A Matter Of Declinature
Posted on
July 15, 2026 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Our solicitor has this afternoon written to the Deputy Chief Constable.
We’ll await his response with interest.
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
-
Recent Posts
- 08-06
- 08-05
- 08-04
- 08-03
- 08-02
- 07-27
- 07-22
- 07-20
- 07-19
- 07-17
- 07-15
- 07-15
- 07-14
- 07-13
- 07-12
- 07-10
- 07-09
- 07-09
- 07-07
- 07-05
A tall tale
Wee Books
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Life in Bedlam
Video
Ho ho! I do enjoy reading legal communications like this when it is so articulate and to the point. A thing of beauty.
Yep, powerful stuff!
Brilliant! I don’t see how Police Scotland can possibly refuse to investigate.
Good work, Stu ?
Roddy and David are obviously doing most of the heavy lifting here đ
Under your instructions. That ? was a wee emoji.
‘But let justice roll on like a river’
Succinct, and elegantly addresses the question of why the Police Scotland failed in their statutory duties to fully investigate what is clearly a criminal matter.
No-one, and particularly politicians, should be above the law.
One can hope that one of the eventual outcomes of this ongoing scandal results in a separation of the judiciary from the Scottish Parliament.
Persist in your sterling efforts.
Excellent, hard to see how this can still be swept under the rug.
Talking of lawyers letters I see JK Rowling has made qwerty captured Amnesty back down after putting out a qwerty blacklist.
Can anyone point to any body or organisation these days thatâs not qwerty captured?
Even B&Q; try phoning and rearranging a delivery time and instead of on hold music you get their qwerty captured out thereân proud sermon.
Even heard the same over the tannnoy in Tesco..
So, youâve been warned, be kind when selecting carrots that look like a..
Qwertys days are numbered. Just like that mentally unstable transvestite who calls himself Confused.
Young Lochinvar, sorry you lost me with your comment , can you explain – I know being old restricts my understanding of modern idioms!
DB
Qwerty = (top line of a keyboard) is a kind of shorthand for LGBTQIgodknows what else gobbledegook gibberish freakery..
Hope that helps.
I know what âqwertyâ means, and I know what âcapturedâ means. But the phrase âqwerty captured â baffles me. AND Google and AI.
However, my dumb spellchecker comes up with âqueer capturedâ. Was that your intention?
Amazing Stu. Well done all.
I got a very similar response from T/Deputy Chief Constable Houston and I am pleased to see that David Halliday has very eloquently questioned why Police Scotland have failed to fully investigate what is clearly a criminal matter as set out by Roddy Dunlop KC.
Keep holding their feet to the fire.
Great letter, fair and measured response not unduly expected. Then we meet today’s reality. Accountability is for suckers and losers. Nothing to see here, Move on. Oh and btw, don’t you know there is a war (many wars) going on?
@RevStu – has anyone initiated the victims right to review with respect to the original complaint? Iâve no doubt that it will lead to the same conclusion, but it might force them to formalise the reasons why the original case wasnât pursued?
Dug wi a bone , wish we had more of you
â Dug wi a boneâŠâ
==============
But NOT a Wee Ginger one
The more they (Police Scotland/COPFS) squirm the more it smacks of someone in Thames House playing the National Security card to protect their agent(s) within the SNP.
No other explanation makes sense.
Indeed.
Prior to his resignation, Healy was the last Defence Secretary to call out the SNP as being ‘a threat to national security’. Which begs the response ‘Well, what are you doing about it?’
No one from the supine media asks, because they all know the answer.
Either that, or the supine media have been served DSMA-Notices and are avoiding mentioning the elephant in the room in any detail.
Their silence is deafening!
Thanks for your perseverance with this.
YAH BEAUTY
Btw how come that horror who âworksâ for Aberdeen uni is still in a job after HIS terrible(now deleted)remarks about the murder of ann wiidecombe
He disgraces Aberdeen University.
Aberdeen university disgraced itself by encouraging his fantasy and giving him a job in the first place.
Reap what you sow.
What I am looking forward to is how the media will describe ‘him’…will ‘he’ be described as:-
a/ she/her
b/ they/them
c/ “a biological male who identifies as a woman”
d/ or simply try and skirt (sorry!) around the subject of that one tiny awkward detail…male or female…
The BBC appear to have for the moment have opted for ‘a 50 year old’ and left it at that.
it’s the hope that kills you – england done by a team in dark navy … makes you think.
I am sure they will take it well, magnanimous, generous people that they are :
link to youtube.com
link to archive.ph
INGLUND have “HEARTS-ED IT”
LAVVERLY JABBLY
– now let’s play : BLAME THE MANAGER
‘es a bit forun innee …
tactics all wrong, obviously
No one is blaming the manager, although his subs were crap.
We scored a great goal with 30 minutes to play against Messi & co. and parked the bus (badly), choked and paid the price.
Thatâs it.
The assorted has-beens and never-will-bes on the BBC are blaming Tuchel and it’s not just because he went defensive very quickly after the goal. The knives got sharpened very quickly indeed.
Almost everyone is blaming the manager! But not because he is German. Football fans always blame the manager, for everything.
And that is unfair on him, though he must shoulder some of the blame. But what about Kane and Bellingham’s leadership after the first goal? England capitulated on the pitch before Tuchel did anything. And tbf that was because Argentina made life difficult enough for them that all they could think of was keeping it out of the net.
Funnily enough, the more considered reflections about the match have mostly come from non-England fans, who could see the reality better than England fans and pundits who are lashing out in stupid anger and reactionary BS. Listening to the phone-in it was Robbie Savage who speaking sense for once over Chris Sutton’s blinkered ‘it was all Tuchel’s fault’.
Stepping back from all the what-ifs, England reached their limit here and were beaten by the better side in the end and finishing third or fourth is basically where England are at (and as also shown by the rankings).
Argentina were nasty bastards though (and why they do that when they are capable of such good attacking football I do not know), so come on Spain.
Looks like the world and its mother blames the manager from what I see in the press.Don’t really get involved in football but it seems managers are the fall guys when it comes to defeet (pun intended) – nothing to do with the players on the field.
Great stuff – you can almost imagine the rising panic as they read it. Squeaky bum time!
Viagra..
For when you canât make it past a semi..
PS; Its just a game
đ
Viagra.
Take two and be a world champ
Police refusing to investigate a massive known crime in a civilised state can be because of one of the following two reasons:
They are partners in the crime, or,
They are friends of the criminals and are doing their utmost to protect them.
In a banana state like Scotland has become, it can be concluded they are rotten to the core, like the Crown Office.
There are two Crowns and Kingdoms here. The important question, which has remained for over three hundred years is which of those two Crowns do those running the institutions of ‘justice’ etc in Scotland take the oath to serve and protect:
1. Westminster’s (i.e. England’s) laws and interests?
or
2. The ‘sovereign’ Scots or ‘Community of the Realm’?
We all know the answer to this, and the lived reality every day since 1707: that fowk canna ser twa maisters, thay aye luve ane an laith the ither.
Which implies the interest of one Crown (i.e. the Scottish people) will always be made subordinate to the other dominant Crown, until colonialism ends.
‘United Kingdom’ is a calculated double misnomer.
Tell a lie often enough …….
