The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


A plague of fools

Posted on August 14, 2020 by

Sometimes people are so stupid it’s legitimately scary. For example, all the Unionist politicians in Scotland who appear to genuinely think voters won’t notice that the recent exams catastrophe affected England (run by the Tories) and Wales (run by Labour) even worse than it did Scotland, and so they keep screaming for John Swinney’s head while having nothing to say about the even worse messes bursting all over their own parties’ respective jurisdictions.

(Esler misses the fact that the “deletions” were all actually retweets of a single tweet on the Scottish Conservatives which was deleted, but the point is the same.)

It genuinely boggles our mind that anyone, let alone a professional politician whose job it is to have their finger on the public pulse, could possibly imagine they’d ever get away with such utterly brainless naked hypocrisy, apparently believing that voters have memories less than 24 hours long and enjoy having their intelligence insulted.

(Incidentally, we can’t see any good answer to the exams problem. Either you have one year of massively artificially inflated grades, with all the tricky ramifications that presents further down the line, or you have a year of grotesque injustices to thousands of blameless individual students that are logistically impossible to remedy. The former is probably the lesser of the two evils, which poses the question of why the Scottish Government was too monumentally dim to see it coming and why it wasted a week defending the latter option before inevitably caving in and doing the sensible thing it was always going to have to do and should have just done in the first place.)

But it’s not just politicians.

The above headline appeared on a little-read pro-SNP website this week, and the absurd random jumble of capitalised and uncapitalised words is the least of its worries.

Firstly, unless you DO have a 24-hour memory span 53-47 is NOT the “biggest ever lead” for independence. Hell, it’s not even the biggest lead of summer 2020. The two previous polls, in June and July, put Yes ahead by a higher margin (54-46), and the biggest EVER lead is still the 59-41 one recorded in a survey just over four years ago.

And there was also another 54-46 the same month, so this week’s YouGov figures are actually the FIFTH-biggest lead ever.

(The National, reliably, nevertheless reacted to support going from 54% to 53% with the same “support for independence soars” phrasing that it uses for any two figures regardless of their actual sizes.)

But it got worse. Because SNP NEC member and female-penis advocate Doug Daniel popped up in the comments of the same website that once published this:

to make his own audacious attempt at usurping the World Hubris Record.

It’s worth spending a moment or two unpicking that drivel.

“There’s nothing in the UK’s uncodified constitution that compels them to give us a section 30 order, but that’s no different to the situation last time. Folk say they only granted the s30 order in 2012 because they were sure they were going to win, but that’s far too simplistic. It explains the timing, but not the act itself. You don’t fight battles you don’t need to fight, even if you’re sure you’ll win.”

Firstly, we might note how touched we are by such faith in David Cameron’s infallibility. The idea that the former PM might simply have made a misjudgement appears quite inconceivable to Mr Daniel’s analysis. But Cameron thought – as he also mistakenly did with the Brexit referendum – that holding a vote and winning it convincingly would put the matter to bed and kill off the SNP’s ability to weaponise the (valid) grievance of being denied a democratic vote.

Since the SNP had just smashed an electoral system expressly designed to prevent any party – and especially them – from getting a majority, Cameron had grounds for belief that continuing the refusals of the previous four years was only making them stronger. And since he had no way of knowing what they might do if that support kept growing – particularly with a gambler like Alex Salmond in charge – allowing a vote when Yes was barely at 30% probably seemed the least risky strategy.

But that concern doesn’t apply with Nicola Sturgeon at the helm of the party. Boris Johnson already knows what she’ll do if her demands are refused – nothing. Theresa May turned her down flat in 2017 and she did nothing. Johnson himself did the same in 2019 and she did nothing.

She did nothing for three years after the Brexit vote in 2016, now she’s doing nothing because of COVID-19, and she says she’ll do nothing until not just the pandemic but its economic aftermath is over, which is years away.

Then we get more baseless fantasy:

“Clearly, they felt they had to nip independence in the bud. That’s inconsistent with apparently being able to say “no” forever, which would mean every single person in Scotland could vote SNP and they’d just keep sticking two fingers up at us with impunity.”

Well, no, it just isn’t. Circumstances change. Something that was sensible in 2011 isn’t necessarily sensible in 2020 when the whole world’s been turned upside down in the intervening period. The UK was still in the EU in 2011. Oil was still selling for a few quid. Australia, and more alarmingly Siberia and Alaska, weren’t on fire. Donald Trump wasn’t the President of the USA and the whole planet wasn’t wearing facemasks.

Every single person in Scotland ISN’T going to vote for the SNP – at best they’re going to get a bit more than half – but it would make very little meaningful difference to Boris Johnson if they did. He will only ever grant a referendum if the consequences of not doing so are worse for him than the consequences of doing so, and it’s all but impossible to imagine a scenario where that could ever be the case.

Because what could those negative consequences be? We know that Nicola Sturgeon will never declare UDI. We know that she’ll never hold a “wildcat” referendum (partly because she’d never try and partly because it’d fail if she did, since there’s no way to bypass Unionist-controlled councils). We know that she’ll never endorse mass civil disobedience, because it’d be domestically toxic and have little practical force. And we know she’ll never go to court to establish Holyrood’s legal right to hold a vote, because if she was going to do that she’d have done it four years ago instead of wasting all the time on a futile, dishonest attempt to deny England and Wales democracy.

And nobody else is coming to help. We know from the experience of Catalonia that the UN won’t step in, and the EU certainly won’t because we’re not a member any more. So what on Earth can Sturgeon – or indeed Scotland as a whole – threaten Johnson with? A six-seat reduction in his majority? Uproar in the famously pro-indy media? An Ian Blackford speech in the House Of Commons that simply never ends?

Yet still the empty wishful thinking pours forth:

“Even Theresa May’s ‘now is not the time’ mantra conceded it was a matter of when, not if. The official lines from Tory HQ today say there’ll be no referendum, but their behaviour says otherwise. Why do they need to ‘fight for the union’ if they’re 100% in charge of whether another referendum happens or not? Why the panicky replacement of Jackson Carlaw? None of it makes sense if they can truly resist the political pressure forever.”

Weirdly, having earlier attacked indy supporters who take Johnson at his word, Daniel now does exactly the same with his predecessor in Downing St.

May said “now is not the time” because she didn’t want to openly announce that the Scots were slaves with no recourse to democracy. We all knew she meant “never”. Tories “fight for the union” because it’s their job, because it gives them something to say to gee up their own supporters and because their lives would be marginally easier if support went back down below 50%. They sacked Carlaw because he was such an idiot it was embarrassing and there’s a Holyrood election coming up that they’d rather not be humiliated in any more than they can help. There is no rocket science here.

“The thought of another SNP majority – bigger than in 2011 even – has got them in meltdown a year before the election. They couldn’t make the situation more obvious unless they started wearing t-shirts saying ‘SNP majority = IndyRef2’.”

Let’s test that. We’re happy to bet Doug Daniel £1,000 that Boris Johnson will not grant a Section 30 while Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the SNP, unless legally compelled to do so by a court. We’ll put our money where our mouth is when it comes to our track record of analysis and prediction. Let’s see if Doug will.

Because until someone in the SNP or their loyal and obedient cheerleader squad can tell us what we actually have to threaten the UK government with, we’re going to keep pointing out the reality that independence is going nowhere.

Print Friendly

    265 to “A plague of fools”

    1. Tannadice Boy says:

      Stu

      Well thought out post. Putting your money where your mouth is always a compelling sign of belief and confidence. I wouldn’t take your bet up and I am a gambler as well.

    2. Karen Allan says:

      If we promised not to sue for reparations, that might do it?

    3. A Person says:

      In life I have found that wishful thinking is a terrible thing, and when it comes to this, too many people are having a bit of wishful thinking. They just refuse to see what is so plainly in front of them.

      Two quotes spring to mind- the old Scottish one of “he either fears his fate too much…” and a more recent one: “ever get the feeling you’ve been had?”

    4. George S Gordon says:

      Meanwhile (don’t laugh, you may do yourself a mischief) –
      “How George Galloway and I plan to save the Union”
      https://archive.is/QTILf

    5. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Also…

      ‘More and more people on the unionist side are conceding that a majority for the SNP will mean a second referendum.’

      Huh?

      I’d quite like to see a list, even if it’s toty.

    6. Big Jock says:

      Ian – Except Boris, probably!

    7. kapelmeister says:

      The Bruce didn’t park the struggle during the First War of Independence when the Great Famine devastated all Europe in 1315-1317.

      Scots didn’t park the struggle during the Second War of Independence when the Black Death arrived in Europe in 1347.

      Sturgeon though, parked the struggle indefinitely because of covid. What a lovely bus though!

    8. Republicofscotland says:

      So if Stu’s correct, and I can’t think of anything that I can throw in the ring that might counter his points, except maybe a way out of this horrendous union via the Treaty of Union, and on that route I’m not sure, it basically means we’ll have another five years of Sturgeon at the helm talking a good game on independence but not actually doing anything positive to achieve it.

    9. crisiscult says:

      I’m slightly concerned that someone in the heart of the SNP is making statements that strongly imply it is pro-indy voters who are to blame here. It reminds me slightly of Labour for the last 10 years or so (we don’t need to change anything, we just need the dim voters to try harder to understand our message).

      However, Rev’s post is a little dispiriting in that he lists what won’t work. I’m inclined to agree but having a referendum that council’s resist could surely be a stage in a process that ups the ante, assuming the current S30 court case fails (the crowd-funded one).

    10. Republicofscotland says:

      “George S Gordon says:
      14 August, 2020 at 1:58 pm
      Meanwhile (don’t laugh, you may do yourself a mischief) –
      “How George Galloway and I plan to save the Union”

      George, I’m sure Galloway once said “If you see me standing under the Union Jack shoulder to shoulder with the Tories shoot me.”

      I have great admiration for Galloway’s work in Palestine and Iraq, but the man is consumed by hatred for the SNP and Scottish independence, and I’m afraid he’d now jump onto any bandwagon available just to get back into politics, pity that, he’d have been an invaluable asset at Holyrood in an independent Scotland.

    11. John Walsh says:

      All of which is why the wokerati want to keep Joanna Cherry out of Holyrood.
      To be fair if I was getting £100k a year plus expenses . I would be happy to F**k about at WM for another 4 years. Since Independence is going nowhere fast.
      I think the pain of a hard Brexit will awaken those with shallow pockets.
      Who knows? Henry VIII Powers might just kick Nicola up the arse.

    12. kapelmeister says:

      George S Gordon@1:58

      Thanks for posting that link.

      So George Galloway is now lunching and collaborating with Tory old Etonians. Well well.

    13. Vivian O'Blivion says:

      YouGov helpfully publish a breakdown of the headline numbers. The poll this week didn’t include 16 & 17 year olds. 18 to 24 year olds stated that they would vote Yes on a ratio of 79:21. If you make two relatively safe assumptions; a) 16 & 17 year olds will turn out at the same rate as 18 year olds b) 16 & 17 year olds will vote around 80% for Yes, and run the numbers (using Population pyramid spreadsheets from the nrscotland website), the breakdown for Yes:No becomes 54:46 ( the same as the last two Panelbase polls. I’ve no idea whether Panel base poll 16 & 17 year olds.

      Granted, Sturgeon won’t countenance civil disobedience, but if she shrugs her shoulders when Johnson says “No S30 order”, she would no longer be controlling events. Johnson would effectively be committing to this whole “second act of Union” nonsense with all the anti-democratic implications entailed.
      16 to 24 year olds are 80% committed to Independence. In the age group 25 to 49, there’s a healthy 16% lead for Indy. A refusal to grant S30 by Johnson would only outrage a portion of the uncommitted. The numbers (from the UKs perspective) would become more stark.
      So, we’re in a scenario where around 80% of the population under the age of 30 are committed to Independence. There’s another term for the population in the age group 16 to 30, and it’s “fighting age”.

    14. kapelmeister says:

      George Galloway and old Etonian Jamie Blackett could form a new party. The Bedfellows Newfangled Party. Or BNP for short. Party symbol – big union jack.

    15. Confused says:

      I read that Bella article the other night (out of desperate boredom) – it seemed … triumphalist nonsense with the usual “lets bitch about wings” chucked in.

      – not worthy of a pisstake; nice spot, the unconventional capitalisation strategy

    16. winifred mccartney says:

      It is just so ridiculous to have Leonard, Davidson and Rennie screaming for the head of John Swinney when not a word being said about Williamson and the lib dem/labour in Wales they made complete fools of themselves yesterday and everybody and their dog knows it.

      If you want a laugh watch Leonards opening for the No Confidence vote and if you want to be impressed watch Michael Russell closing for the Government- don’t bother with Ruthie she was just having a ‘moan-fest’ – nothing new there.

      Watching what is happening in England just proves to the whole country what idiots labour, lib dems and tories are in Scotland and leaves them, or should leave them with very red faces.

    17. schrodingers cat says:

      the 59% yes poll after the brexit vote was a complete outsider. the recent 53% poll for yes was from panel base. an unfriendly yes polster. What it did do was confirm the trend in support for indy is above 50%

      “Theresa May turned her down flat in 2017 and she did nothing”

      theresa said “now is not the time” to the bbc but when the actual official request came from holyrood, theresa called a ge before the 30 day period for an official reply from wm elapsed.

      the snp got 38% in that election. hardly the basis for a revolution, indyref2 was sidelined because of that.

      “May said “now is not the time” because she didn’t want to openly announce ”

      that’s true, and the legality of the position hasnt been tested, it suits both sides for that to remain so, but peat worrier posited that the SC would come down in favour of WM. so you are probably correct in your analysis.

      I pretty much agree with this article, bojo will refuse a s30 “officially”. to that end, i’m not sure why we should continue down the road demanding a referendum?

      what is paramount is to convert polling figures into actual voting figures. I cant see how a referendum will do that if the councils block it and unionists boycott it

      the only option i can see is to use the holyrood election. regadless of what nicola does, it will be seen by everyone as a defacto plebiscite on indy.

      I would encourage the snp to adopt this as a campaign strategy.

      the face off is coming, that cant be avoided now

    18. I miss you on Twitter x

    19. crisiscult says:

      @schrodingers cat

      To use 2021 as a plebiscite, wouldn’t SNP (sometime before campaigning starts) have to have escalated things? I mean the electorate right now is hearing that we just don’t have high enough polling numbers and Covid19 is the priority. They are hearing these things from the SNP. So, why would they support the sudden jump to that election being a plebiscite? Hopefuly you understand what I’m getting at and what the SNP need to start doing very soon.

    20. stuart mctavish says:

      @Republicofscotland

      Not necessarily.
      eg Were Salmond or Cherry to win Glasgow South side with an additional 10% swing to the real SNP on the regional ballot (or labour to get in between the two with 5% swing on the regional list) then Angus Robertson could become the new FM.

      (which is indeed ludicrous given that the leaders of the other parties will all get in on their lists, but could work in favour of indy regardless if Nicola could be persuaded to declare indy in advance (just in case)

    21. Astonished says:

      Hit the nail on the head :

      “Karen Allan says:
      14 August, 2020 at 1:52 pm
      If we promised not to sue for reparations, that might do it?”.

      I would suggest we all start talking about TRUTH, RECONCILIATION and REPARATIONS after indy. I want to see Johnston in the Hague for crimes against humanity.

      Also if you work for MI5/6 and lie during indy then you face a post-indy trial. Politicians who lie face the same, as do yoon churnalists. If you vote but don’t live in Scotland or only have a Scottish holiday home then the pokey beckons.

      If I was Glenn, Kaye and Brian I’d start having porridge every morning.

      I think we must start pointing out we have ways of getting even.

      Scotland’s motto :’NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT’ really means ‘no one injures us and gets away with it.’

    22. Breastplate says:

      I think it’s worth re-posting this.

      Independent thinker: Boris Johnson will not grant a Section 30.

      SNP loyalist: Yes he will.

      Independent thinker: No he won’t as he doesn’t have to?

      SNP loyalist: Yes he does.

      Independent thinker: There are no rules, regulations or laws that compel him to do so.

      SNP loyalist: But he will.

      Independent thinker: I understand that you feel that opinion polls showing a majority in favour of independence will force him to change his mind but that is just wishful thinking.

      SNP loyalist: No it isn’t.

      Independent thinker: Expecting Boris Johnson to change his mind because it was the right thing to do would require him to have some integrity and he doesn’t have any.

      SNP loyalist: Yes he does.

      Independent thinker: He doesn’t care what Scotland thinks.

      SNP loyalist: Yes he does.

      Independent thinker: No he doesn’t.

      SNP loyalist: Yes he does!

      Independent thinker: This isn’t a debate, this is just contradiction.

      SNP loyalist: No it isn’t.

      Independent: Yes it is.

      SNP loyalist: No it isn’t

      Independent thinker: I don’t think we have anything left to discuss.

      SNP loyalist: Yes we do.
      ———————————————————————————————

      This debate has been brought to you by Monty Python.

