%) would have concluded differently had the votes of Scottish MPs not been counted.

    Scotland has effectively no influence whatsoever in the Union.

  89. The gaining of independence is the essential pre-condition for everything else. The various special interest groups can all jabber around about what policies should be adopted by an independent Scotland, but if independence isn’t achieved first, then they’re all (to use Devo – that’s the band, not the policy) ‘s phrase, ‘all dancing the poot’. It ain’t gonna happen at all; worse still, there’s no remote possibility of it ever happening, especially with the clear indication from Two-Tone Tessie that Westminster/Whitehall will start to grab powers back from Holyrood.

    The broadest possible coalition must be formed with independence as its sole goal. And in the face of Yoon media/political hacks yabbing on about, “What will an independent Scotland’s policy be on x, y, z”, then the best response would be on the lines of, “That will be for the sovereign people of Scotland to decide when they elect their parliament” (note the emphasis – that bit should be hammered home).

    It might be instructive to remember why Plaid Cymru (I originally types ‘Palid’ there; paging Dr. Freud…) has failed so wretchedly to achieve any breakthrough remotely equivalent to that of the SNP. In the mid-80s, it was taken over by a clique of Marxist pseuds around Dafydd Elis Thomas who pushed the party far to the left and, by so doing, alienated those who weren’t on the left but who were in favour of independence. This (and the later cosying up to the Greens who – in contrast to Scotland – are part of an Englandnwales set up rather than an autonomous body, and are consequently made up largely of arrogant and patronising Good Life fantasists), has meant a consistent fear-induced inability even to utter the word ‘independence’ in public.

    If this was intended to try to gain electoral support from the traditional Labour areas, it has been a bust, leading instead to Plaid doing little more than shoring up minority Labour administrations. Scarcely any wonder then that – in the elections for our pretendy parliament (which we’re not permitted to call a ‘parliament’, in case it gives us ideas), people disillusioned with Labour’s misrule over decades switched in their thousands to the KIPpers instead, and also voted to yank us out of the EU (always a more beneficial relationship than the one with the Imperial Parliament in London) and leave us utterly without ammunition with which to defend ourselves.

    Sorry, rambled on a bit there. But the warnings from our experience may be useful to you.

  90. heedtracker says:

    I dont know who is worse, the idiots who punt their completely unwanted political agenda onto the yes movement, or those who clearly use the technique to deliberately hobble the movement.”

    Who’s that Garrion?

    All tory media, papers and tv gave RISE massive coverage last Scots GE and then we never heard of them again.

    All tory media, papers and tv gave Green massive coverage last Scots GE and then we never heard of them again.

    Its only right and fair that these people do what they think is best for their cause. Even likes of C4 news and the Daily Mail gave RISE massive coverage last Scots GE and that’s pretty nice of them considering.

  91. Roland Smith says:

    Spot on article. The Leave campaign for Brexit had a short snappy phrase they used all the time.
    “Take Back Control”. Yes2 should adopt it and not get into esoteric arguments.
    Stick to the biggies such as a defensible currency option.

  92. cearc says:

    Bruce L,

    For people worried by the loud voices of the various left groups, it might be reassuring to point out how well they did (grouped together as RISE) at the last Holyrood elections.

  93. Capella says:

    @ Indyref2 – But the Norwegians are all millionaires! They can afford a pint of beer.

    @ Garrion – equality is not a “fringe idea”. The French motto is Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. What’s ours?

    There’s been a huge drop in support for independence from women in the 30 – 50 age group. Does anyone know why? I hope they don’t see supporters as a bunch of tweed jacketed, tartan tied, malt swilling old fogeys! The SNP is a progressive egalitarian party. We already have a 50/50 cabinet. Let’s not dismiss those advances as “identity politics”.

    The very old fogeys were all at the Tory Conference. The younger old fogeys were at the Labour conference. Let’s keep on developing a vision of Scotland which everyone can subscribe to. Fairness and equality has to be central to that.

  94. Stan says:

    Interesting piece thanks for writing. But surely independence has to be for something? It shouldn’t just be nationalism for the sake of nationalism. BTW if anyone fancies a laugh I recommend this funny piece (though probably written by a unionist) on Sturgeon

  95. One_Scot says:

    The bottom line is, Scotland needs to become a modern forward looking forward thinking country, not an insignificant county, being forced to remain part of a country trying to relive the British Empire glory days.

    And if that means we all have to give a little and pull in the same direct to achieve this, then so be it. We made mistakes the first time, we need to learn from them or we will all lose out.

  96. Vestas says:

    Scots Goes Pop – James Kelly has an article up about STV/council election voting.

    I strongly recommend you read it – he’s banging the same drum I was last week about keeping your vote in play for as long as possible.

  97. galamcennalath says:

    Robert J. Sutherland says:

    One of the slogans for indyref has to be “Your Scotland, your way”.

    My initial reaction was, shouldn’t it be “Our Scotland, Our Way”. As in, we, the Scots, altogether.

    However, I reckon you are right because “we”/”our” isn’t quite appropriate when we aren’t yet united to the common cause of nation building. Too many feel outside that cause at the moment. (Some will always be outside).

    Your suggestion of projecting out to the soft NOs and saying “it’s your Scotland too, and you get to play your part” is good psychology.

    I am certain iScotland will be thriving multi party democracy with a spectrum of left-centre-right parties. Personally I think it would be appropriate to have special interest parties, like a farmers party (big in Norway, I understand). However, the point is with Indy everyone gets to decide on that, including the ultra lefties AND hardcore BritNats who remain after Indy!

    I saw something about Finland somewhere. A serious right wing party had won some seats. The question was asked, why are other parties having discussions with them regarding forming an inclusive government. The answer was that democracy dictates that everyone should get their chance to contribute, compromise, and cooperate rather than just being blocked out. A fine way to view politics.

  98. Clootie says:

    I have opinions and hopes regarding the shape of a future Independent Scotland.

    However the greatest priority is the RIGHT to make those choices. I am fed up with groups pushing their “requirements”/ “expectations” of Holyrood post a YES vote. The politics of Scotland will be shaped by those who live here…that is good enough for me.

    Do I think it will create a better, fairer society than present…YES! With absolute confidence.

    The unionist media will drive a wedge into any perceived division in the campaign for nationhood. It is therefore critical to leave the secondary debate on fine details until after we have the POWER to actually make changes.

  99. K.A.Mylchreest says:

    I completely agree with the Rev here, indeed it’s simple common sense.

    We may all hope that our pet policies, whatever they may be, stand a better chance in an Indy Scotland than in the present UK, but that’s not really the issue at this point. No one will ever be fully satisfied on every point, and the more things that are ‘promised’ and tied into the Indy bundle, the more people you alienate. The Left are big on ‘solidarity’ but tacking on ‘special issues’ will not achieve that end, quite the reverse in fact.

    We are all in this together, and to win we have to stick together which means taking a “live and let live” attitude and sometimes putting up with unlikely bedfellows 😉

  100. takhisis1 says:

    Putting in my two cents, independence isn’t about saying our currency will be x, or whether we will be a monarchy/republic.
    Independence is getting the right to choose, unfettered from Westminster whereby our voice is stifled due to the democratic deficit.
    Everything else is mere window dressing for now and the sooner everyone realizes it, the better.

  101. Bob Mack says:

    I voted Labour all my life. I have put aside a number of principles (like Grouch Marx),
    in order to support independence and as a consequence the SNP. Post indy I may well vote for another party altogether.

    I am sure I am not alone in having changed. What is always uppermost in my mind these days is that the Conservatives are going to be ruling the Westminster roost for many years, and Scotland cannot afford to let them have free sway over our country.
    Everything we hold dear will be culled, diluted and destroyed.

    There is now a stark choice, and if anyone puts narrow politics or agendas before that choice they are fools.

    WE quite literally may be fighting for the survival of our nation as we know it. Nothing less.

  102. Proud Cybernat says:

    People’s Popular Front of Caledonia…

  103. yerkitbreeks says:

    This piece is spot on, especially when we consider who we have to persuade – namely 15% of previous NOs.

    Otherwise it’s simply barracking the spoken-for 45%.

  104. yesindyref2 says:

    Seen references to a new BMG poll and from the Express of all places I found this quote from the guy that commissoined the poll:

    The findings confirmed my campaign experience – 51 per cent of Scottish voters want to know the terms of the deal for the UK leaving the EU before having to decide about a second independence referendum

    But there’s a quarter – say 25% who want one anyway. So up to 76% of those polled may actually be in favour of Indy Ref 2 in the event – a totally opposite picture to that painted in the lying MSM.

  105. Bob Mack says:

    @Proud Cybernat.

    Not a kilt in sight. Shame on you. lol

  106. heedtracker says:

    @ Garrion – equality is not a “fringe idea”. The French motto is Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. What’s ours?

    Your Scotland! My Scotland! A’body’s Scotland!

    Probably copyrighted by mentalist tory billionaire and ferocious tory NO, DC Thomson.

  107. Stan says:

    “But surely independence has to be for something?”

    It is: it’s for the right of the people of Scotland – and them alone – to determine the policies followed by their country’s government and the general path their country should take. Once that principle is enacted, then all else flows from that.

  108. Ann says:

    Qualifications and experience to do the job should always be the main criteria.

    If a male and a female have the same qualifications / expertise etc., then yes, but not just for the sake of political correctness.

    West Fife Villages SNP have three candidates, 1 female, 2 males.

    Councillor Stewart is the sitting councillor. We have to choose between two males for the second spot. So 50/50 split for SNP for the ward.

    Must admit the two guys are top notch and a pity we members have to select just one of them.

    However all has to be put on the back burner to concentrate on the one goal Independence.

  109. Thepnr says:

    @Nigel Stapley

    Well said, have never noticed Stan posting before but doesn’t surprise me that he put up a link to some shitty article titled

    “nicola sturgeon thinks up seven ways of saying you english bastard”

    Not very subtle really.

  110. Dr Jim says:

    This idea of economic arguments is totally stupid and it opens up the “expert” discussion that leads nowhere

    Independence is not about “the economic argument” it’s about putting Scotland in the position of having that argument because at the moment we don’t get to decide
    Every other country on the globe decides it’s own fate, Scotland decides nothing except to shut up when we’re told to
    by people we didn’t vote for who run our country into the ground and take what they want when they want

    But all for our own good they condescendingly chunter as they take from us what they allowed the banks and billionaires to get away with while still awarding themselves massive pay rises and bonuses

  111. Vestas says:

    @yesindyref2 1:12 pm :

    Seen references to a new BMG poll”

    Commissioned by a pro-Brexit funder, datasets aren’t out yet so we don’t actually know what was asked…

  112. handandShrimp says:

    I liked Alasdair Gray’s

    “Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation”

    It would be folly to try and shoehorn every aspiration and dream into an independence prospectus.

    We gain independence and then we work to make a better nation. I would like to think we could achieve that without artificial quotas and PC hops to jump through but it will take work and careful thought.

  113. galamcennalath says:

    Stan says:

    But surely independence has to be for something? It shouldn’t just be nationalism for the sake of nationalism.

    For most Yessers it’s got nothing to do with nationalism, it’s all about democracy.

    Before I die, I want to live in a democracy.

    I want to bequeath to the coming generations a democracy.

    I don’t want to live in a state where sovereignty lies anywhere else than with the people, where governments can achieve absolute power with under 40% votes, where parties getting 10% plus have no representation, where some MPs aren’t elected, where seats are reserved for bishops, where the crimes of establishment figures are hidden, or where entitlement and exceptionalism rule the roost.