“âUnited Kingdomâ is a calculated double misnomer”
Yes indeed, the ‘United Kingdom’ is a constitutional impossibility given the Claim of Right Act ensuring the sovereignty of the Scots being one of numerous violated conditions of the Treaty of Union.
And, as Salvo and others have established, this condition has been ignored and Scots have simply been made subject to English Laws (and hence subject to English values, culture, language and all else) imposed upon us these past three centuries; all in what professor Robert Black has confirmed was the ‘takeover’ and ‘annexation’ of Scotland coupled with the ‘re-branding of England as UK’ (when it suits them), and in turn the erasure of Scotland’s international persona and much else.
The UK is thus a ‘colonial hoax’ in which we see oor mankit institutions aye ser anither maister ivery day an in ivery wey!
Of course all of these issues have been determined, at length, by the English and Scottish courts and as everyone expected, what Alf is saying is total nonsense. Roddy Dunlop has also given his view, which you can find in a lengthy thread on X, which again confirms the same.
@Aidan
Be braw if you could have provided a link (preferably to an alternative archived page link of said thread on twitter site shiteness), seeing as any sensible person that doesn’t have an account on it won’t be able to view it with any following comments made by others.
Other views other than Roddy’s take are available.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
“Roddy Dunlop has also given his view”
Professor Robert Black believed for almost 60 years that there was a ‘union’ between Scotland and England, though clearly he does not now accept this to be the case at all. However he did say that he used to teach his law students that such a union existed, and very likely Roddy was one of them. If the teacher can reconsider our reality and take a quite different view based on the evidence so can the student.
Do you have any evidence that Professor Robert Black KC believes there âisnât a unionâ, I have read his essay âFor England, nothing changedâ, and it doesnât make any such claim at all. Perhaps he has made it elsewhere?
@Dan – fair point: link is here: link to x.com
Worth pointing out Roddy Dunlop QC is the Dean of the Faculty of advocates, therefore regarded as the most senior lawyer in Scotland, and certainly well-regarded and highly experienced. Dr Mark McNaught, in contrast, is a mid-level academic at a French university with, as far as I can see, no education or experience in English or Scottish law. It is extremely silly for the latter to be accusing the former of a limited education given their comparative positions, but Dr McNaught starts by doing just that.
However, rather amusingly Dr McNaught starts by admitting that âhis (Roddy Dunlop QC) legal reasoning is sound under current UK constitutional lawâ. Given that there is no other context in which the Claim of Right (the principle topic of discussion) can exist, that is a total admission that Roddy Dunlop is right absolutely. So we can add Dr McNaught to the growing list of people sitting in opposition to this nonsense.
Robert Black KC has repeatedly and explicitly stated that he believes Scotland is not in a real union with England.
In his legal opinion, Scotland was annexed, absorbed, and extinguished as a state in 1707, and the ‘Union’ is a constitutional fiction.
This isn’t a fringe interpretation – it’s a formal legal argument he has presented at conferences, in public statements, and even at the United Nations.
Black told a constitutional conference that:
[Scotland] âceased to exist as a state in international lawâ and was âabsorbed into a still-extant England, cosmetically renamed âGreat Britainâ.â
He further stated that Scotlandâs legal status today is not that of a partner in a union⊠but that of territory absorbed into a larger country and that the âUnionâ is a political fiction.
Another article summarises his view that the ‘Union’ is merely a political fiction bereft of any substantive meaning.
Black could not have made it any clearer to the world entire that he believes no real union exists between Scotland and England.
@Northcode – again, please provide some evidence, specifically that Robert Black KC believes the union is a constitutional (by which I assume you mean legal) fiction, but also for your other claims.
Now itâs possible that there is some article or essay or speech where he makes those claims. But in his essay âFor England nothing changedâ he explicitly declined to make any claim like that.
So I am going to stick my neck out and say you are lying about the views of Robert Black KC.
“… I am going to stick my neck out and say you are lying…”
Good… that will make it easier for me to chop yer argument’s heid aff.
Here’s an idea… why don’t you toddle off and do your own research instead of asking everyone else to do it for you.
Anyway, I’m done responding to your dumb comment, AI Dan, the rest of my comment is for everybody else.
Look… it’s like this:
Dunlopâs opinion carries more weight inside the UK legal system.
Blackâs opinion carries more weight outside the UK legal system.
Dunlopâs view governs reality.
Blackâs view explains reality.
This is an example of the egregore dynamic I mentioned in a previous comment:
The UK system defines its own legality.
The UK system rejects external truth.
The UK system enforces its own narrative and behaves like a mindless organism.
Dunlop speaks from inside the organism (he probably doesnât even realise it)… Black speaks from outside it.
Both are ‘right’ within their own contexts, but only one has any power.
This is the tragedy Orwell understood:
Systems define their own truth â external truth is irrelevant to internal power.
So within the UK legal system, Dunlopâs view is the one that governs outcomes.
Not because Dunlop’s opinion is more historically accurate (it isn’t, Black’s is), but because the UK system defines its own truth.
Maybe this will bring some clarity:
Dunlop is historically wrong, but ârightâ within the UKâs legal system because the UK legal system defines its own truth.
Black is historically right, but âwrongâ within the UKâs legal system because the UK legal system rejects external truth.
I hope that all makes sense to folk, because I don’t think I can make it any clearer…
Egregores, eh?
Whit are they like?
If there be two crowns and kingdoms, Alf, perhaps we could help things along by throwing every republican out of the Scottish Indy movement.
That way we might be able to make room to reconstitute, resuscitate and re-establish our Scottish crown and kingdom.
Or are “crown” and “kingdom” just two more of the fancy words you like to bandy about in the hope the gullible will believe you know what you’re talking about.
Here, AI Dan, I’ll help you out because you appear to be unable to do your own research and lack the ability to comprehend even basic concepts.
In his essay, Black is cautious and avoids the blunt phrase âno union exists.â
In conferences and UN submissions, he is explicit: Scotland was absorbed, not united… meaning the Union is not a real union of states and he explicitly describes it as a fiction.
You’re welcome, oh, simple-minded one.
Of course you can’t make it simpler, Northy.
We get it loud and clear. Right is wrong and wrong is right when you need them to be so to support your arguments.
The problem is Northcode is that your lack of knowledge and analytical ability is combined with an absurd level of confidence, which is never a healthy combination. Youâve been asked simply to provide some evidence for your claims and of course you canât so you instead treat us to that boring and irrelevant tirade.
Robert Black KCâs analysis is that rather than two states merging, in fact England subsumed Scotland into a renamed continuation of the same state. The analogy he gives is of a takeover rather than a merger. But that is a political description rather than a legal one. âUnionâ is not a legal concept in this context. Nowhere does he try to make the absurd suggestion that the legal instruments that implemented the union are not effective, as Alf was suggesting above.
Lastly, I can take it (to the extent that you convey any discernible ideas) that you think there is an authoritative recognised legal framework describing the UKâs internal constitutional arrangements that sits outside of the U.K. Again, prove it. The only sensible response that would have any logical consistency would be if this was a view taken in international law. If so, again provide some evidence, find me for example a treaty or a judgement in an international court recognising and giving positive treatment to these ideas.
I suspect what you really mean is these ideas are logically right (in your own limited and credulous mind) and are therefore ârightâ but arenât given legal effect anywhere. That is by definition then not law.