    23. schrodingers cat says:

      crisiscult says:
      assuming the current S30 court case fails (the crowd-funded one).
      ————–
      i thought this case was to establish that we didnt need a s30? we already have the right to hold an advisory referendum?
      ————————–
      To use 2021 as a plebiscite, wouldn’t SNP (sometime before campaigning starts) have to have escalated things?
      ———————-
      no and yes,

      no, people will view the holyrood election as an indy plebiscite regardless of what the snp do

      yes, i hope the snp do go down this route.

      bear in mind, if the snp do this and dont get 50%+ indy is over for 5 years. if they back indyref2 instead and get 45%, it still gives them momentum towards indyref2. I think they will try and do both.

      —————————————

      I mean the electorate right now is hearing that we just don’t have high enough polling numbers and Covid19 is the priority
      ——————-
      really? polling numbers are the same for everyone. numbers are numbers, last 4 have indy and snp well into the 50%+ range.

      focusing uniquely on covid annoys indy and unionists in equal amounts, but since support for indy/snp continues to rise for the moment it is probably the right tactic.

      but i still maintain that we are coming down to the wire and a face off is unavoidable. many folk think bojo will still say no, i think they may be right, but perhaps bojo is deluded enough to believe his own rhetoric and say yes.

      either way, when we reach that point, we will need a public vote of 50%+ otherwise the no from bojo will be certain

    24. Lorna Campbell says:

      Brilliant, Rev. Says it all. I could weep. I cannot believe such naive stupidity. What is wrong with the Scots?

    25. schrodingers cat says:

      Astonished says:
      Scotland’s motto :’NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT’ really means ‘no one injures us and gets away with it.’

      ————–

      i prefer the modern OED translation of “Don’t Fuck Wi’ Me”

    26. Muscleguy says:

      In terms of the councils all they need to do is pass a law making it illegal to impede of fail to run an election or plebiscite duly passed by the Holyrood parliament (or WM for that matter) & make the governing council group personally liable to a big fine, gaol and/or disbarment with commissioners sent in to get the poll done.

      What’s to dislike or illiberal about that? It is a defence of the democratic process against wreckers in town halls. Surely it will never be necessary to use it? One on the books it won’t be. If the SNP have a majority, or they could get the ISP/Greens to help, who can stop it? Doesn’t violate human rights law.

      If they really were planning for Plan B as Business for Scotland tried to persuade us recently that would have been done already in same way sedition was removed from the statutes in Scotland in advance of indyref1 just to stop it being abused.

    27. Sweep says:

      I remember when Doug Daniel was an indy canvasser who used to post amusing Jazz Hands selfies.

      It remains his best work to date.

    28. Teetering says:

      Female-penis advocate Daniel spoke at our branch meeting. He was deeply unimpressive.

    29. terence callachan says:

      Guessing is okay , when you really have to , or for a bet , or when you’re with pals having a laugh but seriously when it comes to guessing when the SNP will start their next Scottish independence campaign guessing continuously is of no benefit , I mean let’s face it , sooner or later you are going to be wrong.
      When all you say repeatedly is that SNP do not intend to have another Scottish independence referendum you are guessing and it is of no benefit whatsoever.
      Everyone knows you’re guessing .

    30. I can remember when Dougie was your bestest most loyal reader and admire,your number1 fan.He used to live in the real world. What happened to him? Did the wokus pocus,kidnap him and take him to a re-education camp in deepest darkest Donside?

    31. schrodingers cat says:

      @Breastplate

      nice speech, however it is an argument about what bojo will do IF we win a majority????

      I dont know the result of this argument but I believe campaigning to ensure we have a majority 50%+ when we eventual need to confront bojo?

      or is the end of your argument really…

      Independent thinker: I don’t think we have anything left to discuss.

      SNP loyalist: Yes we do.

      Independent thinker: no, i’m right, there is no point in even trying

      SNP loyalist: Ach, yer right enough, thanks for pointing that out before i started to waste my time campaigning.

      Independent thinker: aye, pointless voting snp

      SNP loyalist: and Independent thinker: SCOTTISH LABOUR! aye, things can only get better… 🙂 smiles all round eh?

    32. Alan Crocket says:

      The answer to the question with which this article ends is perfectly simple, and why the movement has pretty much buried it is a total mystery.
      As has always been the case, universally recognized even by London, though now meticulously ignored by the SNP and most of Indy, Scotland may leave the Union whenever it wishes by a majority of its MPs seceding from Westminster and constituting themselves as the parliament of an independent Scotland. Democratic legitimacy for that step would come from a majority of the votes in a general election, whether Holyrood or Westminster, on an appropriate manifesto.
      So despite the SNP’s servile silence on the fact, it can turn any such election into an independence plebiscite and proceed over London’s head. That is perfectly legal, constitutional democratic and peaceful, respects the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and would be recognised by London and by the rest of the world.
      It is only by seriously threatening to use that step that the Scottish Government might compel London to give permission for a referendum. But the chance only comes at election, so that means May next year or remain impotent for at least three more years after that.

    33. Denise says:

      The problem is very much SNP messaging …

      It was NS that stated 1. The way to achieve indy is via an indyref 2. indyref need a section 30 and therefore Scottish independence needed WM consent.

      We Never heard this b4 2014. And Salmond never conceded the need for a s30. But NS has not only conceded the need for a s30 but also in effect conceded the need for WM agreement to Scotland becoming independent.

      NS then spend the last 3.5 years trying to stop Brexit
      And will spend the next parliament using Covid as an excuse to do nothing about independence

      Whose side is she on?

    34. Douglas says:

      Re:
      ‘ the question of why the Scottish Government was too monumentally dim to see it coming and why it wasted a week defending the latter option before inevitably caving in and doing the sensible thing’

      I think the end result was the best possible for the children in a messy situation

      If ScotGov had gone for thIs solution initially ALL of the political low life would be throwing mud at the kids and belittling their achievements to gain political points.

      By allowing the SQA to moderate the results and then backing down under ‘pressure’ from the low life Unionists it makes it harder (but not impossible) for the Unionists to trash the kids.

      I don’t think it was a ‘cunning master plan’ by John Swinney but it has resulted in the least bad outcome for the children

    35. Breastplate says:

      SC,
      It’s not a speech, it’s just a bit of satirical commentary on what I believe is actually happening right now.
      To answer your question, there’s no end written because we’re not there yet.

    36. Beaker says:

      Good article.

      I think it is fair to say that every government fucked up the exams results. Don’t try pinning the blame on the respective education bodies, the governments are responsible as they signed off the moderation methods.

      As to Sturgeon, I don’t think she wants the responsibility of having to lead Scotland through the turmoil that will surely arise if independence happens, given the clusterfuck that Brexit is turning out to be. Anyone who thinks there would be a smooth transition is deluded.

    37. schrodingers cat says:

      nobody else is coming to help. We know from the experience of Catalonia that the UN won’t step in, and the EU certainly won’t because we’re not a member any more.

      ————

      i’m glad you said that stu, it is self evident to me that this is the case. I know that appealing to the UN/EU, a policy much loved by Robert Peffers and Breeks is likely to be a complete waste of time. Not that i would oppose such an action mind, indeed, i’d probably crowd fund such action. I just dont hold out much hope for any real result from such action.

      by all means, people can try it but such actions should only run in tandem with other actions, eg CD. Plan for the worst and hope for the best etc.

    38. schrodingers cat says:

      @Breastplate

      there is an end written, election day. it is an end in itself.

      what happens the day after… is a new beginning either way..

    39. Breastplate says:

      SC,
      I agree that the SNP should do all it can for some sort of plebiscite but I’m pretty sure you and I both will be disappointed come election day however I won’t be surprised.
      It will also still not be the end.

    40. Breastplate says:

      SC, I should add that if I’m the one that is surprised come election day and you were right all along then I will be delighted.

    41. Breastplate says:

      On the subject of asking for a S30 again and again.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EQPrFR9KRo

    42. IrnBruzer says:

      @ RevStu Agree that there’s no ideal solution to the exams situation – although I think in the SQU appeal process would have resolved a lot of the issues if it could have been stuck to. But surely the SNP have played this the only way they could? 2 options – 1.Go with moderated grades and know that if political/public pressure gets too much you have a fall back / solution in place. 2. Issue grades based on teacher estimate, get hammered for destroying credibility of results and have no way to resolve it as you can’t possibly take back the better grades. And (in theory) Option 1 should rule out Tory/Lab/Lib mounds of grade inflation. In theory.

    43. schrodingers cat says:

      @breastplate

      if we get 50%+ and bojo says no, it will be an end. the end of the democratic road, the end of devolution.

      it will be the end of this journey we have been on for the last 9 years. everything we have done, we have used the democratic process to further our aim of an independent scotland. if we finally achieve that aim and the answer is still no,

      you will find it difficult to encourage folk to crowd fund flags, wbb’s, leaflets, bill boards, rally and march…

      whats the point?.

      it may not be THE end but it will be an end.
      dont down play it breastplate, we are coming down to the wire. the moves in this chess game have had one destination.

      we are very nearly there

    44. Breastplate says:

      SC,
      I agree that these are crucial times regarding the independence movement, I am cynical however that we will make the best of the situation we have.
      I expect that absolutely nothing will happen regarding our progress to self determination.
      That’s it, nothing eventful, nothing cataclysmic just boring old nothing.

    45. schrodingers cat says:

      @breastplate

      it isnt a question of being right, it is about weighing up probabilities, eg in the past the questions were, do we go for indyref2 and risk theresa calling a ge in the middle of it, or an euref2 happening??

      these options, chess moves if you like have been used up.

      there are very few moves or choices left to either side, as such, the future possibilities are also reduced

      the train cant and wont wander from the track unless it is derailed

    46. Breastplate says:

      Maybe a collective gnashing of teeth at worst.

    47. Breastplate says:

      SC,
      The train won’t be derailed because it’s not moving.

    48. Alan McA says:

      So what is your solution ?

    49. Polly says:

      Great post and doing what you do best. I agreed a fair bit with David Pratt’s column when I read it earlier but justified criticism of your own side is absolutely necessary even if it gives ammunition to the opponent’s team. The SNP is so slow in moving on anything now though even when it tries to change tack. It’s hard to believe it used to seem a nimble, oiled, political apparatus since it appears now a rusty, clogged in mire old dinosaur of a tank. Keep up with great writing like that, they need to hear it.

    50. schrodingers cat says:

      Breastplate says:
      I am cynical however that we will make the best of the situation we have.
      I expect that absolutely nothing will happen regarding our progress to self determination.

      ———————-

      I think that, while we have made mistakes, we are in a strong position today. Catalunya made mistakes too, i wonder what their thoughts are on their own moves?

      as to the future, options are limited on both sides

      1. more about covid is certain

      2. Oct, i think this is the cut off for some eu/uk brexit deal. If it is no deal, some irrelevant and very limited deal of some kind will be invented to cover both sides asses

      3. we hold holyrood election before jan 1st or after it in may.

      thats the options, there are pros and cons for either option in point 3. but it is an option open for us to decide.

      beyond that, all i can say is i doubt 1st jan 2021 will be anything but boring and uneventful.

      stock up on popcorn mon ami. (and bog roll etc)

    51. schrodingers cat says:

      Breastplate says:
      The train won’t be derailed because it’s not moving.

      ————
      nae man can tether time nor tide

    52. bipod says:

      Excellent interview with two renowned epidemiologists. It is a few weeks old but very relevant right now.

      https://tinyurl.com/yxd5p2kf

      They talk about the foolish and ultimately futile strategy of total suppression (the one that is being pushed by people like devi sridhar who has huge influence over nicola and thus the SG), unless of course you plan on shutting down the country forever like NZ has done, consequences be damned. Thats why you get wild knee jerk reactions like today where nicola has been reported to have forced the UK gov to add France to the quarantine list.

    53. Beaker says:

      @schrodingers cat says:
      14 August, 2020 at 4:06 pm
      “the train cant and wont wander from the track unless it is derailed”

      I think you could have used a better analogy.

    54. Breastplate says:

      SC,
      Here’s hoping you’re right.

    55. Juteman says:

      I have no idea if the SNP have various scenarios planned.
      Does anyone?
      If they do have a plan, should they announce it now so the Brits can work against it?
      Or should they keep quiet whilst the Tories are wrecking the union?

    56. Robert Louis says:

      Another excellent article. This belief that some in the SNP, including Nicola Sturgeon that Boris ‘cannot refuse’ a section 30, if they are re-elected, is such hogwash.

      Nicola Sturgeon has not done one single thing in six years, to advance independence. Nothing.

      Yet still the SNP peddle these absolute lies about a section 30. It is such baloney.

      All my life, until NS took over the SNP, it was accepted FACT, even by the Tories (and even the most extreme unionists), that for independence, all we had to do was return a pro indy majority of MP’s from Scotland to Westminster. That is the case right now, and has been for many years. So why are we not independent?? because a certain person called NICOLA STURGEON decided that such a pro indy majority was no longer acceptable.

      It wasn’t the Tories who created these obstacles, it wasn’t ‘better together’, or ‘Scotland in union’, or the Labour party, or even number 10. No, the people who decided that what has been for my entire life, the accepted route to independence is no longer valid, was the SNP. Nobody asked them to do this, they did it all by themselves, for no particularly good reason.

      It was Nicola Sturgeon who declared that the ONLY route to independence was via a referendum. It was Nicola Sturgeon who declared that a referendum could ONLY be held with a valid section 30 agreement.

      Nicola is all talk, and NO action. Somebody above asked what side she is really on, and sadly, I now very much think it isn’t independence. Oh, yes, she talks long and hard about how much she wants independence, but anybody can say that. It is actions that count and she has done nothing, but even worse, despite her lack of action being highlighted, she has doubled down on her inaction, to do even less for independence. The latest of a long line of excuses being COVID.

      Meanwhile, under her watch, Scotland is about to be forcibly removed from the EU wholly against our wishes, with absolutely enormous economic damage coming down the line, like an express train. It is as obvious as can be, that Westminster is about to use Brexit, in order to remove any and all relevant or useful powers from the Scottish parliament. What will Nicola Sturgeon do then??? I’ll tell you, Sweet f*** all. And more to the point, Boris knows it. Indeed Westminster has become emboldened BECAUSE Nicola Sturgeon refuses to take action. They know she will do nothing. Oh, she’ll moan about it, and Iain Blackford will tell the house of commons that Scotland will ‘simply not accept it’, but nothing will be done.

      Power is taken, but never given. No country ever achieved independence, by meekly sitting back and asking if they can maybe have permission to hold a referendum. Westminster is NOT listening, and as RevSTU rightly points out, there is absolutely no downside for Boris to keep refusing.

      I don’t know what NS is thinking about, but I do know, it is most certainly NOT Scottish independence.

    57. schrodingers cat says:

      @beaker

      re the train, mmm it didnt occur to me but it remains
      very apt

      i refer to what happens on jan 1st

      we have had years of experts on both sides telling us what will or wont happen.

      if things are really bad, it could be used to delay or cancel he2021

      but as far as i can see, holding holyrood election before or after jan 1st is the only option open to us

    58. Republicofscotland says:

      Someone once said. We believe what we want to believe, and once we believe something, it becomes a self-fulfilling truth.

      It won’t matter how much evidence you put up in front of those people they’ll still believe that Sturgeon will bring us independence, even though her past actions, or lack of them on the indyfront say differently.

    59. Ian says:

      “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.”

      Jean Giraudoux (or George Burns)

      You’d have to be bonkers to disagree with that.

    60. Republicofscotland says:

      “I don’t know what NS is thinking about, but I do know, it is most certainly NOT Scottish independence.”

      Well said Robert Louis, as for the above, keeping her party in power is Sturgeon’s main goal everything else comes second apart from independence, it only gets mentioned to rally the troops when an election is due. Expect to hear far more from her and her clique on independence between now and next May, after that it will once again fall off the radar.

    61. Robert Louis says:

      And… more to the point. If we for a second accept that Nicola Sturgeon is sincere in her wish for Scottish independence, and that the ONLY route is via section 30 and referendum, then why isn;t she making an absolute stink about it. Why is she and all her cabinet minister not raising this over and over and over again. Why isn’t Iain Blackford and every single SNP in Westminster not rasining this and only this, in every single question?

      If they were serious about wanting a section 30, they would do all of the above, but they don’t. Section 30 is an excuse, no more, no less.

      When was the last time you saw NS demand a section 30? Seriously? I’ll tell you, NEVER. It just has not happened on any occasion, yet she tells us that it is vital for independence. If the SNP genuinely wanted to hold a referendum, they would be demanding a section 30 until Boris’s ears bled, but they don’t.

      The SNP leadership are actually quite happy to have their preferred route to independence blocked. It suits them just fine.

    62. SilverDarling says:

      This ‘play nice and good things will come attitude ‘ is so patronising when we see Trump and Johnston in power and Tory hypocrisy, backstabbing and mendacity played out and celebrated every day in our media.