  114. Sharny Dubs says:

    Right Reg, it’s the right of every man (or woman, Loretta) to have the right to bare children, even if, through no fault of their own, they are physically incapable of giving birth…
    What have the Romans ever done for us!!??/ Eh?
    Indy2 rock on, don’t loose focus.

  115. Robert says:

    There’s no point in an independent Scotland if it’s not a better Scotland. There needs to be a vision of at least the options for betterness.

    There also needs to be some assurance that the country will run. So there needs to be a believable plan for currency and the like.

    Blind faith won’t hack it.

  116. Ken500 says:

    It’s not 15% of the No’s. It’s 5%.

    It is up to 49% already.

    Another 2%. More than do able.

  117. Thepnr says:

    Who cares how someone describes their particular brand of politics but if they try to push their brand to the detriment of winning additional votes in the next referendum then they are clowns.

  118. K1 says:

    There are certain links that one knows not to click on…Stan’s was obvious: ‘It shouldn’t just be nationalism for the sake of nationalism.’ The dead giveaway. 😉

  119. K1 says:

    ‘There also needs to be some assurance that the country will run.’

    Pray tell Robert when we become independent why our country would suddenly ‘stop running’? It’s not Armageddon we seek its self determination.

  120. Breeks says:

    Sandy says:
    6 March, 2017 at 10:35 am
    …..It puzzles me how so many seem to find that a hard concept to grasp.

    It’s the very definition sophistry Sandy. The media was playing a continuous loop of unanswerable questions, demanding answers they couldn’t get, then braying like donkeys about the lack of certainty.

    YES would spend weeks establishing that Alex Salmond wasn’t a liar, or wasn’t hated by women, only for the media to put up a billboard with Alex Salmond picking somebodies pocket.

    Better Together carped on for months about Barusso saying iScotland wouldn’t be in Europe, and YES couldn’t get any purchase on the argument because any actual comment from Europe required Westminster to ask for comment, which of course they never would. EU comment was thus informal, allowing the U.K. Media to pounce on any and every EU commentary which expressed doubtful personal opinions. Thus Scotland was informed it would be kicked out of Europe, and had nothing substantive to argue otherwise, despite knowing it was bullshit.

    Same with GERS. Scotland will be skint, because GERS says so. GERS, if it has any integrity at all, reflects Scotland under UK government. Both YES and the SNP can only speculate about how Scotland’s independent economy would perform, because until you are independent, speculating is all you can do, but this allows the media to argue GERS figures are fact and SNP figures are fantasy. It’s textbook sophistry again.

    Currency and defence were other battlegrounds where sophistry was used to mask reality. The UK sees its (deluded) military roll as a global policeman, and militarises itself accordingly. It is thus easy to pour scorn on an iScotland defence force which addresses a whole set of entirely different criteria. They build aircraft carriers and nuclear subs because they are mighty, we build inshore patrol vessels because we’d be puny. It’s horseshit. We’d be defending Scotland, not threatening Iran half a world away.

    All the time, the media had the benefit of a known UK position where Indy arguments had to be speculative. It didn’t matter that the UK argument was built upon a failing economy, over stretched defence, collapsing Oil prices, the media made capital from the objective nature of “what is”, and continually wrong footed YES who could only answer with feeble speculation of “what could be”. Scotland wrecked by falling oil prices? Scotland hasn’t seen a bean of its oil revenues because Westminster takes the lot. Suppose oil fell to $1 a barrel, it’s a $1 a barrel more than Scotland currently gets.

    All of this sophistry and manipulation of the agenda was only possible because Unionism was in full command of the whole Independence narrative, by virtue of the virtual monopoly it had, and still has, in the mainstream media.

    We can bolster our hopes based on Brexit stupidity, UK Xenophobia, Tory austerity, graceless Immigration policy, The EU referendum result, and a whole different European scenario, the “special arrangement” the U.K. wants with crazy man Trump, and off course the plethora of proven lies and mendacity from the Vow to the Sewel Convention, but when push comes to shove, and it will, it remains the BBC and UK media who will command the narrative we see in our newspapers and TV.

    The big question is whether enough of us now see the BBC for what it is, and whether it’s power to keep us spellbound has been broken. For some of us it has, but the big question remains whether enough of us are waking up to smell the coffee.

  121. Bob Mack says:

    I think Stan should understand the choice is Nationalism or almost certain obliteration of Scotland as a country with the capability of making any choices by its people.

  122. Tony Little says:

    Fully agree Rev. the other thing which irritates me is the propensity that certain people on the YES side (we know who they are) appear to be more than happy to jump and self-critise (usually unnecessarily) at any and every Unionist “claim” against us.

    I apologise for shouting but, STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME!

    Last time we allowed ourselves (and I include politicians here) to react with Pavlovian splendour to every snide criticism and remark. Whether this was to do with economics (what will the interest rate be in 2025?) or social policy (What will you pay pensioners?) or just idiotic (Why don’t you stop cybernats?)

    The unionists WANT the debate to be conducted on policy minutiae and not on principles. This second chance will be the last one for a long while, and as we have seen, this Government is hell bent on neutering, or even dissolving, Holyrood altogether.

    We must be smart. After Independence those who want a Socialist nirvana can campaign and try to win votes; those who want a neoliberal market economy can do likewise; those who want smaller or larger government are free to canvas for support. But if we self-destruct this time, it really will be over, and perhaps not just for one generation.

  123. yesindyref2 says:

    Aye, that’s what makes his comment even better potentially for us. 24% uncertain, 25% a referendum within that timetable, and 51% opposed to holding another vote on breaking up the UK before the terms of the Brexit negotiations are agreed.

    But once agreed, there should be 6 months before Brexit itself by the time it’s ratified by Westminster and the EU-27. Plenty time to hold Indy Ref 2 as I shall continue to call it!

    In fact, taking 24% as just uncertain, it’s potentially MORE than 76% potentially in favour of Indy Ref 2.

  124. artyhetty says:

    Re;Dr Jim@11.32am

    Some great comments here, and Dr.Jim has it nailed, Imo.

    It will be an uphill, huge battle to keep the divide and rule tactics of the big, powerful, desperate britnats at bay. They control the media, they have backing from god knows who and where, including financial. We are certainly up against it with that lot.

    How the pro independence politicians frame their argument will be crucial. I think this time they have the measure of things and has been pointed out, never let your enemy dictate the content of the debate. Though last time the yoons were not so much having a debate, they were having a scaremongering fest.

    The bigger picture is now at least a huge part of the narrative, due to Brexit, EVEL, the Scotland act, and the emphasis needs to be on the (2014) massive lies told last time, by the UKgovernment and their underlings, ie the branch of Labour party in Scotland, masquerading as an autonomous political party.

    Scotland, keep your cool, stay on track, focus, ignore the scaremongers, the lies and threats, and go for your goal. To make your own decisions, and not be bullied by your neighbour any longer.
    310 years, it’s a very long time to be told to put up and shut up!

    This is NOT about a lefty utopia, as the yoons like to pretend, it is though, about ditching the politics of hate, austerity, and privatisation with bells on. Scotland voted against those destructive so called (UKGovernment) policies. The Scotgov are doing their day job, and even with devolution light, doing it well, with independence it could be much better. Labour, Tory,libdem, the Greens, you will get a chance, if you aim to take Scotland into the 21st century, as the SNP are doing. A life affirming, positive, forward looking country, that is what the people in Scotland want.

    Simple really.

  125. Bob Mack says:

    Angela Haggerty has just discovered that when you play with poisonous creatures you sometimes get stung.
    Check Stu twitter feed.

  126. heedtracker says:

    Why don’t we just crowd a big red bus, paint “vote YES and you’ll get £350 million a week to spend on anything you like!” in giant letters along the side of it?

    It worked in England land. Wales swallowed it too. Ah Wales.

  127. Dr Jim says:

    Here we go again

    Independence means Independence and we’re going to make a success of it, by taking back control of everything and doing it ourselves and making our own decisions in the same way every other normal country on the planet does

    I do not for the life of me understand why some people have a problem with that it’s an easy question, do you want to decide what to spend your own wages on or keep giving them to the family next door for them to decide

    It’s time Scotland went on it’s own can
    Remember that phrase, it’s the wan yer Maw telt ye efter she got fed up wae yer moanin aboot how much dosh she kept aff ye an yer Da said Bugger aff and it did you a favour

    Except the UK of England still wants to keep our dosh and are prepared to turn a deaf ear if we complain because the dosh is more important to them than our developement as a Nation unlike yer Ma and Da who cared enough about you to let you go and live your life because it wasn’t the money that was important to them

  128. yesindyref2 says:

    @Bob Mack




  129. Robert Louis says:

    Tony Little at 202pm,

    I agree. Their is a need this time around at the very outset to stop reacting to the latest media frenzy of made up accusations. We know the form, somebody (nameless, who could even be a plant or from the English British army psy-ops battalion) on the internet says something bad about a unionist (usually female), and before you can say ‘faux outrage’, every paper and the blatantly biased BBC are demanding an apology from Sturgeon/Salmond. They shouldn’t apologise in such situations, they should merely say, ‘their are some not very nice people on the internet which is in itself a very bad thing, but it is NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH US.

    As others have pointed out it is about framing the argument. On each and every occasion, the YES side needs to be raising the questions, and pushing the argument. Not the other way around.

    I recall hearing one radio interview with the YES campaign leader, Blair Jenkins, and Blair McDougall (of project fear). All the way through the interview, I just wanted to scream at the YES bloke. Blair M of project fear used the airtime to hammer home his key scary message, while the YES guy was talking technicalities, which even I had no interest in. Guess which people remember? The simple repeated message or the nice YES man talking and talking about very technical aspects of the development of an economy.

    Serious, serious media training required, and ONLY those who are competent to do so, should take part in discussions, debates and interviews. Too many from the SNP, who are lovely people, but useless in debates seem overly keen to participate in them. It has to stop. ONLY those who can handle interviews and debates well, should take part.

  130. DerekM says:

    Its the left Rev regardless of what anybody tries to tell them they will still think they are correct and continue to try to kick lumps out the system from the outside by creating single issue goals.

    The worst part is you just know they will get put up front as representation of the yes movement by the yoon media in the hope it will stop any center to right vote swing to indy from the no vote.

    It might not be a big swing percentage maybe only 5% but 5% is all we need.

    Plus the fundraiser for some reason always upsets them i think they think we should be nicer,well i thought about it and nah lol

  131. Chick McGregor says:

    This from an Independence First leaflet 11 years ago:

  132. CameronB Brodie says:

    Totally agree, self-determination before policy. One requires principle in order to perform the act of politics.

    Re. the disagreement over accusations of racism.

    We can examine issues of race and ethnicity through three major sociological perspectives: functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. As you read through these theories, ask yourself which one makes the most sense and why. Do we need more than one theory to explain racism, prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination?

    Culture, Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination

    Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination: Theoretical
    and Empirical Overview

  133. Robert Louis says:

    O/T, but important.

    I noticed over on REVs twitter, that Lindsay Bruce had highlighted the Vienna convention. It is EXTREMELY interesting to note that in their recent report, the house of unelected and undemocratic ‘Lords’ in London, suggested that the UK could leave the EU without paying any debts to the EU. The key point was however, that the ‘lords’ justified this behaviour with reference to The Vienna convention.

    This is quite significant, since it means when Scotland becomes independent, London cannot say ‘we do not recognise the Vienna Convention’.

  134. yesindyref2 says:

    @@Bob Mack
    I do feel sorry for her though, just taken in – happens to all of us some times.