I appreciate this is a big ask, but it would be great if you could respond in clear direct sentences, rather than vague metaphors and analogies, so that we arenât left making wild guesses as to what you might mean. A well structured sentence or paragraph might look something like âI believe X, and here is my reasoning, evidence or analysis of why I believe thatâ
âDunlop is historically wrong, but ârightâ within the UKâs legal system because the UK legal system defines its own truth.
Black is historically right, but âwrongâ within the UKâs legal system because the UK legal system rejects external truthâ
I assume you havenât read or understood either opinion, since you present this as if they are offering conflicting views on the same subject, when in fact they are not. RD is responding to Sara Salyers quixotic suggestion that the union could be dissolved by a reconstituted convention of the estates, RB is analysing the circumstances around the creation of the union in 1707 (or the takeover, as he puts it). Two very different topics.
@Aidan
You too have a problem.
Your problem is that despite all the evidence to the contrary, you appear to be unable to accept that our dear, dear Northy will never debate in good faith.
Your problem arises from your own innate decency, but sometimes we have to understand how the malign contrive to use our own better natures as weapons against us.
I didn’t read your comment, AI Dan… your paragraphs are too long and I could tell just by the picture the overall pattern of symbols in your post made on my screen that it was devoid of any meaning…
In Robert Blackâs essay, the following is all one paragraph:
The numbering (by regnal year and chapter number in The Statutes of the Realm) of the legislation passed by the Parliament continued in an unbroken series before and after the addition of the Scottish members. Thus, the Act of the English Parliament ratifying the Treaty of Union was 6 Anne c11; the last Act passed by it before the new dispensation took effect on 1 May 1707 was 6 Anne c34 (An Act for continuing the laws relating to the poor, and to the buying and selling of cattle in Smithfield and for suppressing of piracy); and the first Act passed after the addition of Scottish members was numbered 6 Anne c35 (Land Tax Act). For England, nothing changed. Incidentally,the second Act passed, 6 Anne c36, which received the Royal Assent on the same day, was An Act to Repeal Certain Scotch Acts (namely the Scottish Parliamentâs Act for the Security of the Kingdom and its Act anent Peace and War.
So I assume you couldnât read that either.
Typically at a 3rd grade reading level, a child should be able read a medium length paragraph.
“In Robert Blackâs essay, the following is all one paragraph.”
Christ Almighty!
Do I need to explain EVERYTHING to you unionists (colonialist if preferred… same thing).
Robert Blackâs essay paragraphs aren’t compressed into the limited space in this place designed for short comments, and so those of us who post long comments should be considerate and break our posts into shorter paragraphs for readability.
Otherwise folk won’t bother to read them… like I don’t with most of yours.
Horses for courses and all that, eh?
Right, well the fact that you canât fucking read doesnât stop you posting endless drivel hour after hour, day after day and acting like you know everything does it?
All of the arguments above are redundant!
The English half of the Union has absolutely no legitimate authority over the Scottish half of the Union, and never did, for the good and simple reason that the highest authority in Scotland did NOT agree to any such arrangement in 1707, nor has done so since!
Even more damning, steps were unlawfully taken to actively prevent that highest authority in Scotland from being involved in the Scottish Treaty ratifications, rendering that ratification invalid, and thus the Treaty itself null and void.
How do you like them apples, Aidan?
The arguments above are highly relevant because they describe the recognised constitutional structure of the United Kingdom which sets out how we are governed.
Your arguments, Xaracen, are irrelevant because they enjoy no support from anyone in authority, anywhere, and therefore have no impact on the way we are governed or the strategy for independence or anything else.
I repeat, Aidan, it doesn’t matter how abstruse the legal arguments get, your arguments are irrelevant because the Union wasnât created by due legal process in Scotland; it was created by both nations formally accepting the result of a constitutional crime deliberately committed to produce that exact result.
Scotlandâs Parliament did NOT have the authority to ratify the Treaty of Union on its own, and it accepted the result of a constitutional crime when the only body with lawful authority, the sovereign Scots expressed through the Convention of Estates and the Claim of Right, was unlawfully prevented from convening. This prevented the highest authority in Scotland from refusing its assent to the Treaty, and striking it down. It was well understood that its refusal was almost guaranteed, given the widespread dissent of the Scots people for Union.
The writs for the mandatory Salvo session, which Scots law required at the end of every parliamentary session, and which allowed âall others having interestâ to attend and which would almost certainly have called for a Convention of Estates, were never issued. Also troops were deployed in Parliament Square to block anyone attempting to attend that session. Someone in authority unlawfully ordered those suppressions.
A constitutional crime knowingly ignored at the moment of ratification cannot be corrected by any modern UK institution, nor can it be deemed acceptable for any UK institution to maintain and rely on a fraudulent Treaty, thus essentially blessing that crime! And as the lawyers like to say, ‘ignorance is no defence’.
Only restitution to the unlawfully suppressed authority can address it â and that authority still exists today to do just that.
As for your claim that my arguments “enjoy no support from anyone in authority, anywhere”, given my response here, that is a patent failure of those in authority.
“in a civilised state”
And that’s a rather big assumption given Scotland’s longstanding and ongoing ‘colonial condition’.
As Cesaire reminds us:
“… between colonization and civilization there is an infinite distance; that out of all the colonial expeditions that have been undertaken, out of all the colonial statutes that have been drawn up, out of all the memoranda that have been dispatched by all the ministries, there could not come a single human value.”
Cesaire!!? Grow up. Why do you never mention Transvestites? Not once in all your rhetoric do you even touch on the elephant in the fridge.
You express a fundamental truism by quoting Cesaire’s observation, Alf.
An observation similarly described, though fictionalised, by George Orwell.
Colonial powers are inhuman powers â great egregores concerned with nothing else but their own survival.
And those humans, those mortals, who serve them exhibit at least some of the inhuman traits inherent in such systems.
The great despots of the twentieth century were not just cruel individuals.
They were the human faces of inhuman structures⊠egregores that produced barbarism through systemic logic, not personal malice.
Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Leopold II of Belgium.
Those despots were replaceable.
They survived only because they served the egregoreâs structural needs.
Had they failed, history would simply list different names.
The system was the real actor⊠the individuals were masks.
Orwellâs genius was recognising this from inside the machinery.
That’s why I think Orwell’s 1984 was a critique of the mindless barbarism common to such inhuman structures, many of which were created through colonialism.
Orwellâs real target â the thing he feared most â was the mindless, self-preserving, and very often stupid, behaviour of political structures once they become detached from human morality.
My view is that colonialism isn’t evil, nor is it good, worse â it’s inhuman… and that is its most frightening aspect.
I believe Salmond, for example, was hounded by an inhuman system.
Sturgeon and her circle were the faces, and slaves, of that system – although that doesn’t absolve them from personal responsibility for their actions… they still had choices, however limited, within that system.
They were shaped by the structure, but still responsible for their choices.
Ultimately, Colonialism cannot be argued with, nor can it be reasoned with â if you could look into its ‘eyes’ it would be like looking into the blank, mindless stare of a shark… and coming to the horrific realisation that no amount of reasoning will prevent it from tearing you apart.
If you’re worried about being torn apart, Northy, binder twine and duct tape are your friends.
HMcH @ 6.03
Even by your standards âold boyâ over in the Scotchland Office that is a particularly pointless, smug and lacking value response to an interesting post.
Yer little better than the spray can vandal painting over someone elseâs efforts..