      Doug Daniel made a choice to publicly disavow WoS and seek affirmation with his woky pals. His cheeky chappy persona quickly falls away when he is challenged, like all the martyred footsoldiers, who think you owe them a vote because they got wet, took a selfie and put a soggy leaflet through your door.

      He actually believes that he and the rest of the SNP NEC know what Independence voters want. He also thinks SNP votes are guaranteed. That is a very dangerous position to take into an election.

      I see Dani Garavelli has locked her Twitter account. She appears to have assumed the role of a journo Joan of Arc to some, albeit a pathetic tremulous squeaky one. In reality she is merely the cipher for the vicious, lying, ambitious women of a faction of the SNP.

      Are people not being nice about her smears and distortions?

    63. Republicofscotland says:

      Independence is far too important to leave to the likes of Sturgeon and her clique, the grassroots movements and AUOB movements must put pressure on her if she fails to deliver, simply putting independence into her manifesto isn’t enough. If Johnson won’t budge on the S30 she must act, and we who put her and her party in office must compel her to act.

      Organised demos outside Bute House, Holyrood, her home,and her constituency until the penny drops. Change won’t come without action her credibility on the independence front is fast running out.

    64. schrodingers cat says:

      Robert Louis says:
      Power is taken, but never given.
      ————–

      how?

      feel free to show us all how you intend to take power?

    65. Polly says:

      @ Denise

      ‘Whose side is she on?’

      Yes, I think most of us have had those momentary thoughts. So much hostile intent being paraded by Westminster to the delight of tories here and the party created to fight for independence do so little and show so little fight back. Obviously something massively wrong, unless she has set a trap of some kind for them to walk into. Maybe she’s playing possum, who knows? Cherry and Salmond are also pretty quiet now as well.

    66. orri says:

      The reason for giving the s30 was also because a similar court case being raised right now may have been needed then. The Edinburgh agreement makes it clear that there’s no conceding that it is a necessity simply that there’ll be no dispute about implementing the result should it be Yes.

      The manifesto commitment was interesting in that it wasn’t to actually secure independence. Rather it was to seek Scotland’s permission for Holyrood to negotiate independence on its part. Technically that might simply be a transfer of power rather than a mandate to use it. So from then on Holyrood cold hold referenda on independence at any point in time and then negotiate.

      An s30 is not needed to hold a referendum. It’s needed to implement the result in English Law as at that point Scots law would be fully under the control of Holyrood.

      In theory the UK could evolve into a version of the EU with a tighter agreement on defence foreign policy but all laws being entirely the responsibility of it’s constituent parliaments. But that’s never going to happen and I wouldn’t believe a word any unionist said about Devo-Max or near autonomy.

    67. schrodingers cat says:

      ros

      if bojo says no, what can nicola actually do? really? explain

      i maintain if we get to this point then it isnt the job of politicians to continue the fight

      its yours and mine

      had ghandi even stepped on the cracks in the pavement the brits would have arrested him in a heart beat. india would today still be a colony

      our politicians and reps also have to be squeeky clean give bojo an excuse and he will take it.

      we on the other hand are not politicians. i represent no one but my self

      same as all of you

    68. Republicofscotland says:

      Another thing that bugs me is The League Against Cruel Sports claims that Sturgeon’s rich estate buddies (Bennie Higgins link) are killing around 250,000 wild animals in Scotland every year. From the Hare culls to the Raven culls, to the killing of Hen Harriers and all manner of eagles, not to mention estate traps that kill hedgehogs weasels and small birds indiscriminately yet very little is done to protect our native animals which are killed so that a few chinless wonders can blast Grouse with their shotguns.

      In this department alone the SNP have failed miserably.

    69. Republicofscotland says:

      “schrodingers cat says:
      14 August, 2020 at 5:10 pm
      ros

      if bojo says no, what can nicola actually do? really? explain”

      SC.

      Just read it.

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/scottish-independence-is-within-our-grasp-if-we-heed-the-lesson-of-toom-tabard/

    70. Polly says:

      @ SilverDarling

      ‘His cheeky chappy persona quickly falls away when he is challenged, like all the martyred footsoldiers, who think you owe them a vote because they got wet, took a selfie and put a soggy leaflet through your door.’

      As accurate a description as I’ve seen. Never met him but going by online reactions I agree. I remember a few years ago seeing him and Mark McDonald I think it was having an argument with a woman who held her own. McDonald backed down but he kept going and afterwards said something like ‘9 years and never lost an argument on the internet yet’. I thought at the time typical arrogant immature male who thinks he’s alpha male and king of the heap. People like him, male and female, forget all the footsoldiers who’ve gone before in far harder times for the party. They came along in time to ride the cusp of a wave, they didn’t do the slog when it was hard and when it gets hard again they’ll bugger off.

    71. BLMac says:

      More and more all the options are being taken away until all that’s left is the Irish solution…

    72. Colin Alexander says:

      The writing was on the wall, when Scotland voted Remain and the Scottish Parliament did not defend this beyond a few weasily words of protest.

      The writing on the wall became huge graffiti when the MSPs went begging unelected Lords to respect democracy. Even though that’s quite a funny contradiction in itself.

      I would not give a single current MSP of any party as much as the smell off my keech, never mind my vote for Holyrood 2021, such is my contempt for every single one of them.

      “Why am I here”? I was asked yesterday. I support independence.

      I won’t give my support to British colonial administrators, which is what MSPs are. (Alex Salmond’s SNP were a one-off).

      The chances of indy via the Scottish Parliament from Sturgeon’s SNP are zero.

      Indy supporters need to stop focusing on MSPs or MPs and instead focus on how to exit the British system of pretend democracy.

      Playing the British game will never end the British game: it just keeps it running.

    73. Beaker says:

      @schrodingers cat says:
      14 August, 2020 at 4:41 pm
      “but as far as i can see, holding holyrood election before or after jan 1st is the only option open to us”

      I know what you meant about the train, just thought the timing was a wee bit off.

      There will be no election before May next year for one reason: COVID. Any election is likely to be held in the winter months, smack bang in the middle of the flu season. Most of the restrictions would have to be lifted. Then the media will start reporting rising cases of hospitalisation (maybe flu, maybe COVID) and there will sadly be deaths. Imagine 6 weeks of that? The SNP would lose votes, perhaps enough to cripple them in the next parliament session.

      I think the Greens may be in for a shock however. They are now seen as the SNP poodles much as were the Lib Dems to the Tories.

    74. Republicofscotland says:

      Schrodingers Cat

      If you’re wrong about Sturgeon and there’s nothing in her past actions on Scottish independence to suggest otherwise, it won’t mean anything if you say I was wrong and others were right, because by then we’ll all have been sold down the river, and Scotland along with it.

      There’s far too much at stake right now for Scottish independence to be left in the hands of Sturgeon, whose track record on it suggests no future movement at all.

      I really, really, really hope I’m wrong and you’re right and you can give it to me rotten if that turns out to be the case, but her actions ultimately speak louder than her words on independence, and I for one see none.

    75. schrodingers cat says:

      @ros

      I’m well aware of craigs proposal

      here it is again
      The Scottish Parliament should then convene a National Assembly of all nationally elected Scottish representatives – MSPs, MPs and MEPs. That National Assembly should declare Independence, appeal to other countries for recognition, reach agreements with the rump UK and organise a confirmatory plebiscite. That is legal, democratic and consistent with normal international practice.

      which is fine, but it assumes other countries, eg the eu and the un will agree?

      this is what stu says in this article

      “nobody else is coming to help. We know from the experience of Catalonia that the UN won’t step in, and the EU certainly won’t because we’re not a member any more.”

      i think he may be right, but my point is, we campaign until we reach this point.

      if nicola has a public vote with 50%+ support, other countries are more likely to listen to here

      this is what i posted up thread

      “i’m glad you said that stu, it is self evident to me that this is the case. I know that appealing to the UN/EU, a policy much loved by Robert Peffers and Breeks is likely to be a complete waste of time. Not that i would oppose such an action mind, indeed, i’d probably crowd fund such action. I just dont hold out much hope for any real result from such action.

      by all means, people can try it but such actions should only run in tandem with other actions, eg CD. Plan for the worst and hope for the best etc.”

      your post was

      “Organised demos outside Bute House, Holyrood, her home,and her constituency until the penny drops. Change won’t come without action”

      and if bojo and the eu/un ignore you and breeks and craig murray and robert peffers.

      what are you going to do to make indy happen? what can any of us do?

      CD, thats what

    76. schrodingers cat says:

      @ros

      her actions?

      covid for the mo

      then holyrood election. before or after brexit.

      that is all she can do. her power comes from the people in a vote. i believe they will now give her a mandate.

      this entire article is about what happens when we are refused. which is what both stu and craig believe will happen

      if you think you have an answer or have options that nicola hasnt, then do tell, if any good, i’ll vote for you

      hint

      did you read my comment about standing candidates in the south region? since all the other new indy list parties have said they wont stand there, we have an open door to challenge and beat galloway. hell, I’ll even pay yer deposit

      🙂

    77. SilverDarling says:

      @Polly

      I’ve seen him arguing that HE got Kevin Stewart elected so no one can question him. The same argument Duncan Hothersall used when he was a Labour activist in Edinburgh and his party used to win.

      That group of SNP activists he is pals with who sneer on Twitter at anyone who shows a bit of righteous anger at opportunities squandered or who doesn’t agree with every bit of SNP policy do more harm than they can imagine.

      That is the trouble with seeking attention – it often comes at you in the ways you don’t want.

    78. schrodingers cat says:

      @ros

      it isnt about being right or wrong, its about our actual options,

      its about looking into the near future and reviewing the now limited probable senarios

    79. Wallace And Bruce never asked for permission to seek freedom nor did Michael Collins and they won The SNP policy seems to be if you don’t fight you never lose

    80. schrodingers cat says:

      @BP
      the snp policy is to win a clear mandate from the sovereign people of scotland

      something we have never had before.

      if and when we do and we are refused by wm/un/eu,

      you will get your chance to fight.

      leafleting and arguing on wos will lose its allure. i promise you that

    81. SilverDarling says:

      If anyone has any doubt whether Dani Garavelli approached her Alphabet women propaganda piece with a neutral view, have a watch. She believed Alex Salmond shouldn’t even have been allowed to raise money for his defence.

      https://twitter.com/ScotlandTonight/status/1035478157153984512

    82. Beaker says:

      @schrodingers cat says:
      “14 August, 2020 at 5:30 pm
      “craigs proposal

      which is fine, but it assumes other countries, eg the eu and the un will agree?”

      I’ve read it. But I am a little surprised that he and others in favour of such an action have failed to consider the reaction of a certain important group of people – the public.

      The proposal sounds like a group of noblemen and local chieftains deciding how they are going change things, without recourse to the very people they represent. Perhaps they could ask them.

    83. Breastplate says:

      SC,
      You said,
      “ if you think you have an answer or have options that nicola hasnt, then do tell, if any good, i’ll vote for you”.

      Nicola has plenty of options, I believe some people are angry she has picked a rubbish one.

    84. schrodingers cat says:

      @beaker

      i wouldnt dismiss craigs plan,

      like you i believe we would need a mandate from the sovereign people of scotland before such actions.

      I believe we may be very near to achieving this.
      (57% support for snp ???)

      If we do win this and we are refused.. then nothing can be considered off the table

      but for the moment, until we win a 50%+ majority, everything remains hypothetical. until then we continue to increase support for indy.

      the democratic road runs out at that point. we cross that bridge when we get to it, not before.

      you win wars by fighting the battles in front of you, not the ones you want to fight.

      if we win this election, bojo may very well close holyrood and arrest nicola, spain did it and no one even said boo.

      so you may get a new leader sooner rather than later.

    85. We did not have sufficient support for independence in the period you referred to. So had we gained a referendum in that period we and independence would be screwed.
      Covid19. isn’t something that can be dismissed. It’s crucial that the population of Scotland can have confidence in our government and as a direct result we have increased our majority.
      We all want independence so let’s just stay united in the fight for indy.

    86. schrodingers cat says:

      @breast plate

      i repeat, nicola’s options, a holyrood election. before or after brexit. and hope for a 50%+ result from the people

      what other option would you propose?

    87. Wee Chid says:

      George S Gordon says:
      14 August, 2020 at 1:58 pm
      “Meanwhile (don’t laugh, you may do yourself a mischief) –
      “How George Galloway and I plan to save the Union” ”

      I take it that’s the same Jamie Blackett who has an estate at Arbigland in Kirkcudbrighshire and who is deputy Lieutenant of Dumfriesshire?

    88. Effijy says:

      That Dani Garavelli link is disgraceful and STV
      should never have broadcast it.

      My Salmond, like everyone, is innocent unless deemed otherwise
      By a jury of his piers, Not some jumped up hysterical fantasist.

      He received money from me and that was my free choice, a choose this
      Woman thinks I’m not entitled to.

      As said earlier, people who fund raise need to reveal who they are.
      As a jury made up of women decided, you would have been given money
      To liars involved in a stitch up.

      This pathetic soul masquerading as a journalist is only in print as she a total
      Unionist and happy to script write propaganda against Scottish independence.

    89. cirsium says:

      @bipod, 4.30

      As the German Parliament won’t examine/question the disproportionate response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Germany, these doctors want to hold an extra-parliamentary enquiry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbBBv2IO8WI&feature=youtu.be

    90. Ron Maclean says:

      ‘And nobody else is coming to help.’

      Why should they? We’ve done nothing to help ourselves. At independence we don’t need help from international organisations and States. We need recognition.

    91. Republicofscotland says:

      SC.

      As Craig rightly puts it.

      “I am sorry, but this is the fact: If you believe Scotland should only move to Independence in a Westminster-approved process, you do not really believe in Scottish Independence at all.”

      “Scotland can become independent, but becoming independent is, without doubt, going to be illegal in terms of UK law – which is to say Westminster law. There will not be a route to Independence agreed with Westminster.”

      “What Sturgeon said amounts to an explicit acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Scottish people as both legitimate and immutable. She is accepting that the Act of Union did permanently alienate the right of self-determination. Sturgeon should heed the tale of Toom Tabard as to what respect English rulers show to Scottish leaders who accept their authority. Her speech reinforced my view that she really is much too comfortable in her role of colonial governor.”

      Westminster only has power over us as long as we believe they have it. You want to sit back and wait, tell me SC how long are you prepared to wait for Sturgeon to take action? A year? Two years? Ten years? Or do you even know how long?

      Craig Murray is correct if we want independence we’ll need to take it, it certainly won’t be given.

    92. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’ve genuinely wondered at what might be the cause of the party’s bizarre choice of policies and strategy, and thought the NEC must have a cunning plan informed with up-to-date intel and a particle appreciation of the law. Talk about wishful thinking.

      Scotland is going nowhere other than where English Torydum demands, unless we can find leadership who respects and knows how to support the international legal order and constitutional democracy.

      How to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights – tools discussed in a Presidency conference

      EU2019FI Government Communications Department, Ministry of Justice 11.9.2019 17.23
      News item

      Democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights lie at the heart of our societies and European cooperation. However, their realisation cannot be taken for granted. A conference on these themes, held in Helsinki on 10–11 September 2019, discussed how to safeguard the resilience of our societies in a changing world.

      “The importance of our common European values is greater than ever, because our need for European cooperation is also greater than ever,” said Minister of Justice Anna-Maja Henriksson as she opened the conference.

      “The common value base shared by all Member States is the strength of the Union. It is something that unites us – not something that divides us,” Minister for European Affairs Tytti Tuppurainen pointed out in her speech.

      https://eu2019.fi/en/-/how-to-strengthen-democracy-the-rule-of-law-and-fundamental-rights-ideas-emerging-from-a-presidency-conference

    93. cirsium says:

      @republicofscotland,
      keeping her party in power is Sturgeon’s main goal everything else comes second apart from independence, it only gets mentioned to rally the troops when an election is due. Expect to hear far more from her and her clique on independence between now and next May, after that it will once again fall off the radar.

      So true, unfortunately.

      Regarding the killing of wild animals and protected birds, the SNP went some way with introducing vicarious liability. I followed a case on Raptor Persecution where an attempt was made to use this law. It fell through because the real owner could not be identified behind the myriad shell companies and off-shore trusts. A simple remedy suggested btl was “a human being with a full postal address in Scotland, the UK or EU is required to register their beneficial ownership of any house or land within Scotland upon pain of paying an escalating number of civil penalties for each quarter that the requested and required information is not submitted.” I am not aware of any attempt by the Scottish Government to make the law of vicarious liability enforceable

    94. schrodingers cat says:

      @RM
      recognition is help

      but you’re right, if the people of scotland dont support this final push to win 50%+

      then no help or recognition will be forth coming from anyone

      thats why i find it amazing folk on here saying they wont vote snp even in the constituency. many are trolls, fare enough, but not all. delusion is strong amongst them

    95. Breastplate says:

      Isabel Cooney,

      Democracy is an enactment of the majority Will of the People by our representatives.
      I understand that there are varying types of democracy but that is the essence.