  135. Scott says:

    Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management agree £11bn merger

    Just a thought at the last SR one backed us and the other said they would move south so what happens when we have the next Referendum

  136. Croompenstein says:

    @Bob Mack

    Angela Haggerty has just discovered that when you play with poisonous creatures you sometimes get stung.
    Check Stu twitter feed

    Fuck.Yes (clappy hand things) 😀

  137. Bob Mack says:


    Funny thing is that now she has served her purpose the unionists have discarded her to her emotional turmoil. The people trying to pick her up off the floor are indy supporters.

    Hope she learns from this that there is only one side she can actually rely on.

  138. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Robert Louis @ 14:41,

    The UK must recognise the Vienna Convention, since is is a signatory of it.

    Still, you have a point about the sheer effrontery of BritNattery, because just imagine what their reaction will be when we walk out of the UK refusing to take any of the debts they will try to foist upon us. We’ll just quote back at them their own “Lords and betters” judgement!

  139. Vestas says:

    @yesindyref2 2:02 pm :

    “But once agreed, there should be 6 months before Brexit itself by the time it’s ratified by Westminster and the EU-27. Plenty time to hold Indy Ref 2 as I shall continue to call it!”

    Its going to go a LOT faster than that.

    IMHO the timetable will be about half of the two years allowable, so in essence we’ll be out of the (political) EU by summer 2018. There will be some transitional stuff in the real world which will take longer.

    England isn’t going to get zip. Their only bargaining chip is the financial chaos which immediate exclusion of London from European financing will cause. You should at this point note that the EU are already trying to negate this “chip” by (for example) indicating no merger of the LSE or Deutsch Bourse will be approved. This is a complete turnaround from last year.

    So from March-October 2017 is going to be negotiations (ie fuck off you’re getting nothing, how many times do you need to be told no?) and then it’ll be ratified in summer 2018.

    Expected result will be UK being the only major economy in the world to trade with the EU on WTO terms.

    Doors are closing very fast indeed. Don’t assume we have the time we had last indyref. We don’t. If Nicola pulls the trigger immediately after May submits A50 then its a year at most until an indy vote.

  140. yesindyref2 says:

    Yes, that’s fair enough – “No deal is better than a bad deal” as May says.

    The ScotGov and SNP – and us – do indeed need to be ready and waiting for a snap end to Brexit negotiations, and the need for a snap referendum.

  141. Still Positive says:

    Vestas @ 2.58

    I agree, we can’t assume we have a choice of timing. UK could be out of the EU long before the 2 years.

    I first supported independence in 1967 on the basis. ‘Scotland is a country, therefore it should be independent like every other ‘normal’ country. Nothing has changed since then.

    One of my sons came to the idea when he was c15, doing Modern Studies and first realised the ‘democratic deficit’. Nothing has changed for him either.

  142. heedtracker says:

    Another day at the coal face for future Lady Sarah of Pacific Quay.

    Scottish independence: SNP’s economic case ‘should not include oil’
    59 minutes ago
    From the section Scotland politics Related Topics

    Analysis by Sarah Smith, Scotland editor
    The SNP are already preparing for the possibility of another referendum.

  143. clipper says:

    It’s obvious that come indyref2 as well as the more blunt anti-Scottish propaganda from likes of bbc, stv, Mail Express etc there will also be a more insidious – if that’s the right word – effort to use the likes of Rise, Sunday Herald etc to promote lunatic far left proposals supposedly endorsed by indy supporters and designed to scare off the centrist majority from the idea of independence and split or decrease the vote.

    I don’t have much time for the National but am still of the opinion that, for the time being, we’re better off with it than without it. If by the time the council elections are looming they start the same thing as they did before and start over promoting Rise or whatever then I’ll give up on it entirely.

  144. heedtracker says:

    Future Lady Sarah is quite reflective today,

    “To lose two referendums in quick succession could set back the cause of Scottish independence for at least a generation.
    And there could be a high personal cost. Both Alex Salmond and David Cameron resigned immediately after losing referendums. There would be an expectation that Nicola Sturgeon would have to do the same.

    But still, every time the first minster mentions the possibility of another vote she makes it seem increasingly likely.”


    “In her address to the Scottish Conservative conference on Friday, Prime Minister Theresa May said the SNP was “interested only in stoking-up endless constitutional grievance and furthering their obsession with independence, at the expense of Scottish public services…

    Mrs May has repeatedly refused to be drawn on whether the UK government would grant permission for a second referendum on independence to be held.”

    Usual tory beeb hope against hope stuff but does anyone know the actual factual non BBC attack propaganda reason Mayhem wont be drawn on whether she will or wont give her permission?

    Please god don’t let it be based on Scottish people’s sovereignty, Rock’s not clocked on yet.

  145. robertknight says:

    Glamaig says @12:34…


    A positive view of Scotland in the UK

  146. Takeour blueback says:

    Robert Louis @ 10:01

    Perfect! No other words needed!

    “…even I realise that independence is not about left wing or right wing, or green, or neoliberalism, it is about a country running its own affairs. THEN, once we are independent, the people of Scotland can elect parties and representatives who field policies and views they agree with.”

  147. Proud Cybernat says:

    “Analysis by Sarah Smith, Scotland editor
    The SNP are already preparing for the possibility of another referendum.”

    And as we are all too used to seeing, article is ‘Closed for Comments’.

    BBC nothing but colonial propagandists.

    BBC MisReporting Scotland

    “It’s True! Ah Heard it Oan the BBC.”

  148. galamcennalath says:

    The EU and the UK will be entering negotiations very soon.

    Something which always intrigues, puzzles even, is how people perceive the UK, and therefore how do they treat the UK?

    Liam Fox infamously stated, “The United Kingdom, is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not need to bury its 20th century history” … which, given UK imperial history is quite astonishing!

    The question is, does he actually believe that, or is he just going along with the huge con to try to persuade the less informed masses that it is true. The reality is, of course, the UK is up there among the bad guys with Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Imperialist Japan.

    Though, how many ordinary people see that? The winners write the history. In the UK’s case, it was more about covering up its history.

    In the coming talks, how do the EU27 see the UK? A UK which is talking about Empire 2.0 when 1.0 was a particularly nasty affair! Cyprus and Ireland have first hand experience of the ‘evil empire’.

    It wouldn’t surprise me, as I have opined before, that the EU will relish watching the final breakup of the UK and probably not as uninvolved bystanders!

    For anyone who doesn’t have a clear picture of what the UK empire really was ….

  149. CameronB Brodie says:

    Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World

    10.3 Prejudice

    Explaining Prejudice

    Where do racial and ethnic prejudices come from? Why are some people more prejudiced than others? Scholars have tried to answer these questions at least since the 1940s, when the horrors of Nazism were still fresh in people’s minds. Theories of prejudice fall into two camps, social-psychological and sociological. We will look at social-psychological explanations first and then turn to sociological explanations. We will also discuss distorted mass media treatment of various racial and ethnic groups.

    Robert J. Sutherland
    I did say I can go on a bit Robert. 🙂

  150. ScottishPsyche says:

    Our democracy won’t function properly until we are independent. Every policy is examined in terms of the constitution and real consensus can never be achieved because of that. This is the point we have now reached in our development and journey towards independence. It had to happen and it won’t go backwards. Independence supporters across the spectrum need to understand this.

    Sometimes you get the feeling that the far Left/ Rise brigade would rather not be independent unless they immediately get the political climate they want.

    NI ‘s tipping point is being reached because the entrenched position of Unionists was not allowing the country to go forward with progressive policies. Traditional Unionist voters were voting because of policies not purely because of history. Red and blue Unionists in Scotland cannot understand that the freedom to vote for the policies you want won’t happen until the constitutional question is resolved. Some independence supporters seem equally blinkered.

    On Heuchan’s return to Twitter, well, social science is not my area but I would bet there will be another race theory along in 5 minutes because as Robert J. Sommyne says, race is entirely a social construct. I would suggest Heuchan’s theory of race, otherwise known as Top Trumps, does nothing to promote racial or any other type of harmony.

  151. Bob Mack says:

    Twitter is priceless today. Beyond price. The girl everybody defended Claire is rounding on those same defenders. I honestly cannot stop laughing. No doubt this may become a Wings article. I told you so type of thing ha ha ha ha ha.

  152. Meg merrilees says:

    Independence first then talk about the details.

    As someone else suggested, find somewhere to live first, then think about how you want to decorate it.

    Worried to read a second account of a ‘racist’ attack in Scotland, first was a ‘Yes’ supporter beaten up on Thurs/Fri and this time a taxi driver in Edinburgh.

    The driver was attacked by 10 people aged 14-20 who pulled him from his vehicle and stole a large sum of money in a racially motivated attack.

    Is this a coincidence or is it part of a planned attack to make Scotland look just as racist as the rest of the UK and frighten non-Scots ( who currently may be pre-disposed to vote YES)
    into thinking that Scotland is just as unsafe as the rUK and not vote?

    And coming so soon after Sadiq Khan’s statement…

    Anti-independence tactics?
    Edinburgh, where the ad-van was slashed…

    Just saying like…

  153. clipper says:

    Just wanted to add that if the SG doesn’t do something about postal vote fraud, or the potential for it, (apparently there were almost 100% turnouts on postal votes in many areas. Are we seriously supposed to believe there’s nothing odd about that?) then the next referendum may well be lost, though of course on a plausibly thin majority.

    I’ve never heard or read anything that gives me the sense that the SG is taking this seriously.

    Giving the unionists a good kick in the balls at the council elections would help but only if the SG accepts that the britnat gov perhaps aren’t entirely trustworthy?

  154. heedtracker says:

    BBC nothing but colonial propagandists.”

    Yes but, why are they all raging away at Mayhem to get her to say out loud, no more refs for you, Scotland region of greater England?

    Its just that, seeing as they are so completely beeb Scotland mental about blocking ref 2 it but are only asking planet toryboy to actually do it and block it, why dont they newsify BBC style how Mayhem can block it, legislation, law, UN, politics on the ground in Scotland, England would love to hear the end of the Scots whine for ref 2, devo etc and it would certainly take the heat off of Pacific Quay liggers, they could settle down into very lucrative lifetime careers of telling us how shite we are and how we must all start voting Ruthie Babes.

    But not one of the spivs have ever given their ever dwindling audience, actual reasons for why Mayhem’s crew can or cannot say Non to ref 2.

    Only in Scotland can the state broadcaster rage the UK gov to actually block democracy, is not exactly news either.

  155. gordoz says:


    Aw man – all those right on sisters of the left getting pistol whipped by that Stirling Uni Gaurdian writer feminist Yoon nutter. Check I out on revs twitter feed – you could see it coming a mile. Slow motion haymaker.

    Just waiting for JK to come to the rescue now

  156. Meg merrilees says:

    Re the timing of the next indy ref.

    Mayhem is planning for the Great Repeal Bill to be included in the next Queen’s Speech i.e. the next opening of Parliament, Nov 2017.

    I would imagine that will be quite high up the list of Bills to be implemented in the next Session, so Nicola would have to obtain a cast-iron guarantee of a Section 30 order and date for the Ref before the Bill passes through the House – as it surely will…

    Make no mistake, the Great Repeal Bill will turn devolution on its head.
    It is effectively the ultimate EVEL and will see a power grab of unprecedented greed taking ALL laws back to WM for their lawyers to decide what bits to keep and which bits to scrap.

    What’s more, all EU legislation will remain in force, in parallel, until such time as it is rescinded by English lawyers therefore all EU fishing quotas, CAP agreements and payments, and agricultural regulations will still be binding, but controlled by WM…. this is why the tories hint that these ‘devolved’ powers may be returned to WM first.