Please tell us our taxes arenât subsidising you..
Saddo..
You reckon, Auld Lochnagar?
Man, but you must have put the fear of death into the Orcs eyeballing you across the wire.
I think that somebody interminably screeching about being crushed, oppressed, stolen from, and now torn apart, would benefit greatly from a corrective boot up the arse, along with a stern instruction to get a fucking grip.
Maybes spend a week in some of the more oppressed and crushed communities of Scotland distributing soup. The ones where the denizens have neither the time, opportunity, comfort, nor resources to post endless online bleating about how hard done by they are.
But hey, AL, you need to put down your assault rifle and go all touchy freely because you want to pointlessly point score.
Look out behind! It’s a shark with mindless, staring eyes! Run away!
HMcH
Yawn.
Youâve lost the plot âold boyâ..
The Police are institutionally corrupt
No one, and zi mean no one can have any confidence in them. From people like Prince Andrew, to Peter Mandelson, to criminal puppet maters like Jeffry Epstein who are above the law to people like Alex Salmond or Mark Hirst to Craig Murray who wrongfuly ofelt the full force of the law one sees just how politically corrupt the police are.
Steal, theft and plunder is good when you have the political cover pulling the police strings.
And like Baroness Michelle Mone, Nicola Sturgeon walks free.
Fascinating stuff, Willie.
Can we expect your justification for asserting that Epstein was above the law any time soon?
Seriously, it should be so good we will wait.
Thanks YL , that helped indeed!
I believe the turn of events is now proceeding faster than the SNP and its organizations can cope with!!!
Two Individual have been on contact with the operation branchform detectives and reported areas of interest.
Then we have the Clan Campbell stepping up and putting further pressure to bare on the Police and crown office.
At the moment although nothing has been decided. I quite pleased that the momentum is now starting to be so weighty in our fevour certain individuals most be worried hence statement that was once promised is now being withheld.
England’s going home going home, I couldn’t be happier all I need now is a huge lottery win.
Don’t you just love the game of football and to think to Scots invented it, it just shows how magical the Scottish people are.
It’s great to see it spelled out in an exemplary legal letter: “We are instructed by the REVEREND Stuart Campbell”
And if the (QUERTY-captured) recipients don’t like it, how dare they complain about a self-identified reverend with a certificate to prove it?
[Can’t help thinking that Wings’ title should also be “the revered”, in recognition of his tireless service to Scotland and to truth and justice.
These requests in the form of legal letters for information surrounding the SNP’s ring-fenced monies will most likely be answered in the narrowest possible way… as will virtually anything else to do with how the Scottish Government and the SNP run their ‘criminal enterprise’.
The Reverend’s requests for information will probably receive:
They are unlikely to receive:
Quite apart from the fact that the COPFS and Police Scotland are ultimately managed by Westminster these kinds of institutions protect themselves fiercely.
The Reverend is unlikely to receive substantive answers.
His demands will almost certainly be sidestepped, minimised, or answered in the narrowest possible terms.
This is how these institutions behave… especially so in a non-democratic, annexed territory operating under the illusion of self-government within the obvious constraints of a colonised society.
The people of Scotland don’t live in a normal, healthy, properly democratic society and the Reverend’s dogged pursuit for truth will ultimately be ignored and brushed aside.
There is no hope for justice in Scotland so long as it remains a territory, a region allowed the illusion of nationhood, an asset and valuable resource abused and plundered for the benefit of the British state.
Scotlandâs once great public institutions, like its Crown Office, have been made into faded, structural prostitutes turning tricks for Westminster.
“structural prostitutes”
Do tell Northy. So that’s what you get up to when your not saving Scotland with your in depth analysis.
Tell me, are they expensive?
They’re the ones built like brick shithouses.
I see that âheatherâ the aberdeen uni employee has been charged by the police over HIS
disgusting post about widdecombe
Bound to get off
He only does it in order to get off.
Excellent stuff rev. Let right be done.
I suspect this letter may produce a brown stain in certain quarters.
link to thescottishsun.co.uk
We done to Mr Davis, Sturgeon âThe fact that he hides like a coward behind the legal privilege of Westminster says everything we need to know about him.â. Isn’t she hiding behind her legal man if she as innocents as she makes out then release these written statements you promised you would.
Nicola, I know your reading these comments because your worried, your finished and Swinney isn’t making it any better. Don’t come back to Scotland your not welcome, you unionist plant.
She is rattled, thatâs very clear! I wonder what scares her, the general reputational damage, the possibility that the COPFS might reopen the case, or something else?
4 min vid of David Davis speech in House of Commons earlier today.
link to youtube.com
Certainly didn’t miss and hit the wall.
Due to exceptional work done in unraveling the Bourach of the SNP Financial web and intrigues can “We” the congregation bestow the title of “Very” to the Reverend Stuart Campbell ?
Got to say I find all this Anne Widdecombe stuff totally bizarre.
I canât be the only one that saw her as bit of a figure of fun after being dragged recumbent across the floor on that tv dancing competition.
Other figures of fun like Giles Brandrith and Boris Johnson best lay low eh?
Thanks Stuart for undertaking this onerous compilation of legal advice and endless FOI requests in an effort to bring sense and honesty back to our legal system
Thanks also to your solicitors and Roddy Dunlop for providing opinion and backup it has restored some sense of credibility to honesty and fairness
Surely this corrupt shadow of a once world famous legal system and judiciary must be reviled and opposed by honest proponents of law and justice
Surely the legal profession in Scotland must be disgusted and horrified at the open corruption and vilification of a once proud service
Surely your solicitors and Roddy Dunlop cannot be the only legal representatives in Scotland sick of a justice system tainted and captured by vile despots who are using it to protect reviled enemies of Scotland and Scots
I recollect Gordon Dangerfield legal advocate, representing Alex Salmond before his untimely death , Alex’s unfortunate demise resulted in Gordon being unable to continue with the exposure of the corruption within the SG and the evidence of the alleged involvement of sturgeon in his trumped up charges
You are making things up, Aidan.
Professor Black, “looking as a lawyer with fresh eyes” believes the UK ‘union’ to be a fantasy and said as much in his ‘ground breaking speech’ at the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group conference:
– there is no union, “what happened in 1707 is false”;
– no new state called the ‘United Kingdom’ was ever created;
– “I have no doubt…(this was) a takeover (of Scotland), not a merger”;
conclusion:
-“that Scotland was absorbed into an extant England cosmetically re-named Great Britain”;
– “Scotland’s legal status today is not as part of a union… but as a territory absorbed (by England re-branded as UK);
– “Scotland’s true legal status (is) as a non self-governing territory”.
Which confirms the ‘colonial hoax’ played on Scots and is precisely in line with the Liberation Scotland UN initiative.
link to youtube.com
Does Robert Black say anywhere that the union is a constitutional impossibility and that therefore the acts of union are not legally effective, as you stated above?
The fundamental problem with the analysis that Robert Black KC DOES give is that it makes no attempt to address the deep blue sea (or saltwater) rule which is absolutely fundamental to understanding the concept of NSGTâs in international law. Regardless of anything else, Scotland cannot be a NSGT because it is geographically contiguous with England, and therefore considered part of the U.K. Even if Scotland had been conquered in a violent invasion (as is the case for the formation of so many states), and the Scots subjected in the same way of the people of Tibet, the deep blue water rule is absolute. In contrast, it also helps explain why the Falklands islands remain NSGT despite an extraordinary subsidy from the U.K. and virtually universal support amongst the population for that arrangement.