      A referendum is an accurate measurement of the Will of the People.

      Surely it’s the SNP’s job as our representatives, to enact the Will of the People whether they agree with that Will or not.
      Whether you believe Westminster or the SNP are responsible for Scotland’s referendums.
      Withholding the means for that measurement is undemocratic.

    96. twathater says:

      WOW SC fair ramping up the NS SNP vote rhetoric and PPB all well and good but here’s a wee idea that I posted earlier SC how’s about you tell queen Nicola to fuck off with her GRA and HCB and focus on indy that will allow us to vote SNP

    97. Ron Maclean says:

      @shrodingers cat
      ‘recognition is help’

      Recognition is an acceptance that a nation meets the definition of statehood.

    98. schrodingers cat says:

      @ros
      There will not be a route to Independence agreed with Westminster.”

      craig is probably correct about this, maybe bojo might give in, who knows, i’m not clairvoyant.

      but if you read what i posted, i am not against craigs idea. i merely point out we have an imminent chance to win a democratic mandate from the sovereign people of scotland, 50%+

      we need that for what comes next, regardless of what that is, craigs option or whatever.

      this has nothing to do with any system either wm or holyrood. it is written nowhere.

      its common sense.

      without it, with 38% of the vote, craig can start down this road if he wishes but when the britnat establishment comes for him, and they will, i will not be there to help him. nor will anyone else.

      how long will i wait?

      i am trying to convince people that bringing forward the he to dec 7th to wrong foot bojo.(brexit gives him all the excuse he needs to cancel the he)

      if i fail then we will know on 7th may next year, if it goes ahead

    99. schrodingers cat says:

      @ros
      Craig Murray is correct if we want independence we’ll need to take it, it certainly won’t be given.
      ———–

      probably, but we need a 50%+ democratic mandate 1st if we wish to succeed

      regardless of how that happens

    100. schrodingers cat says:

      @RM

      Recognition is an acceptance that a nation meets the definition of statehood.

      aye, it would be very helpful too 🙂

    101. Polly says:

      ‘our politicians and reps also have to be squeeky clean give bojo an excuse and he will take it.
      we on the other hand are not politicians. i represent no one but my self’

      Quit with the ‘we have to do the dirty work’ will you. No we don’t and if we do we’ll be helping initiate our own downfall. Our politicians are squeaky clean and that is exactly why it has to be they who take the lead in this. If they call for mass demonstrations that’s different, then we’re obeying them. If we do anything like that on our own we’ll be called a mob, infiltrated, be accused of riot – or you will when you do it and your beloved Sturgeon will the first take aim at you with rebuke and disown you from her independence movement.

      Also do you know the history of Ireland just before 1801? They were given legislative independence with the constitution enacted in 1782. They had almost 20 years where they ran their own affairs, increasing in confidence and becoming more radical until they started to want full independence ( that’s quite a theme and similar timescale happened more than once ). They were getting somewhere good then whiteboy riots made leaders uneasy, then rebellion in Ireland in 1798 failed because of informants, the leaders caught and Westminster brought up two acts to be passed in both parliaments for a new union, Ireland’s parliament refused to endorse it in 1799 but by the same bribery/threat they used for us in 1707, the second time it was passed.

      For a brief period that parliament of Grattan made the conception of an independent nation seem possible but Pitt deliberately allowed or maybe even fomented a situation where corruption and frustration ensued. Then riot, crackdown, bribery and force obliterated it. The fact is it was snuffed out just as our parliament might soon be with this new act of union push from Westminster. They succeeded with Ireland for just over a hundred years after and look at the damage they did in that time. Everyone should read about the policies of that brief parliament in Ireland for they still work the same way today and certain things are repeating.

    102. Lothianlad says:

      Well Stu, yet again, 100% accurate analysis!

      What I despise about Sturgeon, apart from backstabbing Alex, is the way she has utterly trashed Scotlands sovsringty!

      We, Scotland, that proud ancient nation, who for hundreds of years were independent, and fiercely fought for that independence, have been sold down the river by the SNP!

      As An independent nation, Scotland ( however treacherously) entered u union, from which we as a soverign people can withdraw if the people so choose this!

      We Do Not need Westminster’s permission to leave the Union!

      What we need is a Scottish Government and SNP Furst misister to assert at every opportunity, Scotlands Soverign right as a nation!

      Asking for a section 30 only adopts the subservient, weak, pathetic position of the colonial scot. A position former unio its first ministers were only too happy to personify!

      How ironic that our SNP first minister is happy to continue that role.

      Nicola sturgeon is in the truly unique situation of being able to give the tory unionist government, and entire british establishment such a myocardial infarction it would be on life support within a week!

      The odds are on her side! However, that would take courage and defiance against her brit secret service handlers to whom she is indebted for her current position!

      The sturgeon trolls here, possibly the wishart, woke and alphabet crowd, will of course challenge this, let them, they are without credit

      They cannot deny your analysis stu which exposes the biggest threat to our freedom. Not from the unionists but from the enemy within. The SNP!

      Remove sturgeon and her inner circle and we have a clear chance at regaining our freedom!

      Keep exposing the collaborators.

    103. schrodingers cat says:

      @tx for the irish history lesson polly 🙂

    104. schrodingers cat says:

      Quit with the ‘we have to do the dirty work’ will you. No we don’t and if we do we’ll be helping initiate our own downfall.
      ———————

      as craig murray points out, any attempt to leave the uk, even by democratic means will be blocked by wm, ergo it will become illegal.

      high profile politicians can propose the people break the law by doing x y and z, but they will get arrested. see bbc tv licence etc. they can do it but they will simply get arrested.

      i merely point out that politicians are for democracy. if we get 50%+ in next holyrood election and bojo says no, democracy is removed

      who needs politicians… meh?

    105. Polly says:

      @ Cat

      Aye, you might know it, not everyone does. But they’re still to be preferred than you if you know it and still insist ordinary folk have to lead the way in situations like that which will lead nowhere good.

    106. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. the “rule of recognition” and the international legal order. Though legal theory is inadequate to resisting the cultural interpretations of the law that are regularly applied in open court, here’s some legal theory anyway. I think it at least helpful to know where one stands in relation to theory. How else can one judge the reasonableness of one’s practice?

      21 | 2013 Les juristes et la hiérarchie des normes
      The Hierarchical Model and H. L. A. Hart’s Concept of Law

      Law is traditionally related to the practice of command and hierarchy. It seems that a legal rule should immediately establish a relation between a superior and an inferior. This hierarchical and authoritharian view might however be challenged once the phenomenology of the rule is considered from the internal point of view, that is, from the stance of those that can be said to “use” rather than to “suffer” the rules themselves.

      A practice oriented approach could in this way open up a more liberal, and also somehow less parochial and ideological, road for legal theory. This is – it is argued in the paper – the programme, or better, the promise we can find in Herbert Hart’s main work, The Concept of Law. The article tries to render this promise more transparent while, nonetheless, not eschewing the blind sides of its narrative and argumentative strategy.

      https://journals.openedition.org/revus/2746

    107. schrodingers cat says:

      @polly

      oh, not only have i read about it polly, I have seen it 1st hand when democracy was removed. not pretty.

      why do you think i’m trying to convince folk that we need a 50%+ result in holyrood?

      for any actions, eg legal challenges, appeals to the un etc, you need the support from the majority of the people.

      without it, a country quickly descends into civil war.

    108. Ron Maclean says:

      @schrodingers cat 7:07pm

      Recognition is essential.

      Try and stop heckling. It just blocks interesting threads.

    109. john rose says:

      The threat has to be a simple one: grant an indyref, or the next available election we stand on a platform of UDI.

    110. Kenny says:

      Everybody who’s anybody on Twitter is now either seeing the logic in Stu’s argument, or they’re in such deep denial, or suffering similar profound hubris, that they’re unable to join the majority of tweeters who ARE seeing what’s going on.

      Splitters? don’t even go there when it’s abundantly clear who’s causing the friction and division in this movement. It’s not the ordinary public who’re calling for the most ridiculous, anti-women laws in the country, it’s not the man/woman in the street who’re falsely and disgustingly persecuting a former First Minister and those who support him. Nor is it only the general public who are deeply troubled by plans to create a bill to prevent ‘thought crime’ – most major institutions and professional bodies in Scotland are aligned with us. It’s not ordinary Scots attacking and blocking tweeters for questioning the role many MPs are undertaking – or not – in Westminster, it’s those lazy, settled-in MPs who’re doing the blocking. How dare we question their superior judgement?

      For all those tweeters in such deep denial; we’ll wait for you to come round, it might take some time, sure, but we’ll still be here, waiting for that lovely Tory-permission for a second referendum.
      it seems Scotland’s got all the time in the world when it comes to self-determination. No hurry.

    111. Polly says:

      @ Cat

      God knows what you’re trying to convince anyone of since all here want 50+ anyway and always have hoped for it. Keeping repeating it to folk already agreeing doesn’t further your cause. And a UN appeal or legal challenge will not lead to civil war but protests on the street where infiltrators could cause trouble to be blamed on us will lead to denunciation and a crack down which could spiral and that will definitely be a possible civil strife scenario. That’s why I say whiter than white politicians are the ones to be doing something not ordinary people.

      @ john rose

      ‘The threat has to be a simple one: grant an indyref, or the next available election we stand on a platform of UDI.’

      Yes I agree with this. I only wish they would take some action.

    112. Socrates MacSporran says:

      I see someone mentioned this in a post above – Henry VIII powers.

      Can someone please explain to me how Henry VII powers, which only applied to the English Parliament, can be applied to the Parliament of the UK – given the Parliament of England was shut-down by the Act of Union of 1707 – 160 years after Henry’s death.

    113. schrodingers cat says:

      Polly says:
      all here want 50+ anyway and always have hoped for it.
      ——–
      half the folk on here say they wont vote snp ever again.

      but im glad you support the idea

    114. Polly says:

      @ cat

      If as you say Sturgeon is playing a blinder and the polls are so fantastic – and also that Wings has gone to the dogs and leaching readers as you’ve claimed – then why are you worried about what the few left here think? As I said once before you’re all over the place. Pick one logical position and follow it through and your arguments won’t need to keep being reiterated as you do now. Have a good night, I plan to.

    115. ahundredthidiot says:

      This ain’t rocket science for me – pull all SNP MPs out of Westminster now, never to return.

      Simple.

      The English will do the rest. They’ve had enough of democracy deniers.

      Return a 50/50 in Holyrood next May and our friends to the South will back us to the hilt.

      Boris’ hand will be forced.

      Who dares wins.

    116. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Has DD accepted the bet yet?

      Mind you, he doesn’t read WOS any more, does he? – could someone please let him know?

      😉

    117. CameronB Brodie says:

      Socrates MacSporran
      “Can someone please explain to me how Henry VII powers, which only applied to the English Parliament, can be applied to the Parliament of the UK – given the Parliament of England was shut-down by the Act of Union of 1707 – 160 years after Henry’s death.”

      It only works if you apply the same liberal interpretivism to legal theory and practice, that would enable men to claim to be women in the true sense of legal “being”. This is the sort of politics that considers itself above the law, and is supportive of cultural narcissism, misogyny and totalitarian authoritarianism (see Brexit).

    118. Skip_NC says:

      Socrates, I think that was John Walsh’s point further up. Utilization thereof is offensive to Scotland’s sovereignty and should (in theory) result in a metaphorical placement of a foot upon Ms Sturgeon’s posterior.

    119. Bob Mack says:

      @Socrates Mc Sporran,

      Henry 8 power is a bit of a misnomer. They refer to the power of the Executive to legislate in times of crisis of emergency without consulting parliament. Just like Trumps Executive orders in America.

      In the UK they have been used before and even after the Treaty of Union.

    120. Bob Mack says:

      It was remember Boris who tried to prorogue parliament using Executive powers. Ms Cherry proved it was a non starter because of Scottish rights.

    121. CameronB Brodie says:

      My legal theory is very, very, rusty, but I do know that you get yourself into all sorts of bother is you start playing fast and loose with the “Rule of Recognition”.

      THE RULE OF RECOGNITION AND
      THE CONSTITUTION

      I. INTRODUCTION
      This essay is about ultimate standards of law in the United States. Not surprisingly, our federal Constitution figures prominently in any account of our ultimate standards of law, and a discussion of its place is an apt jurisprudential endeavor for the bicentennial of the constitutional convention.

      Although in passing I offer some comments on constitutional principles, this essay is not about how the Constitution, or indeed other legal materials, should be understood and interpreted. Rather, it attempts to discern the jurisprudential implications of widespread practices involving the Constitution and other standards of law….</blockquote

      https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2973&context=mlr

    122. george wood says:

      @shrodingers Cat

      “half the folk on here say they wont vote snp ever again.”

      And whose fault is that?

      With GRA, the HCB, stalling on Indyref2, and acting as if it were the Scottish Mandate Party rather than the SNP it’s no wonder people are reluctant to vote for the SNP.

      How can we be expected to vote for a party which has prominent members who have appalling views on women? FFS their Woman’s Convener won’t sign a pledge to back Woman’s rights because it excludes men from Women’s safe places.

    123. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry….if you start….

      International Law does not Lack a Rule of Recognition

      In this paper I will argue that fundamentally, a legal positivist approach would encounter several applicability issues when applied to international law. Firstly, I set out to explain one of the most fundamental ideas of legal positivism, the ‘rule of recognition’, as posed by H.L.A. Hart in his book The Concept of Law. I will explain his view about why differences exists between international law and municipal law, as well, reasoning he provides as to why he believes international law is set of laws rather than a system of laws.

      Hart coined the term and idea of the ‘rule of recognition,’ which I will take to mean as Hart does, a social duty imposing or obligating rule that directs officials to apply the law in a certain way and essentially determines which rules are valid and which are not. Secondly, I will argue that international law should be considered a ‘system of laws’ and not simply a ‘set of rules’ as Hart alluded to in Chapter X in The Concept of Law.

      Although no international legislature exists and despite the non-binding character of international law in comparison to municipal law, international law contains sources that determine rules just like municipal law. Thirdly, I raise an objection from Hart to clarify that international law is law, but does not have the capability to specify ‘sources’ of law and to determine criteria to identify its rule because it lacks a unifying ‘rule of recognition’.

      Finally, I refute this argument pointing to the fact that a legal positivists method of analysis of international law fails to take into account the dynamic character of law, and Hart’s application of the ‘rule of recognition’ appears to be incompatible with international law because binding precedent in international law does not exist as it does in municipal law and therefore cannot be a source of law.

      https://www.academia.edu/7026151/International_Law_does_not_Lack_a_Rule_of_Recognition

    124. Bob Mack says:

      Breeks has previously made very good points on legal issues which should affect Scotland. The problem is that many of our rights have been eroded by Unionist politicians representing Scotland and failing to challenge those pieces of legislation which affected our rights. Ie The Supreme Court.

      The public knowing no better accepted these things as a fait accomplie. Their loyalty was to a political party rather than a country.

      Me Cherry proved twice, beyond any doubt, we still have rights in Scotland. We just need someone to enforce them better.

    125. ahundredthidiot says:

      Once Brexit is complete the Tories have a secret plot to oust Aldi and Lidl from the UK.

      (that’s as good a rumour as any to start)

    126. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Hi Polly,

      You are right about Cat.

      Now I just scroll by that weird ident he/she/it has: the one of a cat’s facial reaction after sitting on a cactus.

      When he/she/it resurfaced here, and I read a few of that Mastur Baiter’s trolling efforts, the syntax, grammar, textual idioms were all over the place. As if there were at least three cats behind that ID. Polly you are spot-on about Cat being all over the place. I believe it is because there are multiple people working in shift rotation from that ID that you have noticed the multiple personality traits emanating from the obsessive compulsive need for it to leave Cat turd comments all over this website.

      Then there is the bizarre pollution of 30% of a thread with posts from this one account.

      Conclusion? He/she/it is a 77th Bridage or an SNP/HQ/McWoke SPAD trolling professionally.

      How on earth can one person spend 14 hours a day posting 120 comments on a single thread?

      Logic states that Cat is a multi-user account with some form of disruptive agenda.

      Either that, or the Cat is an incredibly sad and lonely person, likely surrounded by 39 stray cats. He/she/it typing alone from their bedroom in order to waste the time and lives of others.

      —————————————————-

      Polly says:
      14 August, 2020 at 7:47 pm
      @ cat

      If as you say Sturgeon is playing a blinder and the polls are so fantastic – and also that Wings has gone to the dogs and leaching readers as you’ve claimed – then why are you worried about what the few left here think? As I said once before you’re all over the place. Pick one logical position and follow it through and your arguments won’t need to keep being reiterated as you do now. Have a good night, I plan to.

    127. willie says:

      Couldn’t agree more that under the current leadership independence is going nowhere.