    Scottish fishermen will not know what’s hit them.

    For the SNP, it’s certainly a narrow window in which to act but one which will be at their chosen time. Will Nicola wait till after the May elections??? Who knows.

    Mayhem is triggering article 50 on March 15th – the Ides of March!

    We may not have to wait much longer!

  157. stu mac says:


    It’s not a matter of how well these groups did, it’s the noise they make and the fact that this can be used to attack the wider Independence movement.

  158. John H. says:

    Scott says:
    6 March, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management agree £11bn merger

    Just a thought at the last SR one backed us and the other said they would move south so what happens when we have the next Referendum

    Scott, Standard Life are a huge multinational company. They don’t like change. During the devolution campaign for a Scottish Parliament they threatened to move away from Scotland. They made similar noises at the last IndyRef. Expect the same if we have another referendum. They are still here in spite of their threats. Their buildings in Edinburgh alone must be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. I don’t expect them to go anywhere.

  159. stu mac says:

    @Dr Jim
    6 March, 2017 at 1:36 pm
    This idea of economic arguments is totally stupid

    Quite right. Every country has ups and downs including economic upturns and downturns. The UK certainly has had plenty of these. Unless they are stating that Scotland is uniquely – uniquely compared to even quite small countries with fewer resources – feeble economically then that is as you say a stupid argument. (And if they are saying that they are saying something insulting to every Scot and can easily be challenged on it).

    What is more important is having the freedom to make choices which can try to make Scotland a better country, economically and socially despite the problems what will inevitably come our way. We don’t have that, in fact over the last few decades there has been a centralisation of power (from both Tories and Labour governments) which has made the problem starker.

    We are lucky in that a miscalculation by Labour (in their plan to do down the SNP) led to us having some limited decentralisation and more importantly the experience of Proportional Representation which has led to more political voices being heard and voters feeling their vote can really count (at least locally). This has led (not alone of course, Labour corruption too played a part plus the SNPs playing a blinder in the new situation) to a movement away from the old deadwood of useless politicians and the growing belief we can really handle our own affairs.

  160. galamcennalath says:

    Meg merrilees says:

    Mayhem is triggering article 50 on March 15th – the Ides of March!

    … and will speakers at the conference on 17-18 be hurriedly tweeting their speeches in the light of ‘good news’?

    Personally, I would announce the date for IndyRef2 and begin the campaign. Does anyone now believe Mayhem has any intention of doing a deal with or for Scotland? Nae chance.

    Tory dogma is now clearly “Scotland has had too much special treatment, no more!”

  161. CameronB Brodie says:

    Do economies shape culture or does culture shape economies?

    Economic Lives: How Culture Shapes the Economy

    Culture and the Economy: Understanding the Dynamics of Globalization

  162. Phil Robertson says:

    Interesting take on the approach to an independence referendum. Problem is that it sounds very like the approach of the Brexit campaigners who ended up winning the vote and then realising that they hadn’t a clue about what to do next.

    It’s going to be tricky in the television debates if the approach is going to be “that will be decided after the vote”.

  163. stu mac says:


    I agree. At least as far as UK government is concerned we don’t live in a democracy (except in the loosest interpretation of the term). We live in a corrupt, oligarch controlled pseudo-democracy. There was a chance to change it at the end of the 20th Century but the party that was in power then and who had talked of reform was at its core as corrupt as the Tories and let it slip. They could have introduced PR, they could have reformed the Lords, they could have re-introduced the rules that blocked ministers moving straight from government into companies they did deals with. But they did none of that because they wanted all the perks that the corrupt practices allowed.

    In every competition, from chess to football, even war there is a point when you may have the winning advantage and you must press it home because if you don’t you don’t just lose the opportunity to win there and then but the advantage passes to the opponent and it is often a winning advantage. I may as well add the quote that jumped into my head when I typed this:

    There is a tide in the affairs of men,
    Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
    Omitted, all the voyage of their life
    Is bound in shallows and in misery

    Like much that Blair/Brown did, their refusal to take advantage of the opportunity to undo much of the Tories’ work and their refusal to take the opportunity to reform voting and parliament, has led to the right wing agenda becoming even more extreme and parliament and government even more corrupt. Of course as we know now the core of Blair’s government was itself right wing and corrupt. They just hid it well for a while.

  164. FergusMac says:

    I am reminded of a comment by Jim Airlie (or it might have been Jimmy Reid – my memory isn’t what it used to be) back in the days of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in the 60s. I will convert the currency for the benefit of the under 50s.

    “The Labour members of the union would say, “We’ll ask for a 7p an hour rise”. The Communist members would say, “Naw, we’ll go for 12p”. The Trots would demand the immediate overthrow of Imperialism”.

    Plus ça change…

  165. stu mac says:


    Well the idea of a Scottish government with a full range of social/government/economic powers but elected by a fair PR system which means an extremist government can’t gain power(on say 36% of the vote) so that any government will either have to get at least 50% of the vote or else compromise with other parties. I think that’s a good thing to publicise – and compare with what’s happened with UK elections quite often.

  166. John H. says:

    clipper 3.47.

    At the last referendum the Scottish Government were, I thought, very complacent about postal voting. I asked them about a year before the ref. what they intended to do to make the system fairer. Their answer, that it would follow the usual council rules didn’t exactly give me confidence.

    I don’t know who makes the rules for postal voting, or if the SG can do anything to change them, but if a more robust system isn’t used I think we will be really struggling to win.

    I don’t think that political parties should be able to get their hands on postal voting forms. Only a neutral body, if such can be found, should be able to issue them upon application by the individual concerned..

  167. Thepnr says:

    @Phil Robertson

    I didn’t see a 649 page explanation from the Brexit campaigners yet they still won Phil. Sure some of the original proposals in “Scotlands Future” should be and will be changed.

    The main point though is that without Independence we will be doing precisely zero. Zero change, zero choice and zero future.

    You amaze me Phil, I’m gobsmacked at your intransigence, despite the prospect of Unionist Tory rule for the foreseeable future you are still blind and ignorant to boot.

    Hey listen, if Independence meant having a Scottish Conservative and Unionist party in power then for me that would be the lesser of two evils. They couldn’t be in any way worse than the Tories we have now. Though we both know that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. You appear to be wedded to the Union Flag like many others, that will be your downfall.

    We seek and will find a better way to govern our country.

  168. Dan Huil says:

    “If anything, austerity under Hammond will be worse than under Osborne.

    “The ticking time bomb for Hammond is the national debt. Public sector net debt – not including public liabilities for bailing out the banks back in 2008 – hit £1.68 trillion at the end of January. That’s up by £91.7bn since the previous January and represents hefty 85.3 per cent of GDP. By the end of this parliament, the Tories will have presided over a doubling in the size of the National Debt! Of course, they blame this on Labour. But the truth is, it is the Tories who have run up the bills.

    “IT may seem paradoxical that we have had a decade of Tory austerity and yet public borrowing has doubled. How does that square with spending cuts and the collapse of the English NHS? The answer is simple: the UK economy is a basket case. So-called economic growth is a mirage based on perennial housing bubbles, consumer debt and the Bank of England printing money to prop up share prices (which makes upper middle class Tory-voters wealthier). Meanwhile, productivity has flat-lined since the 2008 crash and we are paying for our imports by selling UK companies and whole swathes of London to foreigners. The UK is not producing or selling enough to pay its own way. So even with public spending cuts and tax rises, Tory Chancellors have to borrow.”

    George Kerevan

  169. Timely reminder, Stu. It may be argued that individuals have latched on to the Indy Movement to peddle their own agenda.
    Peter Bell with his usual economy of words sums it up neatly.
    “Being independent is our children’s responsibility. Becoming independent is ours.”
    There are comments on here about the wisdom or not of the White Paper.
    The ‘vision’ within this comprehensive document was indeed an SNP hopefully catch all melange. Keep the Queen, keep the pound, Currency Union, in the EU, NATO, and the BBC.
    It was a brave but vainglorious attempt to describe Independence as not such a big deal; life would go on as normal.
    It was manna from heaven for the Better Together Project Fear mob.
    I doubt that there has ever been a more powerfully orchestrated propaganda weapon brought into play at any time in modern history,as the merciless assault visited on us by the Establishment, Brit Politicians, the Rich Elite, Finance, Merchants, Industrialists, the Military, the Media,and Noble Land Owners, as the 2014 barrage.
    We were simply swept aside by a torrent of lies threats and warnings.
    We cannot go in to Indyref 2 with nothing to offer but ‘independence’.
    There has to be a ‘what happens next’ set of proposals in all key areas of our life.
    No one will vote for anarchy, a tabula rasa, make it up as we go along from Day 1.
    There needs to be some work done on producing ‘Independence: Transitional Arrangements.’
    The message must be steady state, gradual transition, not big bang. There is lots to sort out and describe before we go to the polls.
    A Scottish Bank
    Continued membership of the EU until and unless we vote to Leave post Independence.
    The Scottish Defence Force.
    Preserved former UK State Pension rights. (You may recall Brown’s lies.)
    and so on.
    We must debunk this nonsense that GERS is an accurate snapshot of how Scotland Revenue and Spending is calculated . It is a propaganda tool, and must be discredited as the pro Union nonsense it is.
    It does not reflect anything like the revenue earned in Scotland. Fact.
    I ramble.
    To summarise, we must have a Transitional Model to present to voters, to counter all the mantraps of Better Together 2014.
    It’s time the Fringe groups dropped there self aggrandisement and got behind our goal.
    “Being independent is our children’s responsibility. Becoming independent is ours.”
    I make no apology for repeating Mr Bell’s wise words.
    Women’s equality?
    Aye, right.

  170. Bob Millar says:

    re stu mac @ 4.25

    Another way to counter the ‘too poor’ argument is to say that if they believe Scotland is subsidised by England – is this fair on English taxpayers, how long would they think that these taxpayers should continue to subsidise Scotland and would it not be best if Scotland learned to stand on its own feet.

  171. Sheryl Hepworth says:

    Breeks says @ 11.39…
    Breeks I have copied your comment, it contains everything I’m trying to say in writing a blog. I intend, if I may, to utilise parts of it, with due recognition to you. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said. Please notify me if I may use your comment! Thanking you in anticipation!

  172. silverflamingos says:

    As a social science researcher, I’d just like to point out that using an extremely emotive word like ‘forcibly’ in a survey question basically invalidates your results.

    Though I certainly agree with the underlying issue of creating an SNP package to tye the independence vote to. It was sites like Wings, and grassroots movements that got the vote as close as we did last time, and will take us over the edge to independence in round two!

  173. galamcennalath says:

    stu mac says:

    I think that’s a good thing to publicise

    I agree completely. Westminster should be called out what it is and should be contrasted with the fully democratic iScotland which is ours for the taking.

    I’ve had that debate umpteen times.

    Them “but what is it you are looking for?”
    Me “democracy”
    Them “but this [UK] is a democracy”
    Me “no, it definitely isn’t” … followed by rant on how undemocratic WM is.

    Not sure if I’ve made converts this way, but they probably now think about their UKOK more deeply.

  174. Hamish100 says:

    According to some stop reading the SH stop reading the National next it will be delete anything to do with pro Indy. Will they be happy with the record , mail and express? Probably.

  175. Sinky says:

    Tories already pouncing on Andrew Wilson’s comments that oil is a bonus not a basic part of Indy.

    Being interviewed by Sarah Smith on Radio Four Analysis at 8.30 to-night as part of Indy Ref programme

  176. Cherry says:

    My thoughts for what it’s worth.