So why don’t you fess up to what this means, Alf?
I’m guessing you’re pushing this line as you believe it will allow a handful of people to declare Scotland an Independent nation, with that same handful of people in charge.
As for the “Sovereign Scots”, I’m guessing you’ll find some pretext for ignoring what we want.
Have you checked that every one of the boys you’re working with is fluent in spoken and written Scots? Professor Black, for example. It’s you that created the rule that otherwise, nobody will be allowed a government job post-Indy.
“So why donât you fess up to what this means”
It means the ‘union’ aw you folks keep floggin is a falsehood, it disna exist, it niver existed, its a ‘colonial hoax’, an maist Scots fowk will soon ken it an will want naethin tae dae wi it.
Well said, Alf. Don’t let these plants grind you down.
Their orders are divert, distract, and divide.
All day, every day.
Odd that you think I’m flogging the union, Alf.
I point out the fact that it does exist, to the all encompassing extent of having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It’s you and your disciples who like to assert in the face of all the evidence that that’s a hoax.
I also point out that those who like to greet and gurn about the dire effects of Scotland leaving one political and economic union (the EU) need to dial that back as it lends ammunition to those who would greet and gurn about the dire effects of Scotland leaving a second political and economic union (the U.K.).
Both are quite reasonable points. Both need to be dealt with by reasoned argument. You regularly decline to do so.
I don’t believe I’m the only reader here who finds your go-to response of quoting some third-world racist (Fanon) back less than convincing.
“I point out the fact that it does exist”
Yes, and it is well established via the colonial mindset/condition that the colonizer can tell a colonized people pretty much anything, even ‘that the moon is made of cheese’ (Cesaire), and the important point is that the colonized mind will tend to believe it.
Houiver, ma decolonized mind disna believe it and neither does Prof Black an mony ither liberated Scots fowk.
Which means you and aw ither Scots hiv tae decolonize yer minds, Hatey:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
@Alf – this is starting to sound more and more like the teaching of L Ron Hubbard every day.
Cheers, Alf!
I have a soft spot for the one about the moon being made of cheese.
You’ve lifted my day. Thanks again.
I put in “Scotland un c-24” duckduckgo.com AI stated
Scotland is recognized as meeting the criteria for Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Nations’ Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24). This classification supports Scotland’s claims for decolonization and independence from the United Kingdom.
Wikipedia United Nations
Scotland and the UN Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24)
Recognition as a Non-Self-Governing Territory
Scotland is recognized by the United Nations’ Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) as meeting the criteria for Non-Self-Governing Territories. This classification is significant as it supports Scotland’s aspirations for decolonization and independence from the United Kingdom.
Implications of C-24 Recognition
The recognition by C-24 allows Scotland to pursue the following:
Self-Determination: Scotland can assert its right to self-determination under international law.
Decolonization Process: The classification enables Scotland to engage in a formal decolonization process, which includes the possibility of seeking independence.
International Support: This status can attract international attention and support for Scotland’s claims, potentially influencing global opinion and policy.
Historical Context
Scotland’s push for recognition stems from various factors, including:
Denial of Self-Determination: The UK government has been accused of obstructing Scotland’s democratic mandate for independence.
Colonial Exploitation: There are claims that Scotland’s resources and governance have been controlled by Westminster, limiting its economic self-sufficiency.
Historical Misrepresentation: The annexation of Scotland is viewed by some as a result of coercion rather than a voluntary agreement.
This recognition by C-24 is a crucial step in Scotland’s ongoing efforts to achieve independence and self-governance.
Perfect the message is getting out their.
I’m sure the United Nations will help us.
They love white people.
Who’s been feeding the Leftys? They’ve all went Legal International all of a sudden. Criteria being recognised, Determination of the self being justified, International attention being classified. Yes! you read this right folks Classified. It doesn’t get more serious than a C-24 with teachers stamp. A free day out in fantasy land with a few burly hookers thrown in. A roller coaster of a journey to benefitism.
Ah, c’moan noo, Red.
Have you learned nothing from the teachings of Professor Baird and oor ain dear, dear Northy?
Has ScotGov’s world-leading advances in the art of self-identification passed you by?
Have you not noticed the banana republic levels of grift, sleaze and malfeasance drowning HR?
Where were you when First Minister Humza Yousaf announced we need a couple of million immigrants? Did you think he intends to ship them in from Norway?
Scotland intends to self-identify as a third-world shit hole so that it can culturally appropriate the writings of Fanon, Memmi, and others to our own case. The only real obstacle is the fact so many of us are white. But that’s where we can play our self-identification trump card!
Dinna fash about our centuries-long history of genocidal colonisation in the Americas, antipodes, etc. Or our legacy of Scottish surnames and place names in these localities.
When the UN see how sincerely Professor Baird and OADD Northy believe some English barsturts did it and then ran away, they’ll believe it too.
Well DuckDuckGo AI is about as reliable as it sounds.
âScotland is recognized as meeting the criteria for Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United Nationsâ Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24)â – that is objectively untrue, C-24 has no power to designate new NSGTâs and has prevented any representations being made in respect of Scotland.
Comments are simply priceless, thank you all made me lol.
Its only the start.
Getting out their what?
Ooo err missus!
“Historical Misrepresentation: The annexation of Scotland is viewed by some as a result of coercion rather than a voluntary agreement.”
The Union was certainly not favoured by the majority of the Scottish people.
link to christianheritageedinburgh.org.uk
“It was 1707 and the members of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh feared for their lives. The members had voted for a Union with England by 110 to 69. With the touch of the Sceptre of State on the Union document by the Duke of Queensberry, Scotland had ceased to exist as an independent nation. The members were still required to sign the document, but furious crowds supporting independence forced the members to flee from Parliament House to elsewhere to complete the Union. They tried to meet surreptitiously, firstly in a nearby pub, then at a summer house near Moray House in the Canongate. As locals spied them and drummed up defiant mob support, they moved form place to place, unable to enact the final part. It was only when they feigned defeat and left, and then cunningly reassembled in a cellar opposite the Tron Kirk on the Royal Mile, that they could complete the Union.
Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, a key promoter of the Union, said that it was âcontrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdomâ, and yet it went ahead, amidst rioting. The aristocratic elite, led by the Duke of Queensberry, and ably financed by the English, had pressed through with their politicians to forge the Union, without any say from the majority of the Scottish people. Fearing control by the English over State and Church, the majority were determined to try and sort out the Scottish financial mess themselves. And what a mess it was! Previous wars, unrest and financial pressures had weakened the Scottish economy so much, that in the 1690s an estimated 5-15% of the population had died from famine. To compound this problem further, leaders of the nation, driven by national pride, committed the grave mistake of raising half the nationâs money to resource the doomed Darien expedition to the Isthmus of Panama in order to set up a Scottish trading base for East Asia. Within the year most of the settlers had died of malaria; the defeated stragglers returned, dejected and ruined. Thus, when England offered a financial olive branch in return for a Union between the nations, ruled from Westminster, the minority felt constrained to force the Union through. Only 45 Scottish MPs represented the nation in London; one more than in Cornwall.”
“Historical Misrepresentation: The annexation of Scotland is viewed by some as a result of coercion rather than a voluntary agreement.”