      Another few months and we’re totally out of Europe and a few months after that the Scottish Parliament will have it’s powers reduced to that of a Parish Council.

      Indeed, in relation to what is about to befall us, the First Minister has only this week declared that she will serve the next full term as First Minister. Yes that’s right, another five years as leader of a devolved and soon to be decrepit Scottish Parliament. Just give her and the comfortable one more mandate.

      Couldn’t agree more with your analysis Rev Stu. And neither do tens of thousands of dissatisfied SNP members and the wider electorate.

    128. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Grouse Beater,

      Sorry to hear you are unwell.

      That article you posted is a very elegant way to say thankyou you our Scottish National Health Service.

      Get well soon Grousy.

    129. schrodingers cat says:

      george wood says:
      @shrodingers Cat

      “half the folk on here say they wont vote snp ever again.”

      And whose fault is that?

      ————-
      take that up with polly, it was here who said everyone here will vote snp

    130. Contrary says:

      RE: the court case to determine is a s.30 is required before Holyrood can legislate for a referendum on independence:

      Holyrood can legislate for any and as many referendums as it likes. BUT, they cannot legislate on reserved matters, and the constitution is a reserved matter. So, can the two be combined so that Holyrood can legislate (to make it ‘legal’) for a referendum that would change the constitution (independence)?

      That isn’t certain, and isn’t known – hence the court case. There are arguments either way (because of woolly wording on the Scotland Act).

      Whatever the outcome of the case, it will be useful – we should already know this stuff, it’s been in limbo for too long as it is – you need to know this to be able to have any kind of strategy (ref:Plan B). So to plan the strategy – if it’s a ‘no they canny’ then we look to one of Craig Murray’s options (international law legal route) backed by a majority signed covenant (lots of hard work, but worth it) – if it’s a ‘aye they can’ ,,, well, what is the SNP waiting for?

      Now the case is going ahead, the Scottish Government has asked to drop out and remain ‘neutral’ – a very strange move, but may have a reasonable explanation behind it.

    131. PacMan says:

      O/T

      I caught the Kaiser report on RT yesterday and there was an bit on an author discussing a book he wrote on the tech industry in the US. The obvious point he made was that the big US tech companies were selling services at no cost so they make money on advertising and nudge behavioural algorithms that pushed you towards these advertisers. Also mentioned was that the real war between the US and China is about AI whereby in China, they are leading because vast amounts of information can be collected whereas in the West numerous data protection laws stops the Us tech corporations from competing in the AI race with China in a level playing field.

      This got me thinking. There was a recent news report about Ben & Jerry’s posting a tweet about the UK government stopping migrants from coming across the English channel. Most likely that company tweet wasn’t created by somebody in the company but outsourced by an advertising company who used an algorithm to generate a tweet that would trend highly in most persons results when they log into the application. Given the latest topic is BLM and racism in general, it is hardly surprising that such a tweet made by B&H would be popular. It isn’t hard to do, here is a link here:

      https://blog.hootsuite.com/twitter-algorithm/

      It might sound a good idea to bash the Tories but what happens when the trend conflates BLM and racism towards nationalism? There are different forms of nationalism and Scottish nationalism is more political orientated rather than towards skin colour or place or birth. It is so easy to game Twitter and other social media systems to place Scottish nationalism in a negative light.

      The question is how do we deal with it?

    132. CameronB Brodie says:

      Of course Scots have rights, it’s just that British constitutionalism does its best to ignore this fact of law. We simply appear to lack leadership that recognises a legally defensible identity, is the source of one’s ability to claim access to legal rights.

      Westminster articulates English legal culture and, subsequently, consider itself impervious to international law. So there’s nothing really to limit a legal culture that considers itself superior, and Scots legally inferior.

      THE POLITICS
      OF THE
      COMMON LAW
      Second Edition
      PERSPECTIVES, RIGHTS, PROCESSES, INSTITUTIONS

      http://docshare01.docshare.tips/files/31204/312046354.pdf

    133. Hugh Wallace says:

      Am I the only one who finds it sadly ironic that Doug Daniel was the leader of the Aberdeen contingent of the Wings ‘team’ during 2014? How people change when they drink the SNP Cool Aid. (Not the first time I’ve seen that happen.)

    134. Paul says:

      Stick to English politics you clearly hate the SNP the only party that can deliver Independence and if you are so sure they can’t then offer an alternative instead of constantly bitching. Surely what happens in Bath should be of more concern after all you do live there!

    135. PacMan says:

      Paul says: 14 August, 2020 at 9:28 pm

      Stick to English politics you clearly hate the SNP the only party that can deliver Independence and if you are so sure they can’t then offer an alternative instead of constantly bitching. Surely what happens in Bath should be of more concern after all you do live there!

      Are you so prejudiced that you don’t accept opinions outside of Scotland?

    136. CameronB Brodie says:

      Getting back to the “Rule of Recognition”. Please feel free to fill your boots.

      European Journal of International Law, Volume 24, Issue 2, May 2013, Pages 667–690
      The International Law of Recognition

      Abstract

      International society in the aftermath of World War II was faced with demands about culture and identity that placed renewed strain on the principles of legal equality and cultural difference. The less-favoured states – those which felt stigmatized – together with indigenous peoples, ethnic groups, minorities, and women all aspired to secure recognition of their equal dignity and of their specific identities and rights, with some even seeking reparation for the violation of their identities and the confiscation of their land or property.

      To cater for these new demands, the subjects of international society have developed a new branch of law, which is referred to here as the ‘international law of recognition’. The aim of this article is to highlight these developments, to identify the legal practices arising from this new law of recognition, and to submit them to critical scrutiny.

      https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/24/2/667/494129

    137. Stu, have you ever had your IQ tested,

      the way you can take facts and figures and make a fairly accurate future prediction from them smacks of a very high IQ,

      IQ Classification

      130–144 Gifted or very advanced
      120–129 Superior
      110–119 High average
      90–109 Average
      45-89 Scottish Labour voter
      25-44 Scottish Labour politician
      04-24 Kezzy Dugdale
      00-03 All Torys

    138. Bob Mack says:

      @paul,

      Thanks for that insight. It was_____insightful.

    139. Bob Mack says:

      @Pac Man,

      I imagine Paul would have said the same to Prince Charlie in France.!!

    140. jfngw says:

      You can come up with all the scenarios you want, you can join the ‘I Hate Rachel Green Club’. the simple fact if the SNP can’t achieve over 50% of the vote at the next election then you can wave goodbye to any chance of independence.

      Westminster will dismiss any other parties:
      Greens – really a environmental party loosely aligned to independence.
      ISP – anti GRA party, disaffected SNP members breaking away about woman’s rights above independence.

      Name any party and I can produce a reason why they are not independence parties as their primary aim, it’s easy. And there is not going to be a viable alternative independence party before next May, unless AS is playing a deception blinder.

      You can believe any split in the independence vote won’t be jumped on by the Britnat establishment, I’m not so confident about that.

    141. PacMan says:

      Bob Mack says:
      14 August, 2020 at 9:38 pm

      @Pac Man,

      I imagine Paul would have said the same to Prince Charlie in France.!!

      He’d have a haemorrhage about all those tourists who came here and said Scotland is a fine country and can’t understand why the Scots would want to control their own affairs.

    142. McDuff says:

      That`s it in a nutshell rev.
      I really am left scratching my head at the majority of posters in the National who think independence is in the bag if we would all just be patient and back NS who is doing the job of a world class leader and people who criticise her are nasty trolls.
      Are they just thick or belong to a fireside knitting circle and have absolutely no idea what is going on out there. To see them get giddy and come over all unnecessary at the news that we are on a supposed high of 53% when the last two polls had us on 54% is frightening.
      I despair.

    143. dyock says:

      @RevStu Nice post and I fully agree with the analysis and generally agree with your line of thinking that if a legal challenge is undertaken (no matter the outcome) it would likely speed up the prospect of a Referendum to occur. Whether such efforts, if undertaken now, would have favourable support of the general public is possibly debatable.

      I just had a separate thought though. I wonder if there will ever be a point in time where it’s so clear that Scotland wants to be Independent that the moderate English conservative leaning voter is no longer comfortable with their government (con or lab) denying the Scots a say. At the moment it’s not actually too hard for me to imagine. I think the English would be uncomfortable with this at some point and I don’t think the majority of them like being seen as unfair and undemocratic oppressors. There’s a certain pride or superiority complex that they have that seems to reach from the general populace to the highest levels of government. For them to be seen on the world stage denying a democratic say to Scotland who lets say for argument has over 60% indy in polls and/or seats in Holyrood would cause some level of embarrassment I think. Especially after all the lecturing the government is doing to China in regards to democracy for Hong Kong. I also don’t think moderate English conservatives voters or MP’s themselves would enjoy a parallel drawn between them and what the Spanish have done. I think they want to think of themselves as democratically superior to those Spaniards.

      I think even Brexiteers would become uncomfortable with a hard line at some point, the argument “Imagine Brussels said you couldn’t have a referendum” seems pretty effective even though the idea would’ve been practically unrealistic. I don’t think they’d like to be seen as worse than Brussels.

      The idea that this hard line taken by the Tories will always wash, in the face of a clearly measurable majority for Independence does seem at least a little unlikely to me. Although I have to admit this is the first time I’ve considered this and most of the time I’m usually just bored, pissed off and impatient as everyone else.

    144. WT says:

      Hello Stuart- I am sure you have been asked this before, but why don’t you just ask Nicola Sturgeon the questions you pose on your website? Why not ask her rather than making assumptions about her aims and her motives? It would be a very interesting exchange I am sure and could be conducted like the one with Alec Salmond. I am not that much of a fan of Nicola Sturgeon myself, but I have always felt that she answers questions honestly. So, rather than doing big £1000 challenge gestures to some guy Doug Daniel, why not ask Sturgeon for an interview? Maybe you have asked for one and been refused (and you could let us know about that), but if you don’t ask you don’t get. I, like you, aren’t that keen on many SNP policies, I don’t like the way the NEC works either but being publicly critical of the party without actually asking them about the things that interest you is a bit lame.

      Yesterday you again raised the issue about wasted votes and a list party – something you have been doing for a very long time. Why don’t you just do it? Why do you keep harping on about the sense behind it and Gavin’s analysis? Why can’t you just do it? I am sure many on this website are waiting for this announcement. By launching now we could all get an idea of how the Wings brand is favoured in the polls. If it is reasonable then those interested in it could get behind it and perhaps attract others. If it is a lame duck then we could put the idea to bed and get behind the overarching aim of independence rather than waste time arguing over the philosophical, political and policy differences that can be discussed and voted on after independence.

    145. McHaggis69 says:

      Very clever win-win there Stu.

      You either get £1,000 or we get an indy referendum.

      Can’t see the downside to be fair :0)

    146. Beaker says:

      Personally, I think the independence movement needs to reset and restart. Trying to apply a quick fix might kill it off for decades. The SNP needs new leadership but more than that it needs discipline. It’s not there, and it stems from the arrogance of having huge majorities.

      The untouchables.

      Look at John Mason for example. How many times has he upset the public with his comments? In one incident it required the intervention of Sturgeon to force him to apologise. Mhairi Black is the same, having a go at her constituents yet has never apologised, leaving poor John Swinney to deal with the fallout.
      Then there are the councillors in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Christ knows what they are up to. Alyn Smith’s leaked email should have resulted in an instant dismissal from the party. The NEC seems to be a law unto itself, trying to parachute Robertson into a seat he has little if any connections with, all in the name of blocking a perceived threat in Joanna Cherry.

      A list party might be the best way, although with so many floating around only one is needed. Winning a few seats might just be the catalyst to sort out the SNP.

      But ffs do not even think about going down the route of “civil disobedience”. That is the start of a very slippery and dangerous slope.

    147. Helen Yates says:

      In other words we’re screwed, I know I’ll never see Independence under this current administration therefore if the party isn’t reformed before the election then for me they’re not worth voting for, I’ll live in hope that as well as a new list party there will be a new constituency party otherwise I’ll only be using one vote.

    148. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I feel…
      that (I hope) the SNP upper echelons have been wargaming over the past six years and have a number of options in reserve.

      I think, particularly of the pronouncements in the HoC that Scotland would not be dragged out of Europe, against her will.

      Why make such statements, unless you’re sure of your position – or unless your blustering?

      Between now and November, I expect SOMETHING that will have the MSM all over the place, or else, we the Scots, represented by our Holyrood government and our Westminster MPs, will have to accept that we have been betrayed and independence is off the table for the forseeable future.

    149. willie says:

      Beaker,

      The SNP has real discipline and that discipline, self discipline is in the members.

      In any other party the discontent within the rank and file would have ripped the party apart. But those of us who are true SNP will do everything in their power to keep the party together in the shared experience of pursuing the goal of independence. That is the difference between us and other parties. We have common cause that we believe in.

      The current party leadership have however played on that loyalty, and we are now at the stage where if the leadership do not bend and change track then we will be bend them , out of existence.

      Independence is our core, it is what we believe, it is what we live for. We do not live for another five years of devolution and a Tory Government. Sturgeon plays a dangerous game with her disinterest in independence. We will get rid of her before we get rid of the party.

      There are enough now within the ranks who feel strongly enough to do this. They have made their voice heard and then some. They will do everything to get the party back on track and away from the jobsworths who see the SNP as a way to making a living. Time therefore that Nicola changed tack or retired with grace. Mrs Murrell and her coterie will not win.

    150. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Helen Yates (10.03) and BDTT (10.27) –

      It’s very unlike either of you to sound gloomy so just stop it! If you don’t I’ll come round there and do Shakin’ Stevens impersonations right outside yer hooses!

      It’s only *checks diary* August. That means there’s *checks diary again* pure months and months till the SG election. The wokies and their mysterious false-tash-twirling backers are already bricking it because there’s no way they could’ve anticipated the general knowledge of what they’re up to spreading so quickly. But it has.

      It’s hard to be exact cause the whole covid thing plays such tricks with memory of recent events but I’d hazard a guess that, say, a year ago, most SNP members and Yes/indy activists hadn’t a clue what the whole TRA/GRA stushie was about. Well, a lot of them do now, eh? And who’s to thank for raising it as an issue many months before it was on anyone else’s radar? (I wont name him – it’ll just give him a big heid.)

      That whole NEC debacle just helped get more light on it all, and that’s what these characters hate – it seems plain now that they were trying to abuse procedure in order to clear the way for their preferred candidates to stand. But they’ve been rumbled. They *knew* that what Stu has been saying re list voting was correct but they pooh-poohed it in the hope that most SNP branch members would just stick with the SNP 1&2 mantra, thus allowing their weird pals a better chance. And now it’s backfired big-time – not only has their plan been exposed, but its drawn attention to them and that’s what they really fear. (Why else would Alyn Smith be taking his eyebrows for a Michael Jackson moonwalk back out the fuckin door just t’other day?)

      And there’s still another *checks diary* nine full months before the election? Can you even begin to imagine how much more is going to come out about these bellends in that time? And what the SNP branch members will have to say about it all?

      So verily I say unto thee – let us be of good heart friends, and drink long into the night!

      Hoots all!

      😉 🙂 😉 🙂 😉

    151. mike cassidy says:

      OT

      If you want a break from the serious stuff

      Check out #ScottishScienceFiction

      Invasion Of The Boaby Snatchers, anybody.

    152. Sarah says:

      @ BDTT: I’d like to share your cautious optimism that there is a cunning secret plan but whenever I have emailed or spoken to my senior SNP MP I have never received anything to encourage that optimism. It has always been – we need 60% in the polls – and the constitution is reserved – i.e. no hint of any organisation in preparation for e.g. the calling of the Convention as suggested by Craig Murray.

      I suggested years ago that the SNP should work with key elements of the Yes movement such as the Rev, Craig Murray, Paul Kavanagh, but got no response. I have also pointed out the urgent necessity of action given the type of people in UK government in recent years. But have never had a response that matched my thinking.

      The trouble is that we and the wider public have grown to assume that it is up to the SNP to pursue independence and we can do nothing except wait to be asked for a vote. But is that the way it worked e.g. in the French Revolution – or was it the masses who pushed the agenda on the parliament?

      It should be us holding a Convention and presenting a covenant [or whatever] to Holyrood that demands our sovereignty be implemented. Holyrood should be acting as a sovereign body by our rules, not accept the limitations imposed by Westminster.

      The Smith Commission recognised our right so that should be sufficient to ensure the Scottish Government can act as our national independent government. It makes my blood run cold to hear Nicola Sturgeon say she will do nothing until the economic effects of Covid are over.

      People nod sagely in agreement when it is said the government is required to govern for everyone, not for their supporters. So the Scottish govt says it must not talk about, nor take steps, for independence because that is party political.

      Well that is not the case. If it were the case then every government would be saying that certain subjects could not be affected by their policies – they would be neutral or require cross-party support e.g. education, welfare. But this doesn’t happen – a party gains a majority and it is that party’s policy that determines what happens.