    The grassroots should be stating that they are autonomous of all politics. No party politics brought into our conversations. If the yessers who want to still sow division don’t agree they should be shown the door. The YES movement is us…no one else…we are all of one voice and that is INDEPENDENCE.
    We are,or should be,stating the agenda and politics is not on the menu. I think it was Breeks who said earlier, when asked,What currency will we use? What currency would you like us to use. That’s it right there…IT IS OUR CHOICE something we Scots have been denied since 1707. IMO we must make our referendum about having our own choices,Not the choices of another country,over and over and over again. As Peter Bell says…give our children a country that they can mould to how they want it to be for their children.

  177. pool9 says:

    Gregory Breekman’s mate at 11.08 made me facepalm.

    He voted No because he didn’t like the idea of the SNP’s policies shaping Scotland’s future because of the proposals put forth in the white paper. SNP bad. SNP proposals Bad, basically. Want endless referendums so those bad SNP can’t implement things I might not like because they will of course totally dominate a future independent Scotland. SNP bad. Must have a future where the SNP have no influence in Scotland, maybe then I’ll consider independence. Because… you know the rest.


    So instead this person preferred no independence, which means the proposals put forward by the SNP never got to be meaninfully debated by an independent Scottish electorate and their duly elected representatives.

    Well that is much better then. The noseless look is superb.

    The white paper is a damned if you do damned if you don’t moment.

    If you produce one – the details are picked apart and scoffed at by unionist spinmeisters and 3rd rate sophists, who are only convincing because they are cranked up to 11 and have wall to wall uncontested media coverage.

    If you don’t produce one with details, you get mocked and patronised for being a dreamer with no concrete policy ideas, a clueless pollyanna who would be dangerous in the real political world.

    The above is true only in the scottish context of course.


    The clueless pollyannas won. They had no details, no plans, just appeals to emotion accompanied with catchy slogans and a bus with a 350million lie plastered onto its sides. Their lack of concrete proposals were not mocked, strangely enough. “Take back control” was good enough. But for Scots to want to “take back control” of their democracy without a 2000 page tome explaining ALL the details, and the details of the consequences of some of the details meeting hypothetical obstacles painted in the worst possible light is inconceivable! Everything to the 6th degree must be accounted for or surely you will fail!

    It is okay for the English electorate to be sold hope and change and not much substance (as it was the English electorate that ‘won’ brexit), but of course the Scots must justify in detail why they should be free.

    This is demanded by unionist politicians and their pet media talking heads so hairs can be split, and divisions sown.

    Another hypocritical position taken in a unionist field littered with them.

    Everything in a WP that can be twisted, debased, mocked, and of course simply lied about, will be. We’ve seen that already.

    As others have said, Keep it Simple Scotland.

    Democratic deficit. No control over the laws that can rule and change our lives. A social trajectory that is bad and likely to get worse, but that Scotland has no chance to meaningfully alter. The history of broken promises with no evidence that that will ever change, unless we see the lies coming and refuse to fall for them again. The democratic deficit, explained with examples again, and again, and again, until everyone gets it, and can make their mind up about whether or not it is acceptable to them.

    Maybe we need a bus. Ours will tell the truth.

  178. Still Positive says:

    Cherry @ 5.22pm

    My thoughts re grassroots should be outwith party politics.

    Our local Yes team were predominantly not members of a political party, although there was a fair smattering of former Labour members.

    We recognised that was our strength and pushed it. And we delivered a Yes vote.

    However, most of the activists, me included, are now SNP members. I guess we’ll just have to explain why next time.

  179. Andrew Coulson says:

    I think what would ideally be on the table, come the referendum, is a _Scottish Government_ White Paper which confines itself largely to answering the questions of the viability of the Scottish economy and the stability of Scottish government finance(and what currency Scotland will use on Day One), together with an entirely separate _SNP_ manifesto saying what policies they would argue for in a post-independence Scottish Parliament.

  180. Clydebuilt says:


    Should the SNP case for Indelendence Include Oil

    Radio 4 tonight (Monday 6th March) Analysis Programme 8.30 pm

  181. Hamish100 says:

    Brexit – the details contained in an empty clear box. Should suffice for Indy 2.britnats needn’t complain

  182. June Maxwell says:

    Agree wholeheartedly. But maybe differ a bit on quotas. When the pendulum has been swung so far and for so long in one direction, it maybe needs to overreaching a bit before it can settle back to the centre.

  183. kendomacaroonbar says:

    @winifred mccartney

    You do worse than checking out our offering which is free to download now. We we’re born out of the run up to Indy1 we need the same level of active support as our Stu to become part of the new mainstream media. www(dot)pocketmags(dot)com/iscot

  184. CameronB Brodie says:

    Jack Collatin
    I wasn’t proposing stepping into anarchy. I also think transitional arrangements need to be clearly defined, with the aim of producing as little change as possible. Autonomy stimulates locally defined culture and thus enables locally defined politics. And as we all no by now kids, local connectivity improves the operational rational and ethical reflection involved in decision making processes.

  185. Breeks says:

    Sheryl Hepworth says:
    6 March, 2017 at 5:08 pm
    Breeks says @ 11.39…
    Breeks I have copied your comment,…

    Crack on Sheryl. Flattered you think it worth repeating, but you don’t need my permission. Just go for it.

  186. Undeadshaun says:

    Standard Life merger with aberdeen asset management is interesting. They are merging to form uk’s largest investment companies and enable them to compete with blackrock.

    Aberdeen Asset management are on record as Saying they would not leave Scotland.

    In next independence referendum standard Life may not be able to threaten leaving Scotland seeing as there will be joint directors in the new company and one of them is against leaving scotland.

    Aberdeen asset management on independence

  187. Thepnr says:


    That was a great read and thanks for posting. I totally agree with keeping it simple with the emphasis being on the democratic deficit.

    It doesn’t matter a hoot which party we elect to Westminster or even which party is in power there our voice will not be heard when we are so outnumbered in terms of MP’s elected.

    It doesn’t matter if the majority of Scots oppose welfare cuts.
    We will be ignored.

    It doesn’t matter if the majority of Scots want to stay in the EU.
    We will be ignored.

    It doesn’t matter if the majority of Scots oppose Trident or war.
    We will be ignored.

    The only way our voice can be heard is in a Scottish Parliament voted for by the people of Scotland.

    We will no longer tolerate being ignored. Take back control!

  188. Cherry says:

    @Still Positive

    I joined the SNP at 4am on 19/09/2014 and I’m going to vote for them at every election still to come. However I’m of the opinion our independence isn’t about politics…those politics have yet to be born. SNP is our vehicle to take the journey and then once at our destination will sit with the engine running,ticking over to make sure that we find the rest of the journey goes along without running out of petrol.
    We need to call out those who can’t or won’t work with us.

    The people who are right now trying the divide and rule strategy are NOT working for Indy…they work only for their own selfish needs or are on the payroll of the union. Either way they are not for us!! Maybe the grassroots needs a constitution which we, as part of that,sign up to. Those that go off message ie talking about a lefty Scotland etc will then be asked to change their approach or they will have to leave the talking to others who have no agenda…other than getting us ALL OUT OF HERE!

  189. JLT says:

    I absolutely agree with Stuart on this. And I’ll be quite controversial about this.

    As an example, I’ll discuss Immigration. For many folk in our movement, they portray Scotland as a modern, socialist-minded, internationalist country where race, faith and creed are all treated equally. On that …I absolutely agree!! I have no problems with this argument.

    But …at times, our vocabulary can be misinterpreted. We are at times portraying Scotland as some sort of open bordered nation where anyone can just come here.

    Now …that can be taken two ways by some people. To those who have a more Conservative Traditionalist outlook, it implies that you’re not inviting anyone …but inviting everyone! There is a difference. If we keep stating that Scotland is open to everyone, then you give the impression that every Tom, Dick and Harry can settle here without visa or background checks. To Traditionalists, they see that as an open gate policy for some sort of modern day Ghengis Khan and his Golden Horde swarming in here and plundering the place.

    You have to be careful when discussing immigration in loose terms. To a lot of people, it scares them. And it pushes them right into the Unionist camp.

    Think about that for a second.

    Scotland as a nation is made up of 5.4 million people. Only around 4.5 million are actually Scots. To many people, when they hear folk talk loosely on immigration, they give an idea of inviting in unlimited numbers which not only means in their eyes that the nation becomes swamped, but the Scottish culture also gets bled out. That really upsets them.

    If you do discuss immigration, state that it will be controlled. If you stand on someone’s doorstep while canvassing and say that with immigration that anyone can come here because Scotland is a modern outward looking nation unlike right-wing England, then you may have just switched off a potential Yes voter. We all know that there will be immigration checks, but we need to be careful on some subjects. A moment of lapse can cost votes.

    Same with Defence and the Trident Submarines. Simply put …they will not be out of here on Day 1 of Independence. Chances are, they will be here for a good few years while Westminster seeks out alternatives. And while they are here, they are useful bargaining chips for keeping Westminster on-side …and that is another thing to think about. But simply put …they won’t be going anywhere fast.

    Simply put, Independence is a scary thing to many people. You have to give them some reassurances that things won’t change too much. Immigration and Defence are just two examples. If you talk about changing everything (as in a very short period of time), then people are more likely NOT to vote for independence than would.

  190. Cameron B Brodie @ 5.56 pm.
    Then we are in agreement.
    For instance Andrew Neil is leading the argument, shared by his fellow Unionist hacks, that we should wait until after Brexit negotiations are concluded before we hold Indyref 2. The argument being that Scots wouldn’t know what they were voting for if the Referendum were held in say, September 2018, my favoured option.
    There are many reasons for peddling this nonsense of course. We would be ‘out’ of the EU, and Lord Darling of Flipping would awaken from his slumber to ‘warn’ us that we would be at the back of a ten year queue to get back in and Spain would veto it, or some such.
    We must go for it while we are still 43 year members of the EU, and negotiate continuer status with our 27 partners.
    The nonsense that Davidson was spouting yesterday, unchallenged by the increasingly comatose, disinterested, bought-and-paid-for Beeb Boy Gordon,Just To Be Clear Brewer, that we would no longer be part of a single UK market within which we trade 4 times as much with EngWaland than the EU, and implying that Scotland as part of the EU would be excluded from any trade deals between the Darling Duds of May and the EU is of course absolute nonsense, and Brewer, Neill, Marr, Bird, Fraser and the rest know this.
    We must go before March 2019, IMHO
    Not for nothing did John Cleese rasp:_
    “Why do we let half-educated tenement Scots run our English press? Because their craving for social status makes them obedient retainers?”
    Andrew Neil, Andrew Marr, you will never be ‘one of them.’, no matter how much you sell the country of your birth short.
    Beef Olives, sauted in a pan with potatoes, celery and onion bubbling up nicely.
    Later. We are on the same page, Cameron.

  191. BBC Scotland Tells Lies says:

    I agree that Independence is our goal but the usual suspects will want answers on currency, central bank and EU/EFTA membership.

    The SNP put together a team to look at these very issues and I think they have got the answers to these questions already in the bag.

    The SNP a far better prepared this time round.

  192. Thepnr says:

    @BBC Scotland Tells Lies

    The grassroots too are far better prepared this time. We know what we’re dealing with.

  193. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Aye, Rev. I think my very first (completely humourless) post on here was related to this issue, purely viewed from a stategic context. I still stick with the main point I made then: wise for you not to tubthump about these issues one way or t’other.

  194. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Aye, Rev. Wise for you to think strategically. Don’t tubthump one way or t’other.

  195. galamcennalath says:

    Jack Collatin says

    The argument being that Scots wouldn’t know what they were voting for

    Do we activists have faith right now that the Tories’ deal will be acceptable? No.