At the time the great majority of people in Scotland were agin the Union.
Members of parliament who had to sign their agreement to the Act were in fear of their lives and were denied the opportunity a number of times to complete their signatures as their meeting places were discovered by mobs of the people and they had to flee from them.
The risings in 1715 and 1745 reflected discontent with the Union
“The risings in 1715 and 1745 reflected discontent with the Union”
Naw. They never.
They were an attempt, across Scotland, England and Wales, to remove the Protestant British Royal line and replace it with the descendants of the former Catholic British Royal line.
If you don’t even know that, sam, stick to your comfort zone, proselytising for immigrants.
Stick to your own comfort zone, Main. Abuse.
link to parliament.uk
“The 1715 rebellion
In the next few years, discontent with the Union rankled at all levels of Scottish society. Mainly because of its adverse political and economic effects on Scotland.
Although Jacobitism was never a national movement, the unpopularity of the Union meant that Jacobites across Scotland were able to present themselves as defenders of Scottish liberties, pledged to repealing the Union and restoring Scotland’s parliament.
The outbreak of rebellion in 1715 saw the largest-ever massing of Scottish Jacobite forces against the government.”
Likewise in 1745, dislike of the Union was a factor.Bonnie Prince Charlie published two declarations in October after Prestonpans: one to dissolve the âpretended Unionâ and the other to reject the Act of Settlement,securing Protestant succession to the British throne.
Sure, sam. That’s why the Jacobite army marched on London, getting as far south as Derby before turning back.
“Jacobites across Scotland were able to present themselves as defenders of Scottish liberties, pledged to repealing the Union and restoring Scotlandâs parliament”
Why don’t you read what you posted? Scotland’s elites carpet bagging their pet hobby horses onto popular causes is nothing new.
Yes, wee Johnny.
That’s why the UK parliament site remarks that “Jacobites across Scotland were able to present themselves as defenders of Scottish liberties, pledged to repealing the Union and restoring Scotland’s parliament.
The outbreak of rebellion in 1715 saw the largest-ever massing of Scottish Jacobite forces against the government.”
The largest ever Jabobite turnout came about becaause of those pledges.
Why would Bonnie Prince Charlie make any committment to end the Union if not to use it to gather support?
Scots blokes are able to present themselves as women. It doesn’t mean they’re women.
If you don’t understand what “present” means in this context, I can’t help you.
BTW. Why do you need the primary school playground name calling if you’re so confident you’re in the right, and so securely dug in on the moral high ground?
Aberdeen university totally distancing themselves from the freak Herbert.
Mr Heather Herbert is the pinnacle of Leftwing policy. The fruits of DEI and global cohesion. Over a hundred years of socialism and this is all they can give to the world. To think of all those millions of poor bastards that lay dieing in the dirt for a cause they really didn’t understand.
The daft laddie speaks.
Every one of “those millions of poor bastards” should be granted a posthumous transition by the state.
I hope, trust and pray it’s high on PM Burn (ham)’s TO DO list.
Thanks, Dan, for posting the link at 6.22 to David Davis in the Commons today calling Sturgeon a liar and telling everyone the truth about the reason for their conspiracy to get Alex Salmond out of their way.
âher most evil act was stitching up Alex Salmond to hide the truthâ about Murrellâs crimes.â
Lying Nicola Sturgeon destroyed Alex Salmond to save her own skin, says Sir David Davis
link to archive.ph
==========
Also- see posts above with video.
Davis says truths what many of us know but cannot say.
Powerful stuff.
Quite illuminating that she calls him a âcoward hiding behind Parliamentary Privilegeâ while she herself pays a lawyer to pretty well play the cease and desist line!!
Scotlands better off without her and her bl00dy expensive coffee machines, bet she feels aggrieved sheâs not in the league of largesse accrued by the likes of Johnson and (we lost the footie so letâs rebuild the navy) Farage..
Power corrupts.
Swiss model: referendums as standard, gets my vote.
Really, Cynicus?
What is it you cannot say?
You fearty fantasist, you. Not exactly a recruiting poster for the kind of bold, fearless, patriotic Scot that could lead our charge to freedom, are you! đ
“…the kind of bold, fearless, patriotic Scot that could lead our charge to freedom…”
There you go again… you’re never done mentioning me in your posts, are you?
I’d make only one change to your complimentary, and flattering, statement – I’d replace ‘Scot’ with ‘Pict’, but apart from that you’re astute observation is uncannily accurate.
I think that Nicola Sturgeon can kiss goodbye to that peerage now.
@Northcode says: 17 July, 2026 at 10:41 am
“youâre never done mentioning me in your posts, are you?”
Guilty as charged, Northy.
I feel another repetition coming oan. Enjoy!
“You fearty fantasist, you. Not exactly a recruiting poster for the kind of bold, fearless, patriotic Scot that could lead our charge to freedom, are you!”
If you clock Cynicus down behind the sofa with you, Northy, say “Hi” from me.
Just in case any readers can’t be arsed to scroll up and find out what this pointless exchange is all about, it started as a response to Cynicus with his:
“Davis says truths what many of us know but cannot say”
To which I say, “Aff yer trembling knees, craven! The truth shall set you free.”
“Right, well the fact that you canât fucking read doesnât stop you posting endless drivel hour after hour, day after day and acting like you know everything does it?”
Oh, dear, Aidan – you’ve let yourself down.
That is an exceptionally childish response, it’s no wonder folk won’t engage with you unionists in debate if that’s how you all typically behave when you lose an argument.
Aw, Northy- dinna be too hard on Poor Adrian.
He’s just trying to join in.
Itâs an intemperate response Northcode, a childish response would be, for example, claiming you have won an argument you havenât even read because it was written in paragraphs.
Oh look everyone âJamesâ is here. I wonder what wisdom and expertise our very own Dalai Lama is going to share with us today.
Perhaps youâll bless Northcode with the gift of adult literacy?
Though both words suggest immaturity, intemperate speaks of excess and unruly extremes, while childish evokes innocence, playfulness, and a certain naive delight.
I freely admit my nature is the latter… more inclined to the gentle foolishness of childhood than to any dramatic excess.
David Davis defended Alex Salmond in the house before – didn’t know you could call someone a liar in the HoC thought it was forbidden despite the huge number of liars therein!
Aye , remember that well worn phrase of my youth ‘Be sure your sins will find you out’- they’re coming for you Wee Nicky!
The Code of Conduct does not permit members of either House to refer to fellow members using dishonourable terms, including “Liar”.
However, Parliamentary Privilege permits members to refer to non-parliamentarians using whatever terms they wish, without fear of legal recourse by those who they may offend/liable/slander, including Agent Sturgeon.
Well done David Davis – I haven’t walked past such a joyous display of newspaper headlines since, oh, I dunno, yesterday!
Looks like we are about to find out whether our police work for Scotland or are a tool of a political party.
I remember being surprised when David Davies appeared at Alexâs Glasgow Arena gig. But, in fact, they had become friends when Alex was in Westminster.
I was always taught to never trust a Tory, but I have to make a notable exception for David Davies.
I wonder how John Swinney and Angus Robertson are feeling as the net closes in?