      So the current Scottish government is perfectly entitled to talk about, and prepare for independence, no matter that there is a public health issue going on. We need to make the government listen to us and do what we say, if we can show a large enough number of supporters.

      We already have the SIC and several other groups. Are they large enough together to be the Yes movement’s voice?

    153. Socrates MacSporran says:

      WT @ 9.53pm:

      Good suggestion about The Rev asking Nicola Sturgeon for an interview.

      But, don’t hold your breath waiting. There is simply no way Nicola would ever allow herslef to be exposed to the Rev’s forensic line of questioning.

      She will quite happily deal with the Unionist media, but, will never allow the Rev or Wings to be considered worthy of her attention.

    154. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Wouldn’t it be interesting if Rev Stu asked Nicola for an interview and she declined?

      A whole new page opening up…

    155. Benhope says:

      With an election coming up next year, there are a lot of candidates to question and scrutinise before they are adopted.

      Do you support the GRA and Hate Crime Bill legislation ?

      Please answer yes or no.

      If they do not answer NO on both counts please bin these candidates along with Angus Robertson and Alyn Smith. Fake Independence supporters !!

    156. CameronB Brodie says:

      If the Scottish government is serious about its response to covid-19, then it needs to take account of global health law, IMHO. Allowing Scotland to be removed from the EU’s legal jurisdiction, will seriously impair our ability to access our rights to health and a healthy environment. That’s part of the Tory desire to ‘re-gain control’ from a ‘restrictive’ EU.

    157. Polly says:

      @ Cat

      ‘take that up with polly, it was here who said everyone here will vote snp’

      I said nothing of the sort. I said “since all here want 50+ anyway and always have hoped for it”.

      Even the folk who are so scunnered by your high priestess of inaction on independence and bad action on other things, even those that feel they can no longer vote for her party would still love there to be a huge majority for independence. As other folk have said who could blame them if they didn’t vote for the present party. I will vote for it but do so in spite of them, in fact I’ll do it almost to spite them because I think they don’t want independence. I will not be voting for them because of them or anything they have done.

      Why don’t you learn to argue better then you won’t be so annoying.

    158. Polly says:

      @ Hugh Wallace

      ‘How people change when they drink the SNP Cool Aid.’

      Isn’t it more a bad trait of human nature generally? Looking out for number one especially if it can lead to preferment, advancement or acclaim? They’re the same kind of people that Mr Pickwick described when he spoke of situations where if there’s a mob shouting then shout along, if there’s two competing mobs then shout with the loudest. Fair weather friends.

    159. twathater says:

      Now here is someone who BELIEVES IN THE CAUSE OF INDEPENDENCE and is willing to do something about it

      https://twitter.com/Tara61711/status/1294392605501988869

    160. schrodingers cat says:

      @polly
      i was having a good evening, tx

    161. David Hooks says:

      I agree with a lot of this but disagree on two substantive points. Firstly, there is no such thing as “wildcat” referendum. There is nothing in any part of the Scotland Act or indeed the principle of Devolution that “that which isn’t retained is devolved” that stops the Scottish Government from holding a perfectly valid and legal referendum on independence. There is only the argument that it would not be legally BINDING on the UK government to accept the result of such a vote. Indeed, there is nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement, the previously accepted legal framework for a referendum that requires the UK to offer a fair and equitable deal with Scotland on what independence means or what structures would be put in place following a Yes vote. In short, they agreed to “respect” such a vote, not to capitulate to every point within the White Paper. This is evidenced with their stated refusal to countenance a currency union post independence. The only restriction is that the Scottish Government could not unilaterally alter the constitution of the United Kingdom in the event of a Yes vote following a referendum. There are many arguments around the international furore that would or could occur if they refused to recognise such a vote, not least in terms of their commitments under the UN charter, but they could just as easily say they recognised the vote and offer such a ridiculously one sided “deal” that the Scottish Government would be bound to refuse it and be left in the position of a No Deal scenario just like the “advisory” EU referendum. They would, however, no longer be able to deploy the argument that there was no appetite for independence.
      The second point of contention is that Unionist councils would somehow refuse to engage with and enact such a vote if mandated by Holyrood, their Parliament, to do so. There would be no legal grounds on which they could refuse to hold the vote and this will no doubt be proven by the People’s S30 case currently going through the courts.
      The Scottish Government could and should hold an advisory referendum on independence at the earliest opportunity and give the Scottish Parliament the right to negotiate independence with the UK government. Where we go from there is far less certain, but no less so that being granted a section 30 only for the result of that vote to be subject to the same wrangling and arguments for years as the Brexit vote was over what KIND of independence we get. Doing nothing is no longer an option.

    162. Beaker says:

      @willie says:
      14 August, 2020 at 10:32 pm
      “The SNP has real discipline and that discipline, self discipline is in the members.”

      I think I should have been more specific. I’m not having a pop at the rank and file, as the discipline can be seen on AUOB marches and with the canvassers in the street.

      I am talking about certain politicians who should be setting an example, not abusing their position by pursuing and promoting their own narrow agendas.

      If the politicians won’t set a good example, then the rot will set in.

    163. defo says:

      Human nature.
      Re. Recalcitrant Council compliance on indyref2.
      Maybe not an insurmountable barrier.

      Give them an out, and watch attitudes shift by every % point we gain, until all see which way the wind is blowing.
      THere is a Point of No Return.
      😉

      The Carrot.
      The make up of every Council will remain exactly the same at the given hour for indy, only difference being who they work for!
      Elections in due course.

      Post transitional MSPs & councillors will obviously need to ditch being someone else’s bitch, and form proper autonomous parties/groupings.

      Just imagine, parties would be able to ditch the prefix ‘Scottish’.
      No more sniggers, no more fear of phrases such as ‘branch office’,or ‘Leader’!
      Post indy, Holyrood will sorely need to be a broad church.
      Bring ’em all in, because it’s in all our own intere$£$ after all.

      The Stick
      If you want to stay, given the trend in %s, show it. Or you’ll suffer the consequences.
      I’d think it’s not unfair to assume there would be social, safety & financial fall out for Local representatives seen to be playing silly buggers.
      Parachute MSPs can hide, do a Ruth.

      Let those who want to stay British demonstrate their passion, not hide behind, and rely upon, a sordid undemocratic fix.
      Or else.
      ’79 in reverse.

    164. Camz says:

      Manifesto pledge to dissolve the Union if elected to govern. The people are sovereign.

      Sworn in by Queenie herself on the day of victory. Is Westminster going to go against the sovereign and sovereign will of the people?

      Probably, but not from a position of legality or strength.

    165. Sensibledave says:

      CBB bot

      You wrote “If the Scottish government is serious about its response to covid-19, then it needs to take account of global health law, IMHO. Allowing Scotland to be removed from the EU’s legal jurisdiction, will seriously impair our ability to access our rights to health and a healthy environment. That’s part of the Tory desire to ‘re-gain control’ from a ‘restrictive’ EU.“

      I think that is the 17th time you have posted the exact same comment.. and still no one responds!

      Off topic, out of time, out of touch and irrelevant .

    166. Jules says:

      I disagree with the second part of this article, the bit about how Boris is never going to grant a section 30 so it’s daft to say he might.

      I think what the article says is dangerous and counterproductive. If even the Yes movement talk down the relevance and legitimacy of a Holyrood election in making another referendum happen, what hope do we have to persuade others who need to support that mandate that it is, indeed a mandate for exactly that? If we go into May 2021 saying ‘this is basically irrelevant- he’s not going to grant a referendum, it’s not going happen, forget it’, then if a pro-Indy mandate DOES emerge, so what? No one said it was about independence, no one expected there to actually be another ref… we all just muddle on.

      If, on the other hand, the SNP and the wider Yes movement say, in the run up to the election, ‘yes, of course this is the democratic mechanism that exists for us to demand an independence referendum. And we fully expect our right as a democratic country to have our democratic choices respected’, then a pro-indy majority post-election situation takes on an entirely different hue.
      It would put very clear pressure on BJ to respect that mandate, or to try to explain why he might choose not to do so. And if you fall into Stuart’s camp of thinking that BJ will simply never say yes (which might be the case), it means that any Plan B (which I actually think NS would have to implement in such circumstances) would have infinitely more legitimacy and support from those (eg international community) whose support we would then need.

    167. Contrary says:

      David Hooks @ 2.28am

      I agree that there is no such thing as a wildcat referendum, but your assumption that ‘there is nothing in the Scotland act’ etc is wrong – why bother with the court case if it was that clear cut? It isn’t – Sewell intended for the Scotland Act to ensure a Scottish Government couldn’t legislate on constitutional matters, I.e. Hold an independence referendum (‘legally’) – but in fact, the legislation is badly written and doesn’t necessarily do what was intended – hence it going for judicial review.

      I will repeat:
      “RE: the court case to determine is a s.30 is required before Holyrood can legislate for a referendum on independence:

      Holyrood can legislate for any and as many referendums as it likes. BUT, they cannot legislate on reserved matters, and the constitution is a reserved matter. So, can the two be combined so that Holyrood can legislate (to make it ‘legal’) for a referendum that would change the constitution (independence)?

      That isn’t certain, and isn’t known – hence the court case. There are arguments either way (because of woolly wording on the Scotland Act).

      Whatever the outcome of the case, it will be useful – we should already know this stuff, it’s been in limbo for too long as it is – you need to know this to be able to have any kind of strategy (ref:Plan B). So to plan the strategy – if it’s a ‘no they canny’ then we look to one of Craig Murray’s options (international law legal route) backed by a majority signed covenant (lots of hard work, but worth it) – if it’s a ‘aye they can’ ,,, well, what is the SNP waiting for?

      Now the case is going ahead, the Scottish Government has asked to drop out and remain ‘neutral’ – a very strange move, but may have a reasonable explanation behind it.”

      If you read the supporting arguments in the case first brought forward & crowdfunded by forward as one, you get an understanding of why it isn’t clear, and why it needs to be clarified. I don’t think it helps anyone to boldly state something as fact when we just don’t know yet. YET. Do please donate to the crowdfunder, and you may be able to boldly state the facts soon enough.

    168. Contrary says:

      Sensibledave @ 8.24am

      Leave CBB alone, some of like reading his alternative take on things, whether you think it relevant or not, and whether we reply or not.

      I’m SICK of this ‘no debate’ culture. Evryone has their own view, let them express it.

    169. stuart mctavish says:

      Beaker @9.57
      Careful what you wish for.
      The Salmond farce aside, party stalwarts and vile cybernats hitherto cast aside in response to opposition tittle tattle will have their own perceptions of the party’s rather perverse approach to discipline but when you factor in the advocation of severe punishment for any top flight football players having had the temerity to ease the pain of a significant defeat with a night out or, perhaps outrageously, having spent a night playing away in Europe, the long term damage might end up being so pervasive that the beautiful dream of independence will evolve into the nightmare of men of independent mind needing to apply for an English passport in order to retain any hope of being free in the traditional sense.

    170. CameronB Brodie says:

      What’s dave wittering on about now? He’s an Englishman who rejects John Locke, and who clearly struggles with supporting the concepts of limited government and natural rights. Yet he thinks he’s the man to explain how liberal constitutionalism works, for the benefit of us uneducated northerners. Well, he’s the voice of English Torydum, innit.

      EU Human rights, democracy and rule of law:
      from concepts to practice

      http://www.fp7-frame.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/10-Deliverable-3.2.pdf

    171. Contrary says:

      CBB, have you posted much on this:

      “In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.”

      That is from Wiki. (I’ve copied this over from someone else’s post)

    172. CameronB Brodie says:

      Contrary
      Thanks for the support, but I wouldn’t call my view of the world an “alternative take on things”. I’ve simply been trained in an approach to the law that isn’t compromised by cultural baggage and, subsequent, legal prejudice. Remember, Scots already suffer from a lack of access to human rights, which Brexit merely entrenches in constitutional law. That’s not how liberal constitutionalism works, and certainly not one that involves the political union of equal nation states. Allegedly.

      Democracy and human rights are two sides of the same coin
      https://www.wfd.org/2019/12/10/democracy-and-human-rights-are-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/

    173. Dan says:

      All this talk on gaining over 50% of the vote if we have another Scottish Parliament election means little if there aren’t specifically worded manifestos from the Parties involved so the electorate are properly informed on what they are actually voting for.

      Plus, as there are “supposedly” multiple Pro-Indy Parties there would need to be commonality in aspects of their policy, or a memorandum of understanding between them, that should the Constituency and Regional List votes cast for them produce an overall majority then it gives validity to moving forward with a specific action.

      With Sovereignty being discussed, Jim Fairlie Jnr produced a trilogy of articles recently which are worth a read.

      12th June
      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18512346.scotland-must-reassert-sovereignty-decide-constitutional-future/

      3rd July
      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18557980.scotland-takes-control-second-referendum/

      28th July
      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18610898.straightforward-way-regain-control-future/

    174. CameronB Brodie says:

      Contrary
      I’m pretty sure I’ve already posted something similar.

      Delusions and Belief Formation: A Cognitive Neuropsychiatric Approach
      https://orca.cf.ac.uk/55592/1/U584020.pdf

    175. Republicofscotland says:

      So the new but absent Tory branch manager in Scotland Douglas Ross tweeted happy 73rd anniversary on independence to Pakistan, independence is good for every other country but not ours it seems.

      Meanwhile Boris Johnson is to rip down all EU flags on EU funded projects and replace them with the Butchers Apron (Union Jack). On top of this Johnson has given orders that the Butchers Apron needs to be more visible across Scotland and the UK as a whole. Expect a lot more in your face union jackery in the near future.

    176. mike cassidy says:

      2020 is just going to go on and on and …..

      Dear White Vegans, Stop Appropriating Food

      http://archive.is/HBHGm

    177. Socrates MacSporran says:

      It is after 9am on Saturday.

      I really need a laugh.

      Where is Holiday Boy when I need him?

    178. Breeks says:

      Contrary says:
      15 August, 2020 at 8:31 am

      …That isn’t certain, and isn’t known – hence the court case. There are arguments either way (because of woolly wording on the Scotland Act).

      The Scotland Act did not change one single word in the 1707 Treaty of Union. I remain confused why altering (or clarifying) the terms of the colonial Scotland Act should demand such attention when we have a perfectly serviceable Sovereign Constitution making our people sovereign, and by explicit implication, free to make collective decisions (through referenda or any other means), which nobody has the sovereign authority to overrule. We are sovereign. We are our own arbiters. Why do we prevaricate?

      There is a very poignant question which needs an answer, and that is why Scotland’s elected “Government” has forsaken Scotland’s Sovereign Constitution and now grovels before the colonial Scotland Act as if it was the sacred gospel. The Scotland Act is an extension of Westminster’s rule over Scotland; it is a colonial beachhead which endeavours to strengthen the foothold and accepted‘convention’ of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty.

      Westminster is playing hardball simply because “they” know they are dealing with a Scottish Government which is inept, confused and constitutionally illiterate when it comes down to the potency and status of Scotland’s constitution. They literally don’t know their own Constitutional strength, so Westminster is exploiting that frailty and stealing their sweeties and lunch money.

      If the Scottish “Government” requires an answer to the vexing question of whether a Section 30 Agreement is required to hold a referendum, perhaps they should set aside the Rule book of the colonial Scotland Act which didn’t even exist before 1998, and apply themselves to the sovereign Constitution of the Nation which has existed since 1320, and was neither altered nor diminished by the 1707 Act of Union, as evidenced by the Claim of Right… and indeed by Joanna Cherry’s “subjugation“ of Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue the Westminster Parliament.

      If Scotland’s “Government” is absolutely determined to make itself irrelevant and impotent through slavish regard for the colonial Scotland Act, and the corresponding disregard for the Scottish Nation’s Constitution, then it strikes me, Holyrood elections become a farce. We are just electing our ‘preferred’ Gauleiter to liaise with Westminster on our behalf. We should stop calling the Scottish Government the “Government” , and reserve such accolades for a TRUE Scottish Parliament which has as it’s founding principle, respect for the sovereign constitution of the Nation.

    179. CameronB Brodie says:

      Of course, supporting genderwoowoo in law, calls for a particular delusional view of the world. One that is actually held as true belief by a tiny minority. Unfortunately, the effects of “pluralistic ignorance” means that these zealots have a disproportionate influence on society. Pretty much like British nationalists in Scotland. 🙁

      Levels and kinds of explanation: lessons from neuropsychiatry

      I use an example from neuropsychiatry, namely delusional misidentification, to show a distinction between levels of explanation and kinds of explanation. Building on a pragmatic view of explanation, different kinds of explanation arise because we have different kinds of explanatory concerns.

      One important kind of explanatory concern involves asking a certain kind of “why” question. Answering such questions provides a personal explanation, namely, renders intelligible the beliefs and actions of other persons. I use contrasting theories of delusional misidentification to highlight how different facts about the phenomenon that is being explained impose constraints on the availability of personal explanation.