    Can we persuade enough soft NOs that Brexit is taking us to Hell in a handcart over the next 18months? Yes, and the Tories themselves will help persuade many!

    IMO we will be well ready in 18 months, leaving six to make arrangements for Engexit.

    Beef Olives

    One of my favourites!

  196. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    The f**k?! That post didn’t show so I made a truncated version, then both posts show? It’s an apocalyptic DDOS that’s what it is.

  197. CameronB Brodie says:

    Personally, I am deeply suspicious when, as The Rev puts it, “a subsection of the Yes movement appears to be hell-bent on doing everything it can to sabotage the chances of independence”. Aye, in whose interests are they really working?

    What might be at the root of the far-left’s approach to Scotland’s self-determination?Could it be their antipathy towards cultural value and difference?

    Marxism and Postcolonial Theory: What’s Left of the Debate?

    The very title of this special issue draws attention to a long history of engagement between Marxism and postcolonial theory, virtually from the moment when postcolonial studies appeared as a “field” of study within academic institutions in the Anglo-­?American world sometime in the 1980s.1 This engagement has consisted of collaboration and cross-­-fertilisation as well as considerable antagonism, and various scholars and critics before us have already made their arguments on one side or the other. More recently, Vivek Chibber’s book Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital (2013) appeared on the scene as having unequivocally won the debate for Marxism over postcolonial theory.2

    We know not only from the vigorous exchanges that took place around the book, as well as the many essays in this volume that cast a critical perspective on both sides, that in fact far from materializing the end of postcolonial theory, the exchanges have been productive in reviving the debate between the two, underlining the need for a remembrance of a longer and older history of contention as well as of its continuing currency, pointing to ways that go beyond the impasse.

    Marxists such as Chibber despair that the dominance of postcolonial theory, which they believe to be complicit in the neoliberalisation of diversity and difference in the university, reduces the space for critique and dissent within the academy. Pendakis and Szeman (2014) aver, however, that poststructuralism and its kin -­? postcolonial theory -­? now “seem(s) as dated as the Soviet factories it once imagined itself to be leaping over into the future”(6), suggesting their obsolescence, rather than dominance. Sandro Mezzadra similarly notes that “under pressure from the current global economic crisis” there has been “the emergence of a new interest in capital and capitalism” within postcolonial theory (2011:154).

    There is thus little consensus about whether it is Marxism or postcolonial theory that is dominant in the critical quarters of the academy today. Indeed, concerns about the shrinking space of dissenting and heterodox approaches is an opening to not only continue the debate but to take it in a more fruitful and politically progressive direction, an invitation to continue conversation rather than to close it down.

  198. CameronB Brodie says:

    Nuts. I thought I’d managed to catch that before it posted.

    What might be at the root of the far-left’s approach to Scotland’s self-determination?Could it be their antipathy towards cultural value and difference?

    What might be at the root of the far-left’s approach to Scotland’s self-determination? Could it be an ideological antipathy towards valuing cultural and difference?

  199. CameronB Brodie says:

    Nuts again.

    What might be at the root of the far-left’s approach to Scotland’s self-determination?Could it be their antipathy towards cultural value and difference?

    What might be at the root of the far-left’s approach to Scotland’s self-determination? Could it be an ideological antipathy towards valuing culture and respecting difference?

  200. ScottieDog says:

    I think if I’m trying to win people over about independence then I have to try to share my vision of it. Why do I want independence? I don’t think it’s enough just to say – just for self determination.
    Here’s what I want in an independent Scotland.

    I want a government that realises that it is government surpluses that are unsustainable and not government deficits (provided we have a sovereign floating currency). I don’t want to be on the hook for the unsustainable private sector debts run up by the city of London (£5 trillion) like we are just now. A government surplus is our deficit.

    I want a banking sector which is regulated by government not one which runs government. I want a government that sees banking for what it is – part of the economy – an overhead and not the economy itself. Let banks support businesses and not create housing bubble which destroys people disposable income.

    Teach our economics students at Scottish universities that
    1 – the aggregate economy is NOT comparable to a household (like thatcher claimed – to our cost)
    2 – banks create money and are NOT intermediaries like mainstream economics teaches – another hugely damaging belief.

    When we do run deficits its for the common good and not to bail out bankers and furnish them with tidy salaries and bonuses. The trumpeting about London/SE lower deficit (higher tax take) is a bit like congratulating a lottery winner on being self made. Yesterday’s investments are today’s tax revenue.

    Have a Scottish central bank with a remit of full employment and NOT a target unemployment/inflation figure. We can look at inflation when the economy approaches capacity – it is nowhere near.

    Peace keepers not war mongers.
    Look after the environment for our kids. Oil is becoming a standed asset but we have a wealth of other resources to tap into.

  201. ScottishPsyche says:


    Is it wrong to say I have enjoyed watching other people’s twitter explode today with more than a little schadenfreude?

  202. Scott says:

    Did I read somewhere that David Davis would not come to Scotland but I see him spouting off to a few people on the One Show and the second part is on tomorrow,this is a bloody disgrace as far as I am concerned will BBC and the Bird report this.

  203. CameronB Brodie says:

    @Scotland’s far-left

    Négritude’s Role in Reforming Marxism and the Relevance of the “Race” Question for All Human Beings

  204. Dr Jim says:

    Sarah Smith there telling us all what should and shouldn’t be counted as an asset in Scotland is that because there’ll be even more assets removed
    Best not count Vauxhall in an Independent England as an asset then Sarah after all it is partially owned by the French government and French folk don’t care that much for being insulted by our loving English government and votes count

    It’s not about the money it’s about freedom of choice
    and nothing compensates for that

    If a few folk can fully fund an Independence website in a day what can many do for their country

    On another note I see the BBC have just noticed we have a sectarian problem in Scotland and I’m left speechless as to why they didn’t choose to interview Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser about putting a stop to their activities in that area
    I’ve also wondered at the argument of defending the Queens position of defending the protestant side of that argument given that the Queen is an Anglican and that’s Catholicism but without the Pope isn’t it?
    So are the both sides not defending the same thing, why are they arguing?

    Thank “God” I’m an atheist and the only superbeing in my house is Mrs Dr Jim, much less complicated

  205. galamcennalach @ 7.12 pm.
    The Beef olives were deee-lish.
    I’m sure as 2107 unfolds we’ll get to know exactly what deal EngWaland is getting.
    It is time for Tartan Project Fear.
    It is we who should be hammering home what Brexit really means. Closed borders, plummeting pound, travel and work visas, Silver Surfers in Spain being ‘repatriated’, job losses, eg., Vauxhall and Opel Plants sold to Peugot by US GM; factories could close and production moved to France following Brexit.
    How do you like ’em apples, Blair MC D?
    I deliberately mention where and when I am writing, Glenmac, to emphasise that this incredible forum is made up of hundreds and thousands of home based opinions.
    The Dead Tree Scrolls and the broadcasters simply cannot compete. Vox Pop writ large.

  206. Scott says:

    Excellent article.

    This sort of stuff is the great weakness of the progressive left, or whatever you want to call it.

    The Republicans were able to inflict real damage on the Democrats for years over the quota issue. To be blunt, the political centre hates the idea.

    It never ceases to amaze me how stupid some people on the left can be.

  207. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Jack Collatin @ 18:40:

    For instance Andrew Neil is leading the argument, shared by his fellow Unionist hacks, that we should wait until after Brexit negotiations are concluded before we hold Indyref 2.

    He is a well-known friend of independence, so he has only our best interests at heart, hasn’t he? =cheeky grin=

    Besides setting us up for full deployment of the Spanish Lie, as you mention, he wants us completely detached from the biggest ally we will ever have, and also wants a delay so our masters in London are able to bring their undivided attention to bear on our ungrateful dash for freedom.

    He obviously has our interests very much to heart, so we should listen carefully to him, just twiddle our thumbs and keep on whistling until UKGov has time to sort us out. =cough=

    Which they certainly will do, so to speak, if we give them half a chance.


    CameronB Brodie @ 17:56:

    I also think transitional arrangements need to be clearly defined, with the aim of producing as little change as possible.

    See how much good sense you can put into a few words when you really try, Cameron! =laugh=

    Joking apart, for the sake of the more timorous among us, we do need to minimise the turbulence of the transition, while also being willing to realistically admit that there will inevitably be some. However, the arrangements need to be broad-brush, just enough to give confidence that the process is well-planned without leaving hostages to fortune for the unionists to nit-pick over and distract.

    Thanks to Brexit, the indy offer next time will be the one which is the least uncertain and provides most continuity with what we value from the past. Small-c conservative, even, dare I say it! It’s not enough on its own, but it sure will help.

  208. CameronB Brodie says:

    The scene is one where English nationalism threatens to radically re-shape Scotland’s economic and social experience.

    A Brief Guide to Négritude
    Négritude was both a literary and ideological movement led by French-speaking black writers and intellectuals from France’s colonies in Africa and the Caribbean in the 1930s. The movement is marked by its rejection of European colonization and its role in the African diaspora, pride in “blackness” and traditional African values and culture, mixed with an undercurrent of Marxist ideals. Négritude was born from a shared experience of discrimination and oppression and an attempt to dispel stereotypes and create a new black consciousness.

    Social exclusion as a process
    Social exclusion is a process. It can involve the systematic denial of entitlements to resources and services, and the denial of the right to participate on equal terms in social relationships in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. Exclusionary processes can occur at various levels – within and between households, villages, cities, states, and globally. This is an actor-oriented approach which is useful because it points to who is doing what and in relationship with whom. It also provides information for international development agencies to identify those dynamic processes already extant which they could aim to strengthen or minimise. In a situation where there is a disparity in social power relationships, the question of who has the prerogative to define, who is the definer and who is the defined, becomes a site of conflict.

  209. CameronB Brodie says:

    Am I overdoing things in the whitemansplaining department? 🙂

  210. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Cameron, you are a fuckin bore, mate.

  211. CameronB Brodie says:

    Reluctant Nationalist
    Cheers, nice of you to express your opinion. I’ll leave you to defend yourself the next time, Comrade?

  212. HandandShrimp says:

    I had a peek at Stu’s Twitter…not sure why because the madness therein often leaves me dismayed.

    I will be the first to admit that I have never been great at politically correct but the Angela/Vonny/Claire thing….it just made my head hurt. If one is left with a sinking feeling and thinking “you know what I just don’t care” (when I know perfectly well I do care about people treating each other with respect) then you know it isn’t politics any more but some weird religion that is so arcane you would never ever want to join.

    The map clearly says Here be Dragons

  213. heedtracker says:

    The map clearly says Here be Dragons

    Structural racism is a new weird one and JK Rowling in there makes it all even stranger. Should be interesting when she piles in another million bettertogeteher quid ref 2 and then says its structural racism to tell her to f off.

    Another £1,000,000 or three JK, to stop the Scots get hold of our Scotland region?

    Its a lot of money for anyone to hand likes of Bliar MacDoublewhopperextracheese, extra fries, hold the salad. Wonder what he did with it all.

  214. heedtracker says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    6 March, 2017 at 8:53 pm
    Reluctant Nationalist
    Cheers, nice of you to express your opinion. I’ll leave you to defend yourself the next time, Comrade?

    We all have our knockers Cammy loon!

  215. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Jesus, sorry CameronB! I thought you were a bot.

  216. CameronB Brodie says:

    RN may well have a point, though that is for others to judge. What’s said is said, though I doubt it mill make much of difference to my approach. I try to keep my eyes on the prize, as I hope some other would try a bit harder to do.