âNever trust a Toryâ
Well, thatâs the kind of blind, catch-all tribalism that is pretty much largely responsible for the uniquely parlous state – even by UK standards – that Scotland finds itself in: economically, educationally, intellectually, morally; in issues of enterprise, free speech, wealth, prosperity and outlook.
Ironic indeed that this (English) Tory has been the only one to stick his head above the parapet (in England, whilst the entire apparatus of the SNP maintains stony silence, and indeed other Scots political parties too, it seems).
I agree with the initial sentiment. Not with anything else.
Scottish government funding is most affected by the block grant#. Reductions, as there were under Tory austerity meant less money for Scotland. Cuts in education spending in England has had a bad effect on England’s educational institutes. Likewise in Scotland.
I don’t think the present Scottish government is a good one.It is not all bad. For example, the child payments have enabled to keep the child poverty level in Scotland lower than in England. More needs to be done, though.
Scotch don’t like Tories generally, Inglis.
But how could you be expected to know that.
@ Wally Walrus says: 17 July, 2026 at 12:21 pm
Scotch is the name given to whisky distilled in Scotland.
Scots is the name given to people in, of or from Scotland.
In written English, a question is terminated with a question mark.
But how could you be expected to know any of that?
That right, aye, Prick?
Don’t be coy, prick, ye ken fine well that ‘Scotch’ is what you and your Inglis pals call us. Fuck off.
Well, Iâm not so stupid as to default-dislike a particular group of people out of sheer prejudice and ignorance; I take each person on their individual merits.
You have precisely zero merits, Fatso. Youâre stupid, ugly, fat, a troll, a slob, lazy, jobless, useless, impotently aggressive (but couldnât blow the skin off a rice pudding IRL), crass, illiterate, arrogant, you add no value to any discussion, you endlessly disrupt.
Hence I can honestly say that you personally are a worthless wanker.
Happy to clarify. đ
Well said CC, imagine being the biggest wanker WoS BTL.
Three unionist wankers together. Have fun, girls.
Is that it, Fatso? đ
My 5 year old granddaughter could do better (and could probably batter you too), if she was a single brain-celled, potty-mouth simpleton writing cheques she couldnât cash. Thankfully though, sheâs not. đ
Anyway, would love to chat but a G&T awaits in the garden. Cheers! đ
TBH I don’t think many folk could blow the skin off a rice pudding…
The phrase is usually: Couldn’t knock or pull the skin off a rice pudding.
But I guess macho comparisons of lung strength is now a thang.
@Wee Wally Walrus W. Winky says: 17 July, 2026 at 4:05 pm
“That right, aye, Prick?”
Aye. That’s right.
Scotch is the name given to whisky distilled in Scotland.
Scots is the name given to people in, of or from Scotland.
In written English, a question is terminated with a question mark.
There’s nae doot a special name for the willfully and proudly ignorant. If I thought there was any hope for you at all, I’d take the trouble to find it out.
Sorry Dan – are you really sticking up for âJamesâ here?
“[The] Scotch donât like Tories generally, Inglis.”
This, taken from the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue (up to 1700):
By the late 19th and early 20th century, Scots themselves increasingly preferred:
âScotchâ began to feel anglicised, patronising, insulting, and associated with Victorian English usage rather than Scottish self-description.
So Scots gradually abandoned it.
Today, itâs use is legitimate only for food and drink products (mostly), not people or culture.
The modern correct terms are âScot,â âScottish,â and âScots.â
So, historically, the word ‘Scotch’ was legitimate when referring to the Scots as a people and their culture.
But the use of “Scotch” to refer to the Scots nowadays is considered either ignorance or insult… and has been for at least three centuries now.
I believe James used “Scotch” in his comment to make a point – a point that obviously, judging by their responses, soared over the literal colonialist intellects of the unionists that hing aboot this place – and not because he thought it a legitimate term for the Scots in modern usage.
“I believe James used âScotchâ in his comment to make a point”
I believe you don’t believe that at all. That’s just another lie in your long list of lies.
There’s nothing you won’t twist, there’s no insult you won’t condone, if it provides you with a paltry and pathetic “victory”.
To describe a Scot as Scotch is crass ignorance. To concoct some pretext for that ignorance, rather than calling it out for what it is, is bovine tribalism.
The politics of the mindless herd. The reason why Scotland languished under Sturgeon’s rule for so long clearly explained in one self-pitying, self-justifying post from Northy.
“…in one self-pitying, self-justifying post from Northy.”
All I did was state a fact, backed that fact up by referencing a legitimate and respected source, and give an opinion on what I think James was doing by using the word “Scotch” in his comment to make his point.
Your over-reaction to my comment seems extreme, even intemperate.
Is intemperateness a common trait within the colonialist community in this place, I wonder.
Dan/Northy;
as we know they have an agenda and don’t like being put right. More to be pitied then scorned sadly.
“More to be pitied then scorned sadly”
Ach, why not stick in your comfort zone and scorn ignorantly?
Or sit this one out. Big words are being used, the rules of grammar and syntax are being correctly followed, and punctuation deployed.
You’re well out of your depth and it shows. Even if oor ain dear, dear Northy is attempting to keep you afloat, you’re still gonna drown shortly after he does.
Utterly outrageous how the Crown Office decided to remove ÂŁ60k of stolen goods from the charge sheet when these items could all be linked to Murrels wife.
All the so called probity of years of investigation and then the stolen items are just dropped.
And when the Crown Office was approached for comment it said that it decided to accept Murrellâs guilty plea offer as the ÂŁ58,735 reduction in items on the indictment would make no difference to the prison sentence that he would serve.
So aside of just being able, at a whim, to remove part of the indictment, how did the Crown Office know it would make no difference to the prison service Murrell would serve.
How can the Crown Agent office say what a judge may or may not find in sentence. The stench of corruption is utterly overpowering.
Murrell should have been prosecuted for the ÂŁ58,753 of goods regardless of what the composition of thecstolen goods revealed. Malfeasance of prosecution perchance and the cover up of a joint criminal enterprise.
David Davis is right and one more than suspects Sturgeon could well in the not too distant future be heading to pokey.
The only good thing about this is that Sturgeon exposed the willingness of some people in high office in Scotland to be corrupted. We now know who at least some of them are.
The evidence that Scotland is and has been Colonised since 1707 lies in the parliament for England and Wales.
As it was that parliament that was transferred into the cosmetically branded new Great Britain parliament,
Thus Evidence that the old parliament for England and Wales rests and works in parallel and conjoined as the Great Britain parliament,
The parliament for England and wales still passes laws, legislation and statues for England and Wales in present day.
However the old parliament for Scotland in 1707 was “Sine Die ” in Scotland and In the same year was Dissolved in in England by the parliament down south and by proclamation.
As a result the union between Scotland and England parliaments of old never took place, and a political union of a sovereign nation / kingdom was prevented.
As only the old parliament for England and Wales sits transferred and active in the cosmetically named Great Britain parliament by Englands private desire.
Willie.
The Crown office of England Wales,
Due to the Act of Settlement passed by the parliament of England – and seeing as there is no Scottish parliament in Englands Great Britain parliament for over three hundred years after having been dissolved in 1707,
The question David Davis is so very clearly raising is where do you go when your Police and prosecution service is absolutely corrupt.
Where does a society go. A Police force that when required does what the Nazis used to do and select innocent people for a hammering.
Or a prosecution service who does the same whilst wilfully disregarding others criminality. Where is the rule of law and do we just have to accept a Stasi or Nazi police and prosecution service.