      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00373/full

    180. Big Jock says:

      Correct Stu – “She will do nothing”.

      She currently has a live mandate for indy ref 2. That expires in exactly 8 months! She isn’t using that mandate, so Boris knows she won’t use the new one in 2021.

      Sturgeon has already given that mandate away, because she stated :” Indy Ref 2 will be in the 2021 manifesto”. So that is her conceding that she needs a new mandate. The question is , Why?

      What does she want it for. Has she got a bulging trophy room in Bute House that she shows off at house parties.” Check out my mandates guys”! “Wow Nicola have you ever used one?” ….”Naw they are like classic cars, nice to have but not very practical. I just like having them”

      Seriously though. Why does anyone think she has the wit or the balls to actually do something with a new mandate.

      We need a new leader….please Jo challenge this charlatan.

    181. susan says:

      Thought provoking article again Stu. Boris isn’t going to grant an S30 so we need alternatives.

    182. Republicofscotland says:

      The crowd funding to pay for the court case to show that the Scottish government doesn’t need permission to hold a independence referendum from Westminster has reached the half way point.

      Bear in mind that on three separate occasions the Scottish government has tried to block this from happening Forward As One has reached the £159,000 pounds mark.

      Ask yourselves this question if you dare, why hasn’t the Scottish government done this months, if not years ago,if Sturgeon wants independence with every fibre of her being as she put it, she would’ve surely found a way to do it, unless of course she already knows the answer, and that answer is not conducive with her plans.

    183. kapelmeister says:

      Surgeon’s Twitter tells you everything. She hasn’t posted about the Westminster power grab for a couple of months. That’s not worth talking about so it seems. But she’s gushingly tweeted or retweeted about favourite author Ali Smith no less than 8 times in the last fortnight.

      You think it’s only indyref2 Sturgeon is disinterested in? She should be rallying Scottish opinion about Johnson’s power grab. But she isn’t.

    184. Contrary says:

      Breeks @ 9.36am

      I agree with all you say.

      As for “The Scotland Act did not change one single word in the 1707 Treaty of Union. I remain confused why altering (or clarifying) the terms of the colonial Scotland Act should demand such attention when we have a perfectly serviceable Sovereign Constitution making our ,,,”

      Well, your point about the ineptitude of our scotgov goes some way to answering that – and, whatever might be the reality of our constitutional rights – the main point it – HOW are you going to demand them? What mechanism is there? The politicians aren’t – as you stated – so where is the backing to uphold these rights?

      To make it a reality, there needs to be backing – the majority of people demanding them vociferously, politicians demanding it, anyone or group with clout demanding them, even an army to back it up – I don’t think we have any of these, so it remains a theoretical endeavour – so then the best route is via the Scotland Act, as the most expedient. That’s the one scotgov adheres to – so let’s clarify it, and hope it is in our favour so the scotgov is forced to take action.

      This is a practical way of trying to achieve our goal. I would be very happy to see some real move to upholding our constitutional rights – just knowing they exist doesn’t mean they will be used though.

      (I wish the cartoon would hurry up and arrive)

    185. Famous15 says:

      With all the British Nationalist flags and plaques being promoted across Scotland I am tempted to prepare a stencil with an amusing message to overlay these Unionist British Nationalist symbols. Perhaps the word “fail”.

      BTW did I mention British Nationalism which I find very colonial and colonal.

      Any other suggestions to “mitigate” the evil British Nationalist Unionist propaganda?

    186. CameronB Brodie says:

      I do find it hard to believe the FM truly believes in the Scottish electorate’s democratic right to determine our constitutional future. If the SNP wasn’t the Scottish government, would they be able to recognise and call on international law? Or have they simply become a party of Westminster minions, and closet BritNats?

      A cognitive account of belief: a tentative road map
      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01588/full

    187. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Last night I tweeted that I’m blocked by Doug Daniel and don’t know why (which is true).

      Cue dozens of replies from others who are blocked and didn’t know, many asking who the fuck he is.

      So, the wokies are using some kind of list aimed at Yes supporters, specifically readers of this place?

      Not very keen on spreading their message are they? Who on earth might that be?

      Hmmm…

      Check out the replies here:

      https://twitter.com/ianbhood/status/1294415480799875075

    188. Ian Brotherhood says:

      ‘Why on earth’!, although ‘who on earth?’ also appears frequently…

      😉

    189. Ottomanboi says:

      Religion, but not as we know it.
      https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/14/wokeness-old-religion-in-new-bottle/
      It’s pure Manichaeism Jim.

    190. Effijy says:

      I have always been in favour of lockdown as I believe a surge of unmanageable deaths
      would rage across the country.

      With the virus now 9-10 months old we still see new cases each and every day in the
      Land where it developed.

      There could be no more stringent enforcement than that applied in China and yet there virus there
      Cannot be wiped out.

      The Tories are handing out billions in contracts to companies that support them in return.
      SNP are using it as an excuse not to progress independence and Trump trying to stop any
      Election that would put him out of power.

      There is no stopping this virus without a vaccine and despite the Tory claims of ordering billions of vaccines from different sources non are proven to work.

      So many strange statists from around the globe.
      It seems that Sweden with double our population and without lockdown has double our death rate?
      Australia that had done so well in containing the virus now seems to have a stronger 2nd wave.

      Poverty prevents countries like Brazil, India and Mexico from offering much in the way of resistance
      To the virus and rioting and starvation look likely to kill large numbers.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vbj-uRZEM7IFPG7ylMZ1Nr1YfMKJJ31J/view?s=08

    191. jfngw says:

      I have seen people repeat the ‘forever after’ clause in the Treaty of Union, but it only referred to the Kingdom, it makes no such claim when referring to the parliaments.

      It also doesn’t not refer to the parliament as sovereign, it also does not state that in any parliament set up in Scotland the UK parliament will be sovereign over it, that is in complete contradiction of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

      So if the people of Scotland vote to increase the power of the Scottish parliament then within the Treaty I can’t see what they can object to, it meets the constitutional requirements. The proviso is as yet we have never voted to do this by a majority.

    192. kapelmeister says:

      Is Doug Daniel Woke of the Week?

    193. CameronB Brodie says:

      The woke perspective is derived from black and third-world feminism, so it does not deny biology, but it does value epistemic integrity. Western politics is becoming infested with “radical trans-activists”, who aim to abolish the legal settlement between the sexes, of “equal but different”. They want it replaced with the legal settlement of “the same but unequal”, just like British constitutionalism intends for Scotland.

      LOVE IT OR HATE IT, BUT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS: PRAGMATISM AND THE NEW HAVEN SCHOOL’S INTERNATIONAL LAW OF HUMAN DIGNITY

      Abstract:
      This Article presents a novel understanding of pragmatism in the New Haven School of international law. The New Haven Jurisprudence is wrapped in layers of mystification and the scant accounts of its pragmatism in the literature are either entirely mistaken or only partially helpful, betray a vernacular or truncated understanding of pragmatism, and fail to engage with the internal, epistemic structure of the policyoriented jurisprudence.

      In response, this Article uncovers a contradictory form of foundationalist pragmatism in the Yale Jurisprudence in a peculiar relationship between its contextualist and problem-solving promises and its unreflective normative commitments to a set of postulated values of human dignity. In doing so, it foregrounds a “foundationalist antifoundationalism” and its crippling impact on the pragmatist promises of policyoriented jurisprudence.

      Against the worn-out accusations of the New Haven Jurisprudence of U.S. imperialism or disguised affinity with natural law, understanding its foundationalist pragmatism offers a new appreciation of both the genius of Yale’s policy-oriented approach and the promises of pragmatism for policy thinking in international law.

      https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3487&context=scholarly_works

    194. CameronB Brodie says:

      What is British nationalism?

      ‘The perfect racism’:
      Young citizens’ perspectives on the promotion of ‘fundamental British values’

      Abstract
      The notion of ‘fundamental British values’ first appeared in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition government’s revised Prevent strategy in 2011. It stated that ‘fundamental British values’ are ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs’. The following year, in 2012, the Teachers’ Standards included these values and required all teachers ‘not to undermine fundamental British values’.

      In November 2014, the Coalition government produced guidelines on promoting ‘fundamental British values’. In September 2015, the newly elected Conservative government transformed this guidance to a full duty, as defined in Section 26 of the new Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This legislative journey has taken place in the context of broader social, political and economic developments in Britain and the wider world.

      This qualitative research, explored young people’s understandings of ‘fundamental British values’ within and outside of their educational settings. The empirical data was collected through five unstructured focus groups interviews with forty-six A level students aged between seventeen and nineteen. This critical realist study investigated the conditions under which ‘fundamental British values’ have become part of young people’s educational experiences and evidenced how ‘fundamental British values’ form an important element of structural racism within British society.

      The research attempted to capture what the participants’ subjective understandings could contribute to an analysis3 of the social structures within which the promotion of ‘fundamental British values’ emerged. Findings from the empirical data suggest that the promotion of ‘fundamental British values’ is underpinned by:

      • the imperialist ideology of ‘the war on terror’;

      • the colonialist conception of the ‘superiority’ of the ‘dominant culture’;

      • structural racism in the education system and wider society.

      This research provides new insights into the compulsory promotion of ‘fundamental British values’ in schools and colleges from young citizens’ perspectives.

      Keywords:
      Fundamental British Values, Education, Prevent, Racism, Critical Realism

      https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/files/21125525/PhD_mit_Kemal_Y_ld_z_21489211August2019.pdf

    195. Black Joan says:

      kapelmeister @ 10.09am

      Not just over-tweeting re Ali Smith but also plugging an interview of favourite author Ali Smith by favourite “award-winning” “journo” Garavelli who, to judge from the trailers, will be making herself part of the “story” when (enabled by BBC Radio 4) she reveals how she has become a “target” for writing sympathetically about the alphabet sisters.

      Tory power-grab? Independence? What’s that?

    196. Victory over Japan 75th anniversary,

      a lot of atrocities committed on soldiers and civilians by the Japanese Imperial Army,

      15 – 20 million Chinese killed,

      if China had surrendered it would have given Japan a massive industrial and manpower base that would have made it almost invincible in the far east,

      from that base they could have attacked Russia which would mean Russia fighting on two fronts which would mean less troops to fight off the Germans, (no D Day ?),

      China`s hard won role in halting the Japanese is the greatest pivotal point in WW2.

    197. Daisy Walker says:

      Pacman @ 8.59 14th August

      Re AI, algorithims and – how do we deal with it?

      We use humour and we use info graphics/posters.

      We use posters in windows – cars/houses/work, bumper stickers, T shirts and home made billboards, we print off our own posters and we stick them on wheelie bins.

      If we are really smart about it we pick one theme every 2 months so the whole of Scotland gets the message.

      Remember one of our demographics to change from No to Yes is our pensioners, and the other – is tories (I know, not everyones cup of tea, but hey). Both those groups of voters won’t want to – or won’t be able to pay for private health care… which is coming very very soon without Indy.

      And we campaign, we campaign and campaign, and we make it so that Indy is an unstoppable force – with or without Nicola.

    198. Dogbiscuit says:

      Batak Obama used presidential executive powers like he was addicted. All presidents have recourse to that option.
      There are too many wingers swallowing media propaganda on Trump.Yes he may be an asshile but fucking Biden for fucksake you would have to be blootered to vote for him.

    199. Famous15 says:

      The red arrows were obscured by cloud so no British Nationalist Unionist show today!

      VJ day when we remember the donkeys who threw a huge Scottish army under the Japanese bus in Singapore. God Save the Queen.

    200. Dogbiscuit says:

      Barak. computer misspells his name. The Devil protects his own.

    201. Dogbiscuit says:

      Famous 15 do you think it was only Scots in the 14th Army.
      Well done for remembering VJ Day .

    202. Famous15 says:

      Dogwhistle knows about US politics not.

      Kamala will keep “Sleepy Joe” awake enough to end the “amazing” career of the lunatic Trump.

    203. CameronB Brodie says:

      That reminds me we were discussing strange beliefs. 🙂

      Self-Deception as Omission
      https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59123d9b37c581f3f17ec3cc/t/5da73e30daad6411fb746e25/1571241521603/self-deceptionasomission.pdf

    204. Dogbiscuit says:

      Sturgeon the vacuous virtue signaller has much in common with G Galloway the Mark 1 virtue signaller. He could oatronize the hell out of Scots as he does with Black people.

    205. Dogbiscuit says:

      Young ,gifted and Scots

    206. Famous15 says:

      Dogwhistle ,sure there were even Anzacs too and the donkeys were educated on the playing fields of Eton.

    207. CameronB Brodie says:

      Now we’re cooking with gas, 😉

      REALISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND PLURALISM: THE METAPHYSICS AND ETHICS OF WILLIAM JAMES
      http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/18251/1/Neil%20W.%20Williams%20-%20Realism%2C%20Individualism%2C%20and%20Pluralism%20-%20The%20Metaphysics%20and%20Ethics%20of%20William%20James%20FINAL.pdf

    208. Dogbiscuit says:

      Kanaka Harris and her affair with an old married powerful man when in her twenties is no surprise as politics is full of pimps and whores .
      If you support the corrupt Democrats then yours scoundrel.
      Famous shrivelled scrote what is Sturgeons plan for Independence you political geniuse?

    209. Famous15 says:

      Why do I call him the great Trumpian “dogwhistle”? Google it!

    210. Famous15 says:

      Just noticed dogwhistle called the Democrat running mate “Kanaka” which is deeply offensive racism.

      Dogwhistle be ashamed, be very ashamed!

    211. Dogbiscuit says:

      Kamala computer doesn’t want to spell her name correctly either.
      You’re being duped by the so called ‘left’

      Barak Obama started the Libyan War the Syrian War he tried to set fire to Egypt .
      He also personally ordered the deaths of American citizens by drone strike. You bent over fucking virtue signallers think the sun shines out of your leaders arse .Its time to grow
      up and wise up.
      Harris is a box ticking exercise.A few months ago she accused Biden of being a nonce now she’s happy to work with him? Away and fuck yourself Famous.

    212. iain mhor says:

      Talk of the S30 and the Scotland Act is all well and good. But I think people always miss some basics; that everything in the UK (incuding Scotland) is currently government by convention and the Scotland Act (1998) confers no powers whatsoever on Scotland, or its Parliament.

      The reason the Scottish Government keeps being called an Executive, is because all power is reserved. Holyrood administers Westminster legislation and all – every single part – is reserved to Westminster (or the Crown by Order in Council) to alter, amend, rescind, or otherwise abolish as it sees fit.
      The Scotland Act 1998 explicitly says so, severally.

      The UK is also among a very small number of countries which still operates ex post facto legislation (most constitutions do not allow for that) So even beyond the fact that every single power is reserved to Westminster, its ability to ‘amend’ is also the ability to retroactively amend.

      The only way to attack Westminster – to harm it (to make the conequences worse) is to attack its source of power and that source of legislative power – its ‘constitution’ – is the ‘Crown’.

      Any legal dancing on the heads of pins in a court to gain an S30, will have to probe at the Crown in the form of Parliamentary Sovereignty; but they won’t directly, because they don’t have the bottle.
      To attack the legislation, attack the power, attack the Crown directly and gain all.

      Parliamentary Sovereignty is their only Achilles heel; which means severing the Union of Crowns or, literally replacing the Scottish Crown, or abolishing the Crown – by instructing the Scottish Crown.

      It is not the sole prerogative of Westminster to invoke the powers of and to instruct a single Crown (Henry VIII powers of the English Crown) nor indeed is there a sole Privy Council. Other Crown Commonwealhs have used their own Orders in Council and caused constitutional ‘crisis’ before. Notwithstanding, the UK Government itself is no stranger to creating ‘constitutional crisis’, as the case of the Chagos Islanders attests.

      The reason the phrase ‘constitutional crisis’ gets bandied about so much anent Scottish independence; is because everyone and their dug knows it must attack the Crown(s) not necessarily the Union of Kingdoms. The Crown(s) is the rock upon which the power of the unwritten constitution is based – its legislative power.

      The only way to show that Scotland can lawfully hold a referendum if it chooses; is to show that the Crown of England’s writ does not run, the Scottish Crown does not dictate and that Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty is not sound – to have the right to instruct the Scots Crown in Council.

      It is not done by engaging some farcical charade over the implied meaning of a mere part of a section of the Scotland Act – because that will always fail – like Scotland’s ‘EU Continuity Bill’ – which failed because the Crown was not attacked. It could only ever fail and any similar attempt to wrest an S30 will fail, for the self same reason.

      Any ‘victory’ on some moot point of UK law, may see the offending legislation amended, the decision overturned and done so ex post facto. All that power derives from the Crown.

      If you can show that power does not apply, if you have the right to instruct your ‘Crown’; then there is no requirement to settle for a temporary transfer of power (S30) for all power has been won.
      Not instant independence, not a severing of any Treaty, it wins the instant independence of the Scottish Parliament and with it the power to ‘Act’

      There is not even any particular requirement to venture near a court to do so and the only defence, is for the Scots Crown to dictate matters otherwise…

      *Awaits ‘talking shite’…

    213. Famous15 says:

      Dogwhistle I could offer you a course in anger management but they require proof of mental health.Sorry.