    “Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.” – Groucho Marx

  217. CameronB Brodie says:

    Reluctant Nationalist
    A bot? A bot? No mate, just committed. 😉

  218. K1 says:

    You know Cameron isn’t a bot…why so mean RN?

  219. Grouse Beater says:

    Phil Robertson: “It’s going to be tricky in the television debates if the approach is going to be “that will be decided after the vote”.”

    That rather too simplistic.

    The first couple of frenetic years will be consumed rearranging structures to run the state here and abroad, and writing our Constitution. We will need some emergency laws too, to cover our rights while we decide if we are left, centre, or a bit of both – like most small countries these days.

  220. Mary McCabe says:

    Those of us who’ve been arguing for Scottish Independence for decades personally “got” the importance of self-determination long ago. And we all voted YES in the indyref.

    And it wasn’t enough.

    Chapping on doors during that long campaign, it was clear to me that for many people, up until 2013/14, Scotland’s right to self-determination was something they’d never considered when deciding how to cast their votes. The indyref focused their minds on it for the first time. However it’s still a comparatively new idea to many of them.

    Many of these people are still suspicious of overt flag-waving and of identifying with a nation. But we still need these folks’ YES votes because the votes of gut independistas are not enough.

    If many of them are coming round to YES it’s not because of the value of independence in itself but because of what they see independence bringing, because of the opportunities presented by independence. It’s because they’ve come to realise that Scotland and England are on different political trajectories and want different things.

    So going round the doors dealing with No voters and Undecided voters it’s not enough to argue for self-determination.

    You have to refer to specific attitudes and prevailing opinions. You have to portray the kind of country an independent Scotland is likely to turn into and compare it with the kind of country the UK with its decaying post-imperial baggage is hurtling towads.

    And yes: the fact that England mostly votes Tory and Scotland voted Tory only three times in the 20th century yet has been ruled down the years by the Tories is part of that.

  221. Rock says:

    All jobs should be on merit only.

    No quotas, no discrimination on any ground, no jobs for the boys.

  222. Ealasaid says:

    I do not see that we have to have a new Scotland ready to go on Day1, the day after we win the referendum. We already have a functioning Scottish Parliament that runs Scotland and it will continue to do so.

    There will be a transitional period, as there will be for the UK after Brexit. This will give us time and space to adjust and to put in place new functions that are necessary and do not already exist. I expect the Scottish Government to have a plan for this period.

    These decisions may be temporary as Scotland can then, at its leisure, vote for the policies that the sovereign people of Scotland wish to have, just as we do now. This may be through Party manifestos or by referenda as we wish, but we will have all the time in the world to create our country through the democratic process where our votes will count.

  223. CameronB Brodie says:

    I thought only the Sith dealt in absolutes?

  224. Rock says:


    “You cant trust any of the printed media. The National is run from the Herald and the Sunday Herald is nothing but a Red Herring. It doesn’t support Scottish Indy its supports drawing subscriptions from pro Independence supporters.”

    In my view, those who think that The National supports independence are more gullible than those who vote Labour thinking that it will protect them from the Tories.

  225. ballevullin says:

    If people tell you that they object to indyref2 just say that’s fine, don’t vote in it.

  226. Breeks says:

    Whoops.. somehow posted in an old thread…. lol. Not sure how I managed that…

    Breeks says:
    6 March, 2017 at 10:12 pm
    That spat on Twitter with Adrian Yalland arguing with James Dornan of RT… Yalland claims Scotland’s GDP is 64th in the World or something.

    I don’t do Twitter, but perhaps somebody should ask Mr Yalland whether the GDP he is quoting is still based upon Scotland only getting a proportionate share of UK oil, when of course 96% of the oil will be Scotland’s, as indeed will all the Whisky currently exported from England.

    Then too of course, it might be worth a question about how the UK’s GDP relates to the eye watering amount of debts that it’s in, where the UKs Debt equates to 90% of its GDP before Scotland leaves the U.K., and Scotland’s debt equates to 0% of its GDP because an iScotland won’t have any debt. Added to that of course, since the UK has plumped for Brexit, the £ is tanking and will tank again when Brexit happens, raising the price of imported goods, worsening an already ugly balance of trade, raising prices which raises inflation which will raise interest rates, which means even more of your GDP goes in servicing your debt mountain, Interest rates being at at around their lowest ever, but not for long eh? What you got left to sell off after the NHS?

    Then of course we come to the issue of balance of trade, where Scotland is in a healthier state than England, Wales, or Northern Ireland despite being run by muppets who make a 1.7 trillion deficit while squandering a resource which Norway has turned into 600 billion capital fund which now pays out more in interest than the oil itself.

    Over to you Mr Yalland….and by the way the UK is defined by the UK and the UN as comprised of two countries, Scotland and England, a Principality, Wales, and a Province Northern Ireland. Scotland is a country, which is kinda the diametric opposite of not being a country.

    Tell me again how skint we’re going to be. Maybe it will help us revise the prices of the electricity we export to England, and all that surplus farm produce that England eats. Oh jings, yes, then there’s those nasty WTO tariffs to worry about too… but not so bad for us as nett exporters eh?

    Still, look on the bright side. England will have taken back control. There’ll be nobody else to blame.

  227. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’d suggest that would feed the Yoon agenda, as it opens up the validity of the result to being questioned due to low turn-out. NewIndy/indyref2 should be seen as the first step towards building a better future for all Scots. Generating voter antipathy and inaction is a tool of radical neo-conservatism, frankly.

    You may need some guidance as to your duties and responsibilities for Scotland’s pending emancipation.

    Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable


    Our shared principles and commitments

    10. The new Agenda is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including full respect for international law. It is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. It is informed by other instruments such as the Declaration on the Right to Development.

    “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

    “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

  228. heedtracker says:

    In my view, those who think that The National supports independence are more gullible than those who vote Labour thinking that it will protect them from the Tories.

    Poor the National. Comparing the almighty catastrofuck that was and is Labour, to a little wee newspaper a couple of years old, is far much too much hyperbole, even for a dingdong like you Rock. People aren’t stupid. They choose what they buy and how the vote based on all sorts of stuff.

  229. CameronB Brodie says:

    That was the line of thinking I was taking Heed. Folk buy the National for all sorts of reasons, where as WOS is issue specific. They don’t provide the same utility Rock, so your last argument fails even if you have a point. Sorry.

  230. galamcennalath says:

    ballevullin says:

    If people tell you that they object to indyref2 just say that’s fine, don’t vote in it.

    A humorous response. A more constructive one for democracy might be to suggest they vote YES because that way they will avoid IndyRef3 🙂

  231. BBC Scotland Tells Lies says:

    Tomorrow’s “National” front page:

  232. Rock says:


    “People aren’t stupid. They choose what they buy and how the vote based on all sorts of stuff.”

    About 9,000 choose to buy The National.

    The vast majority of independence supporters are not gullible.

  233. Rock says:

    CameronB Brodie,

    “Folk buy the National for all sorts of reasons, where as WOS is issue specific.”

    9,000 folk buy The National for all sorts of reasons?

    No, they don’t. The National touts itself as supporting independence to dupe them into buying it.

    Poor yesindyref2 can only afford £5 per year for WOS but probably spends £100 or more per year on The National.

    Do you think The National is worth 20 times more than WOS to the cause for independence?

    How many of those 9,000 do you think are ones who voted No?

    The National is not issue specific?

    Why does it make a big deal about supporting independence?

  234. Iain More says:

    Good article. My experience from the first Indy Ref was that the Proud Scots But Cringers had a ready supply of excuses for cowering away from a Yes vote.

    I meet one of those cringers every day of the week and it is all I can do to contain my contempt for them. I voted Yes because I was a Scot first and a Scot second and Scot last and always.

    I couldn’t care less if Scotland was left or right wing or if we had the Royals or ditched them or if we would be richer or poorer and so on. I had no conditions to my voting Yes and I never will. Just give us the power to be masters of our destiny!

    Oh and I am utterly in love with my twenty something Dutch female dentist. I hope the wife isn’t reading this! Smiley face.

  235. CameronB Brodie says:

    “Now there’s a man with an open mind – you can feel the breeze from here!” – Groucho Marx

  236. Rock says:


    “In my view, those who think that The National supports independence are more gullible than those who vote Labour thinking that it will protect them from the Tories.”

    “Poor the National. Comparing the almighty catastrofuck that was and is Labour, to a little wee newspaper a couple of years old, is far much too much hyperbole, even for a dingdong like you Rock.”

    You have such poor comprehension skills.

    I am comparing those who buy The National with those who vote for Labour.

    Both very gullible in my view.

  237. CameronB Brodie says:

    You really know how to lose friends and alienate people, eh?

    “From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it.” – Groucho Marx

  238. yesindyref2 says:

    You should carry one of these: ☢ or this with a different spelling: 🐗

  239. yesindyref2 says:

    Here’s another one for Rockie: ♻ ✅ he’s good at that

  240. ballevullin says:

    Official artists at this year’s Scottish spring conference season.

    Tories – Edward Hopper

    Labour – Edvard Munch

    SNP – Martin Handford (Where’s Waldo?)

  241. Thepnr says:


    Your relentless. To what purpose? On and on you drone about the National. Hundreds of post on the same subject, your repetition gets a bit boring, have you nothing else to add?

    Like what’s your view on 18-21 year olds being denied housing benefit, might that result in more young people sleeping on the streets? What if they are forced to leave a care home aged 18 where will they go if they haven’t got a job, yet get no money to put a roof over their head. Do you have a view?

    What about the 160,000 who will no longer be given additional welfare payments because they are “not disabled enough” according to one Tory minister.

    Do you have a view or an opinion on these subjects that you would like to share with readers of WoS and would be worth reading or will you just continue to bore the tits off of me with moaning about the National?

    Rock you are nothing more than an attention seeker, you love it when anyone responds to your decrepit ramblings. You are a total arse. See when the time comes and you might seek help, then you’ll look around and find that you have no friends you’ve abused them all and they have left the scene. You are making a reputation for yourself and you’ll have to live with that.

    Your lonely and will remain lonely, you needn’t be I’m sure you could contribute good stuff here but so far you have chosen not to. From now on? Well that’s your choice another rant about the National or something a bit more thoughtful?

    Have a nice day.

  242. heedtracker says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    6 March, 2017 at 10:52 pm
    That was the line of thinking I was taking Heed.

    Its like the 39 phoney war, no one really knows when its all going to kick off, so it gets itchy and scratchy waiting.

    Its even worse for people for who immigrated here from Europe that I know. They’re all waiting for Mayhem to trigger art 50 but like the planet toryboy catastrofucks of yore, red and blue, no one really knows what’s going to happen, except it wont be good, for everyone that works for a living.

    No wonder UKOK tory creeps love Trump though.

  243. heedtracker says:

    ballevullin says:
    6 March, 2017 at 11:56 pm
    Official artists at this year’s Scottish spring conference season.

    That’s funny. Wish I’d thought of it:D

  244. ballevullin says:

    If Theresa May gets any more brittle will she be The Pig Iron Lady?

  245. Orri says:

    There’s little doubt in my mind that a certain J Sillars is in all probability one of those who would rather Scotland wasn’t a full member of the EU and saw independence as a way to that end. There may be others who would much rather an independent Scotland was outside the EU. They might prefer to delay a referendum until full membership is unlikely. Push comes to shove thought and they’ll vote for independence.

  246. CameronB Brodie says:

    Thanks for that, I’ll check it once my wifi starts behaving.

    I wasn’t suggesting Agenda 30 is ideal, simply pointing to it’s existence and role.