Thats Scotland 2026.
It isnât Westminsterâs authority that is missing.
It is the mechanism whereby the Scottish, ahem, âgovernmentâ is obliged to recognise the ultimate authority of Scotlandâs Community of the Realm.
That means being properly answerable, and held accountable for their actions and statements according to rigid constitutional parameters, not merely the threat of losing their seat at some later election. We, the people, can sack our government. We have the power, but for now, we lack the mechanism.
Appealing to Westminster for an intervention merely invites more colonial encroachment over Scotlandâs already abused sovereign constitution,, but yet we have a bunch of home grown troughing rogues and charlatans, off the leash and ostensibly trying to prove Scotland is incapable of self government. Somebody needs to bang their heads together.
We need a thing that doesnât exist. A Constitutional Convention, but one with teeth to censure Scottish politicians who commit treason against our sovereign nation, or squander away our constitutional rights and privileges. It is outrageous that these imbeciles can routinely abdicate Scotlandâs rights and entitlements with absolute impunity.
However, in the absence of said Constitutional Convention, then even the rare spectacle of a Tory standing up for what is right, is preferable to the unchecked, shambolic incompetence of our resident SNP invertebrates, who routinely collect a wage for selling Scotlandâs Independence down the river, and suffer hardship upon those whoâre unhappy about it.
O/T (mostly)
I liked the use of therefor in the letter, a word I am only vaguely aware of, meaning, I assume, ‘for it’.
But I am puzzled by ‘unarguable’ It’s ‘inarguable’, isn’t it? Maybe there is a difference in legal parlance.
It is, unarguably,unarguable. See also unwell, unable, undone.
Southernbystander, this is from Copilot:
The terms “unarguable” and “inarguable” are often used interchangeably, but there are subtle differences.
Inarguable typically emphasizes a stronger degree of certainty, indicating something that is not open to doubt or debate.
Unarguable also means not subject to argument or dispute, but it may imply a slightly less emphatic stance than “inarguable”.
In general, both terms convey the idea of something that cannot be reasonably disputed. You can use either based on your preference, but “inarguable” is often seen as the stronger choice.
‘âinarguableâ is often seen as the stronger choice’
If that is the case, then unarguably, “unarguable” is often seen as the stronger choice too.
Logic, eh? It’s a scunner.
Peeps shouldn’t get involved if they don’t know the rules.
Thanks Saffron Robe, that makes sense i.e. unarguable is ‘not able to be argued’ but inarguable is ‘true, and impossible to doubt’. So the two words are inarguably very similar, but their differences are not unarguable.
“Logic, eh? Itâs a scunner”
Some Scots might say the colonisation of Scotland is inarguable.
Some Scots might say the colonisation of Scotland is unarguable.
Other Scots might deny the colonisation of Scotland entirely; but this latter group could be suffering from a colonial mindset – which is an inevitable consequence of colonisation.
“Other Scots might deny the colonisation of Scotland entirely; but this latter group could be suffering from a colonial mindset â which is an inevitable consequence of colonisation”
A consequence that is inevitable would inarguably and unarguably leave all Scots suffering from a colonial mindset.
So either you’re not a Scot, Alf, the consequences of colonisation aren’t inevitable, or we’re not colonised. By your argument at least one of these has to be true – perhaps more than one.
As I wrote earlier, logic’s a scunner and peeps shouldnât get involved if they donât know the rules.
“A consequence that is inevitable would inarguably and unarguably leave all Scots suffering from a colonial mindset.”
Yes, this must be so, also individually to a greater or lesser extent, and depending on the degree of cultural assimilation experienced.
Colonialism is based on psychology with a distinct pathology associated with it.
I see, Alf.
Inevitably, yes, but individually to a greater or lesser extent.
Like death, inevitable, but not for everyone, because some people are healthier than others.
Once again, Alf, just when I think you couldn’t surprise me ever again, you do!
If I send you a donation, will it be ring fenced?
David Davis makes allegations about nicola sturgeon in Westminster
Professor Tim Wilson You Tube
Well worth a view.
David Davis makes allegations about Nicola sturgeon in Westminster
Professor Tim Wilson on You Tube
Worth a view
David Davis makes allegations about Nicola Sturgeon in Westminster.
Professor Tim Wilson site on You Tube.
This report is well worth a view as it covers the fraud and attempts to jail Alex Salmond. Excellent summary.
13 minutes of my life I’ll not get back and I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know, apart from the fact that the learned Professor’s dress code is somewhat eccentric.
Your too late. The Institutions have been taken over. You had your chance. Today I went to a special occasion and realised in my own country as I white grandparent I was in the minority. If you want me to provide evidence l can do but you shouldn’t need any evidence because it is around us.
For Young Lochinvar, and to upset the three stooges…..
Thank feck thatâs (almost) over for another 4 years.
So….July 18th…..must be
FRANCE v ENGLANDâŠ.
But not at the footbore…. Those of a certain age will remember being bored to tears hearing about the English ship the [hushed tones] âMary Roseâ on TV; on and on and over and over. *yaaawn*
Well today, July 18th; France v England – letâs celebrate the battle of the Solent – this day in 1545, when our ancient allies the French shoved it up the English navy. And the sublime Scottish connection; King James IVâs massive warship âMichaelâ, which we sold to the French in 1514.
In 1991 Historian Norman MacDougall suggested that under her new French name she may have taken part in the Battle of the Solent, and may even have been the ship that blew the puny [by comparison] âMary Roseâ out of the waterâŠ.
Our friendly connections with Europe are hundreds of years older than with our covetous enemy to the south. We should all be cheering on our ancient allies this evening….
Santé aux Français!
Vive la France! Vive la Vieille Alliance!
James
You got in before me there as I had the 19th noted.
Salutations anyway my friend!
And correct about the Great Michael, the pleasant little fiction that the French allowed it to simply rot away in harbour after purchasing it is of course just English propoganda.
The bit thatâs always got me about the Mary Rose is the intemperate rant from the English admiral about his crew, foreigners mostly as being âroguesâ.
Typical blaming Johnny Foreigner to distract from the fact that nascent Imperial England, as imperial and aspiring imperial powers are wont to do: hire others to do their fighting for them as opposed to doing it themselves!
If Johnny Foreigner was to blame then itâs probably one of the French highly manoeuvrable galleys with heavy calibre bow chasers that put in the critical shot below the waterline and she sank trying to run aground manoeuvring in the rising sharp wind.
Archaeology shows the remaining (critically downside) gun deck ports were still closed and both sides cannons remained loaded so she hadnât âfired a broadside and attempting to bring about to do their same again on the other sideâ..
Donât let the facts get in the way of English propaganda though eh?
Of course I recuse the northern English from that statement, whom London powers consistently considered just so many other dispensable foreigners anyway, just read their history too, not that in fairness Iâm that bothered..
“she sank trying to run aground”
Man Auld Lochnagar!
Please tell us you never tried to join the RN.
HMcH
Eh??
No.
And your point is exactly, beaching a ship holed badly below the waterline allows repairs then refloating?
Not beaching/ failing to leads to; sinking..
They failed to beach it/ run aground and it (wait for it) sank and was lost..
Jesus H Christ!
P1ss aff âold boyâ, youâve lost the plot and arenât even funny smart a8se, just smart a8se..