  247. CameronB Brodie says:

    P.S. re. the source. I got wired into the “Corbett Report” during the run-up to indyref14, suggesting they might want to wind there neck in with regard to their almost non-existent analysis of indyref14. I thought it only decent to do so as their opinion was apparently informed by a Scottish ex-pat historian who was ignorant of the Declaration of Arbroath, despite specializing in medieval history, allegedly. I even gave them a link to WOS, which was nice.

  248. Doug says:

    Cameron, strangely enough i sent him a link to WOS back then also. I find he does do his research well, though not in the case for independence.

  249. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’m not trying to dismiss your contribution. From what I’ve I’ve seen of the site, I’d say well researched for a blog, though not impartial. Who is? 🙂

  250. Hamish100 says:

    Do you think Rock is really Torquil Crichton in disguise?

  251. Hamish, I think that we can take it that his first name is probably ‘Peter’, or perhaps, ‘Thomas’, though I doubt it.
    I scroll past, as no doubt most do.

  252. colin alexander says:

    Step 1: Gain independence

    Step 2: Decide what sort of country you want and vote for those who you think are best able to deliver the type of country you want.

    Far too much time was spent debating the policies of independent Scotland. Hot air.

    All debates should be focused on how to achieve independence and how an independent Scotland would finance herself and her people.

    Everything else should be decided by the people of Scotland via elections / referendums AFTER independence.

    Aye, I know the White Paper said words to that effect somewhere but, who has the time or patience to read all that?

    The message – unlike my post – has to be concise: Scotland can be just as prosperous or more prosperous as an independent country.

    And it’s the people of Scotland who will decide what Govt we have and therefore what economic, social and every other policy that govt has.

  253. Breeks says:

    Know what I’d like to see?

    Something really useful…

    I think the Scottish Government, or YES, needs to copy Rev Stu and do its own equivalent Wee Blue Book.

    It should be in 3 parts.

    Part A Unionist Claims about Scotland.
    Part B Independence claims about Scotland.
    Part C Honest, pull no punches “warts and all” comparison, with sources and referenced disputes to such sources.

    This book, trying hard to be apolitical, (I know, it never can be, but it can try), needs to be good enough and fair enough to be the “go to” reference book for Independence arguments.

    Information like:

    If so and so says our GDP will be this, and other so and so says it will be that, then where does the difference come from and is their position credible or open to dispute?

    A wee reference handbook you can tuck in your pocket knocking on doors or sitting at a stall. Hellfire, if it was good enough, with graphic support you could memorise it near enough.

    But both sides of the argument – so you have your arguments at hand, but also their counter arguments are available too.

    Let this wee document do all the legwork and broaden the horizons of the Independence argument, so that the Scot Govs next White Paper for an Indyref isn’t a lengthy tome but a Theresa May style short and sharp paper exclusive to the solitary and primary issue of Scotland’s independent sovereignty.

    Keep It Simple Scotland. Put the crosshairs of the Saltire on sovereignty.

    Why not Wings? Well, good call, maybe it should be. But what I see in my head is a wee document that is as likely to found in the pocket of a Unionist as it would be a Yesser, and I don’t think that will happen if it’s Wings. It’s not a propaganda tool, it’s a wee pal in your pocket who will maybe tell you things you might not always want to hear, but do it honestly.

    Get this done, and done well, and it is us, the people of Scotland who take control of the narrative, not the muck raking shit stirrers in the media and Westminster. It’s us, the For and Against people of Scotland.

    Unionism is not going to engage in constructive debate, because they lose. Strange as it may seem, if we make their case for them, and properly, so that we have their arguments bang to rights and documented, then surely that has to be a more informed argument and becomes I repeat, the central narrative to the forthcoming debate.

    If we don’t do this, then we will forfeit the whole Independence agenda to the Unionist propagandists… again. We will be duped and sent our way. Again.

    In fact, perhaps the theme of the document should maybe be a questionnaire formally sent as open letter to all notable Independentists and Unionists… Blair MacDougall, JK Rowling, your History Woman even… call their bluff, and have them articulate their arguments calmly, objectively, and in their own words, but aware those words are to face apolitical criticism, or be judge upon their refusal. Do it straight down the middle, challenge as many forthright YES people as you do forthright Unionists.

    Let us, the people of Scotland, articulate the debate proforma we want to see, and then have our political leadership For and Against fill in the detail or be damned by their refusal.

    But start it now….

  254. David says:

    Good article.

    This is a problem. A lot of people supporting independence seem to think this will carry a far left principle til the end of time…and if you say that this might not be the best approach you get blasted for being a fascist or a ‘yoon’ troll.

    I support Scottish independence and I am economically more what people would consider ‘right wing’ i.e i think personal responsibility and individual merit should be more of a thing.

    Now I know that thought sticks in the mind of a lot of lefty independence supporters, but if you want to make sure Scotland gains its independence a lot of the indy supporters need to get their head around that theirs many more views than their own.

    And if you cant…well at least dont belittle your cause by throwing insults and accusations.

    The left is destroying itself at the moment, you dont want to destroy Scottish independence with it.

  255. heedtracker says:

    The left is destroying itself at the moment, you dont want to destroy Scottish independence with it.”

    Destroyed where?

    “I support Scottish independence and I am economically more what people would consider ‘right wing’ i.e i think personal responsibility and individual merit should be more of a thing.”

    In the UK that almost always comes down to the right school tie style of “responsibility and individual merit.” And this week, Tories are going for another massive boost to English grammar schools.

    Its really all about the money supply. Its a lot easier to make a lot of money where there’s loads of money slooshing around, south east of England and London, UK style ofcourse, than it is say in Paisley?

    Simple economics. Successive UK gov’s pump hundreds of billions into London and the south, millions get much better off, make lots more money and everyone is happy and glorious and a tory.

    Scotland region’s handy for stuff like a nuke weapons dump.

  256. TheWealthOfNations says:

    To give Robin MacAlpine his due he made almost exactly the same argument when he spoke to the Yes group in Dunfermline last month.

    The Yes campaign cannot be scaring soft No voters with a bunch of radical ‘loony left’ talk.

    The Yes movement should stick to talking about the benefits of self-determination and the ‘radical’ idea of having a well functioning representative democracy.

    All the little groups, like RIC, can big up their particular radical ideologies within the demographics that want to hear that sort of thing but Yes should remain Switzerland with regards post-independence policy.

  257. David says:

    Sorry heedtracker, I thought you’d found a job by now. Otherwise id have specifically mentioned you.

  258. Bill Hume says:

    I also think the concept of not putting forward any future proposals which might dissuade potential yes voters at the next indyref is indeed a no brainer. It does however, leave the independence movement with a big problem.

    How do you promote a yes vote while not showing voters a brighter future with independence, whatever their concept of a brighter future might be?

    Solution? Do what No did in indyref1……frighten them with a vision of endless Tory rule and austerity.

    We were on the receiving end of project fear last time and while it was unpleasant, we must accept that it worked.

    Indy needs it’s own Project Fear………I admit I don’t like the concept, but it will work in our favour.

    Let’s frighten the undecideds, not by sharing a vision of a hypothetical better Scotland, but by showing them a dystopian future under Westminster’s rule.

  259. heedtracker says:

    David says:
    7 March, 2017 at 11:49 am
    Sorry heedtracker, I thought you’d found a job by now. Otherwise id have specifically mentioned you.

    I’m so offended David specifically.

    Its an odd but common toryboy, I dont know, say trait David, that if you’re a YESer, you’re automatically on the dole, a foodbank begging, drunk on buckie etc.

    Why is that David? Still to hear a toryboy say why really. Rich toryboy donors to the tory party, expect tories to make them even richer, protect privilege etc. So it does makes sense that tories should monster any threat to their UK zone set up, as you do.

    Planet toryboy does own UK politics though, for now David.

  260. Jack Murphy says:

    Scott said 7:50 pm last night:
    “Did I read somewhere that David Davis would not come to Scotland but I see him spouting off to a few people on the One Show…..”
    Yes,the BBC 7pm One Show on the Telly from BBC Broadcasting House is supposed to be a light-hearted magazine programme,but in 2014 it gave Hillary Clinton the chance to shrug off an Independent Scotland in a flippant manner without any balance from the Yes side.
    Smiles from the two presenters.
    BEWARE. The One Show is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,conveying the message that most is well in UKOK with the occasional detour into consumers’ rights.
    Dan Snow of the 2014 Lovebomb Letter to Scotland,is their in-house historian.

  261. CameronB Brodie says:

    Bill Hume
    Would the ends justify the means? Project Fear14 didn’t exactly leave Scotland psychologically undamaged, can you imagine the harm competing Project Fears would cause? I would rather the process was viewed as indicative of each side’s desired outcome. As such, if the Yoons go full Tonto again, it will be clear their intentions towards Scotland are not sympathetic to Scotland’s well-being.

  262. CameronB Brodie says:

    Bill Hume
    I would imagine NewIndy1? will be an entirely different contest to indref14, as Article 50 will have been activated. That introduces a whole new set of perimeters to the process.

  263. Isn’t the use of the term ‘forcibly’ in the question likely to have lead to people saying they disagreed, whereas simply asking people if they agree or disagree with the use of gender quotas a much more balanced way of asking the question?

  264. Rock says:


    “Rock you are nothing more than an attention seeker, you love it when anyone responds to your decrepit ramblings.”

    In which case, wouldn’t it be a good idea for you and your fellow gang members not to respond to my posts?

  265. David says:

    Well thats the thing heedtracker. I scrubbed toilets while building my first business in computing and now i regularly do 14 hour days trying to build myself something worthwhile. When i was a kid i remember the problems my parents had putting dinner on the table.

    THis isnt about tory’s or scottish independence. Its about some people looking after themselves and their families and make no excuses…and the others who are useless sponging mouthy f**ks that attach themselves to any ideology that gives them a free excuse for being useless.

    I used to be a lety. I got tired of the hypocrisy. Anyway, an independent scotland needs all types. So the next time someone talks of personal responsibility stop using the sad, bullshit ‘toryboy’ excuse for your own failings. Right?

    Guess which one you are? 🙂

  266. Thepnr says:


    OK I give in. You are lost.

  267. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “As a social science researcher, I’d just like to point out that using an extremely emotive word like ‘forcibly’ in a survey question basically invalidates your results.”

    The word the Herald used was “mandatory”, which means the same thing. Putting something in law makes it forcible. It’s merely an accurate representation of the situation. It is of course interesting to note the different results you get with and without that word, but it’s leaving it out that’s the dishonest manipulation of the reality.

  268. McMac says:

    Once you go down this route then you need quotas for every combination of physical and mental status in the country. For who else can represent a blind, one legged, bisexual, transexual, elderly, Shinto Japanese man in government but someone just like them with all the boxes ticked? There is no end to that road and once you open the door to it there is no reason to slam it on the next demand as all are just as justified as the first morally or intellectually. You can’t cut it off once your personal favourite pet cause is served.

    Of course it also means the reverse is implied, that a native Scot cannot be represented by a minority in government somehow or that a male is somehow disenfranchised by a female representation. Eventually people promoting these ideas should realise they are undermining the whole concept and workings of a republic. It cannot operate if people tear at it like this. If you want to tick the boxes then you can only go the route of mob rule AKA total true democracy. If you want a stable and just republic then stop now, avoid this tar baby topic and make it a good one of those instead.

    Even if you wanted the current monarch to remain the head of the new independent Scotland that is coming then you should still prefer it to operate beneath her under a republic’s mechanics for practical reasons than either the legacy Westminster system or a variant of mob rule.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top