    214. Dogbiscuit says:

      Trump will romp home in November I don’t think the Democrats can allow cities to be torched by their supporters without consequences at the election.
      Dems threw dolly out their prom when the were beaten last time .
      Famous do you actually know whats going on anywhere. Pissed up lunatic.

    215. Dogbiscuit says:

      I’m angry because your first minister is a useless cunt.

    216. Dogbiscuit says:

      And In sure I speak for many you’re fucking lucky we’re not face to face silly cunt.

    217. Dogbiscuit says:

      Fuck your mother traiter

    218. Ottomanboi says:

      The American National Geographic magazine has a current special entitled Atlas of the British Empire. It’s pretty basic stuff but dived in scanning for any ref. to the Union treaty, the thing that put zing into BE. Nope not a mention.
      Did it happen? Was it a bad dream?

    219. ahundredthidiot says:

      There is literally no arguing with people who have TDS.

      If he wins in November it’ll likely delay WW3 by another four years, so I will take that. It’s bigger picture stuff that matters for me (I really don’t care about internal US policies, why should I, I don’t live there) but the fact he walked into N Korea and shook hands (de-escalating regional tensions) and stood up to the hawks with being drawn into a war with Iran, is enough for me to see past the ‘noise’.

      If Obama had done the former, he would’ve got the Nobel peace prize for that alone. What bothers me is that people champion BO simply because he is black (and that is quite worrying) – the man literally reneged on the non-proliferation treaty with Russia – and no one noticed.

    220. ahundredthidiot says:

      easy, dogwhistle, and maybe make a few apologies.

    221. CameronB Brodie says:

      Both Trump and BoJo represent the temporary victory of post-truth right-wing populism, but both administrations are unleashing a toxic politics of narcissistic exceptionalism.

      BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2018), Page 1 of 75
      Précis of Talking to Our Selves:
      Reflection, Ignorance, and Agency

      Abstract:
      Does it make sense for people to hold one another responsible for what they do, as happens in countless social interactions every day? One of the most unsettling lessons from recent psychological research is that people are routinely mistaken about the origins of their behavior. Yet philosophical orthodoxy holds that the exercise of morally responsible agency typically requires accurate self-awareness.

      If the orthodoxy is right, and the psychology is to be believed, people characteristically fail to meet the standards of morally responsible agency, and we are faced with the possibility of skepticism about agency. Unlike many philosophers, I accept the unsettling lesson from psychology. I insist, however, that we are not driven to skepticism.

      Instead, we should reject the requirement of accurate self-awareness for morally responsible agency. In Talking to Our Selves I develop a dialogic theory, where the exercise of morally responsible agency emerges through a collaborative conversational process by which human beings, although afflicted with a remarkable degree of self-ignorance, are able to realize their values in their lives.

      Keywords:
      agency; character; confabulation; deliberation; ethics; morality; psychology; reasoning; reflection; responsibility; the self; selfknowledge; value

      https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/grounding_responsibility_in_something_more_solid.pdf

    222. Breeks says:

      jfngw says:
      15 August, 2020 at 10:47 am
      I have seen people repeat the ‘forever after’ clause in the Treaty of Union, but it only referred to the Kingdom, it makes no such claim when referring to the parliaments.

      Marriage has a ‘forever after’ clause, – ‘til death do us part’, yet plenty marriages end in divorce.

    223. Contrary says:

      Iain mhor @ 12.22pm

      You aren’t talking shite at all. The point, though, is that SOMETHING is being done, as opposed to NOTHING. Right now – it isn’t just being talked about, it will be reviewed and judged.

      HOW will you make any of your words reality, by what mechanism?

      The court case will clarify matters – whichever way it lands – and force some kind of action either way (even if that is the SNP blatantly ignoring it). The Scotland Act will no longer part of a ‘maybe’ argument. So if the outcome is negative, how do we go about getting what you say about the crowns to be a reality? Or any of the other ideas and thoughts?

      Nothing is going to be simple with any strategy, but I’m all for a multi-pronged approach and will support any practical way of getting round all obstacles – the HOW needs to be answered, how can something be used? How can it be made into reality? Saying something ‘should’ happen won’t make it happen.

    224. Breeks says:

      Excellent! Scotland’s weather has grounded the flypast of the British Nationalist Red Arrows for VJ-day.

      You may not remember, but these airborne propagandists refused to trail smoke in Scotland’s colours for the opening ceremony of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014.

    225. CameronB Brodie says:

      A ‘forever after’ clause assumes the laws transcendence over nature and social reality, so it simply isn’t compatible with social democracy. Proper constitutional jurisprudence needs to take account of quantum mechanics and phenomenology. So that’s not British constitutionalism then.

      Manuscrito vol.34 no.2 Campinas July/Dec. 2011
      The transcendence of time in the epistemology of observation from a phenomenological standpoint

      ABSTRACT
      In this article I deal with time as a notion of epistemological content associated though with the notion of a subjective consciousness co-constitutive of physical reality. In this phenomenologically grounded approach I attempt to establish a ‘metaphysical’ aspect of time, within a strictly epistemological context, in the sense of an underlying absolute subjectivity which is non-objectifiable within objective temporality and thus non-susceptible of any ontological designation.

      My arguments stem, on the one hand, from a version of quantum-mechanical theory (History Projection Operator theory, HPO theory) in view of its formal treatment of two different aspects of time within a quantum context. The discrete, partial-ordering properties (the notions of before and after) and the dynamical-parameter properties reflected in the wave equations of motion.

      On the other hand, to strengthen my arguments for a transcendental factor of temporality, I attempt an interpretation of some relevant conclusions in the work of J. Eccles ([5]) and of certain results of experimental research of S. Deahaene et al. ([2]) and others.

      Keywords:
      absolute subjectivity; decoherence functional; history filter; history proposition; original process; phenomenological perception; quasi-temporal; temporal consciousness; von Neumann’s projection postulate.

      https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-60452011000200002&script=sci_arttext

    226. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m not meaning to flood the thread Rev., I’m just a bit excited about reconnecting with legal theory. Critical man. 😉

    227. jfngw says:

      @Breeks

      Yes, and the same wording was in the treaty with Ireland I believe (well according to the Keatings case anyway, I’ve not checked myself). It’s just it was referenced by a well known lawyer once, one that writes on a Sunday, one I thought was a warrior just to realise I had misread it.

    228. Famous15 says:

      Dogwhstle in case you survived your spontaneous combustion let me tell you Trumpians tell lies .Fact! (I could not resist)

      You do know that Trump supporters faked that video making Ms Pelosi appear inebriated!

    229. jfngw says:

      That should be ‘writes in a Sunday paper’, I’ve no idea if he writes on it.

    230. CameronB Brodie says:

      jfngw
      I’ve a post in moderation that touched on the complete nonsense of a legal ‘forever after’ clause. Such a legal restriction assumes the law’s transcendence over time, nature, and social reality, so it’s complete legal mince. Proper constitutional law needs to take account of quantum mechanics and phenomenology, if it hopes to support justice. So that’s not British constitutionalism then, which tends towards absolute positivism and legal exceptionalism.

      Information – Consciousness – Reality pp 515-595
      The Consciousness of Reality

      https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_14

    231. defo says:

      Where’s ma ‘toon?

      Back on the meds Spammers?
      Glad you’re okay.
      Less is more!
      🙂

      No takers on getting the Unionist Councillors to see sence?

    232. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m not simply polishing my ego in public, this stuff has direct bearing on Scotland’s lack of constitutional justice.

      Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy, Volume 54, 2018
      Philosophy of Law

      The Core of Legal Rights as a Logical Necessity
      From Wittgenstein’s Logic of Language to Phenomenology and Aristotle’s Induction

      Analytical jurisprudence and the legal mainstream perceive legal rights in an interactionist fashion, pursuant to a right-obligation duality. The Paper suggests that this is principally because legal positivism and the analytical Anglo-Saxon legal tradition ground their theories on logical positivism and the Wittgensteinian premise that meaning is produced and asserted in social use, i.e. both consensually and contextually.

      The paper suggests that there is a surplus of meaning which exists beyond social use and which cannot be conceptualized within the sociolinguistic confines of Wittgenstein’s logic of language. This surplus of meaning corresponds to the essential core of legal rights, which, following Aristotle’s induction and philosophy of the essences, constitutes a necessary property and ?? ?? ?? ????? of legal rights, namely a state of affairs or a state of being that cannot be altered without their necessary breach or, indeed, the negation of their very meaning.

      The Paper discusses the shortcomings of the Wittgensteinian approach and revisits the philosophical foundations of legal rights by employing Aristotle’s induction and theory of the essences, which the Paper connects to the phenomenological method and particularly Ricoeur’s hermeneutics and Husserl’s transcedental phenomenology. This is a process of abstraction and insight, which aspires to induce a rational revisiting of the general theory of legal rights and address the surplus of meaning that Wittgensteinian logic leaves semantically uncovered.

      https://www.pdcnet.org/wcp23/content/wcp23_2018_0054_0005_0019

    233. Gav says:

      I can’t help but think that Westminster will close holyrood before it grants an s30

    234. Balaaargh says:

      The Rev’s ‘Incidentally’ paragraph is bang on point.

      There are no winners from the education debacle. And the situation is far worse in England thanks to their fractured education system. There is no national exam board, no national papers, just a ‘standard’. And the good thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.

    235. ahundredthidiot says:

      famous

      no one faked the video of Pelosi ripping up the state of the union address though, did they? She is a child. A spoiled immature little child.

      And the video/photos showing the ‘pre ripped’ paper edges prove that is wasn’t a moment of infantile idiocy…..it was pre-planned idiocy……she is an embarrassment of the highest order.

      Another symptom of those suffering from TDS – I would suggest you get checked out, but I’m afraid there is no cure!

    236. Saltire says:

      Who does the SNP need to convince about independence? Is it a broad section of Scottish society, or (sometimes) lifelong, hugely passionate believers in independence above all else?

      It’s the former not the latter. How better do you do that than by persuading the electorate that we can use the existing (albeit woefully inadequate) devolved powers well, and could clearly hold all the normal powers of an independent country?

      What can be presented by the media and the unionist parties as “extreme” behaviour is a real danger to the cause of independence. We need to be responsible reformers of the constitutional status.

      The independence movement is a broad church. We need to respect each other’s approach and pace, as that also applies to the electorate. Fighting and internal strife amongst us will save the union. We all need to start behaving or it will cost us everything and that will be inforgiveable.

    237. Bob Costello says:

      This is exactly the reason we need a completely new Independence Party and not just one to fight list seats. Time to start again.

    238. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Black Joan

      Garavelli ought to learn one of the basics of journalism: Your job is to tell the story, NOT become part of that story.

    239. schrodingers cat says:

      Dogbiscuit says:
      Famous do you actually know whats going on anywhere. Pissed up lunatic.

      Dogbiscuit says:
      15 August, 2020 at 12:25 pm
      I’m angry because your first minister is a useless cunt.

      Dogbiscuit says:
      15 August, 2020 at 12:26 pm
      And In sure I speak for many you’re fucking lucky we’re not face to face silly cunt.

      Dogbiscuit says:
      15 August, 2020 at 12:27 pm
      Fuck your mother traiter

      classic wings btl banter lol

      i’m sure chris cairns just cant wait to publish his art work here

    240. twathater says:

      Watched the news earlier and the usual CELEBRATIONS of the slaughtering of young men , the bullshit broadcasting crap corp ,Charlie the parasite , and bozo the circus clown all with their false emotion and empathy , all spouting the mantra of WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOUR SACRIFICE

      Meanwhile back in the real world , all over 75s will have to pay their license fee again to be brainwashed by the corrupt bbc pravda , and that fee will have to be taken off the worst in Europe pension , yes while bozo ,Charlie , the pervy prince all wallow in rancid fetid corruption the REAL BRAVE protectors of these scum and THEIR WARS suffer indignity and despair .
      THEY MAKE ME SICK

    241. defo says:

      With the 77th operating from home post apocalypse SC, they’re really letting standards slip.
      😉
      Distraction and disruption.
      That’s the name of the game.

      I’m still thinking the Dog has pet food interests. 😉

      And you’re probably Pete Wishart!
      Joke emoji thingy.

    242. schrodingers cat says:

      @defo

      i’m Pete Wishart and so’s my wife

      🙂

    243. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “And In sure I speak for many you’re fucking lucky we’re not face to face silly cunt.”

      “Fuck your mother traiter”

      Right, that’s finally enough. Pre-moderation for you until you learn how to behave like a grown-up.

    244. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “classic wings btl banter lol

      i’m sure chris cairns just cant wait to publish his art work here”

      And don’t you push your luck either.

    245. schrodingers cat says:

      regards the keatings crowd fund

      Pete Wishart @PeteWishart
      I’m sure I’m not the only one concerned at taking this court action at this time. It could have serious consequences for the whole independence movement if defeated.

    246. iain mhor says:

      @Contrary 1:19pm

      This is long and I do apologise (to all indeed)

      Well, I can only say that in my opinion, talk of S30, referendums, or perhaps even such as Craig Murray’s suggestion of ways to leap to independence, is for me, always putting the cart before the horse.

      The independent power to Act is the horse, all else follows. Nor does securing such power immediately leap to independence, dissolving of treaties, or holding referendums. It is of itself a passive power, retained until its use is deemed to be required – for whatever purpose.

      It has no immediate effect, it is merely ‘potential power’ to effect and all which follows is lawful – both domestically and internationally. There need be no hand wringing about ‘recognition’ or lawfullness of any ‘Act’ therefater.

      Bringing it about? This is not a legislative matter – as many have pointed out, including the judiciary – it is a political matter. It will fail in a UK court, for that is bound by UK legislation – which is its only ‘constitution’.

      That legislation and constitution derives its power from Parliament, which derives its power via Parliamentary Sovereignty, which derives its power from the ‘Crown’ (as Westminster would have it at least) the judiciary does not make legislation, it can only rule on what is before it.

      For example, I have a bit of trouble finding the actual details of Martin Keatings case, but if it ultimately operates under the aegis of UK legislation, in a UK Supreme Court (following a possible succesful action at the Court of Session) it will fail, for two reasons.

      The first I previously pointed out – UK legislation is not ‘bound’ it may be altered retroactively. So however cleverly one may find an exploitable ‘loophole’ and be ‘found in favour’ – the loophole may be closed ex post facto. The UK Government does this frequently and to the exasperation of the judiciary far less an appellent.

      The second is; that the court may find it non-judiciable and a political matter and it will not be resolved at either Courts. Which is the best outcome that can be hoped for in Martin’s case – for the reasons already cited – else he loses.

      I am open to the suggestion that should it ‘lose’; the UK government will not amend the Scotland Act accordingly; the right of Scotland’s Parliament to ‘Act’independently will be ‘won’ and consequently; the entire edifice of the Scotland Act must crumble, together with the UK’s Parliamentary Sovereignty – but I’m not that open.

      In effect this is, if not an ecumenical matter, a political matter. The political threat is to ‘move against the Crown’ How that is to be done is deeply political.
      In the case of Martin (or anyone else in Scotland or their representatives in Scotland) it would be either by proclamation, or by instructing the Scottish Crown directly in Council, to assent to a Bill, or instruction of its choosing – and thereby Act – as is their right.
      It’s not a Court matter do decide the right, it’s the Crown’s to deny it and good luck with that.

      Scotland, both at Holyrood (as representing the people in Scotland) and at Westminster (as Scotland’s representatives to the Crown in Parliament) has always held the right to direct the Scottish Crown. Why is such a mandate not being used? For political reasons again.

      Where there is indeed ‘more than one way to skin a cat’ the current politics is: ‘we can do this the easy way or the hard way’ If Scotland were to move against the Crown, it would inevitably, if not destroy Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty, seriously wound it.

      Why is that important – because it is not necessarily in Scotland’s best interests to wound England’s politics so very deeply. It will create an independent Scottish Parliament (independent Nation in-potentia) but in the process will have created a deep political and constitutional gash in its new neighnour’s machinery of Government.

      Effectively it would lead to the destabilisation of Westminster’s very edifice of political power – not the potential loss of Scotland, but the exposure of the emperors nudity. That fallout could well adversely affect all around it

      When many say Westminster must allow a referendum and cannot refuse indefinitely, there is a kernal of truth in that political matter. The longer they do refuse, the closer Scotland comes to being forced to pull the pin – should her representatives, or her people, find the bottle to do so and dare the consequences.

      Perhaps ‘we dare not for consequences – but we might just for desperation’ would best describes Scotland’s current approach as I see it.

    247. ahundredthidiot says:

      Bob Costello @ 14:41

      Sorry, Bob, but no – why should all the hard work by many, many people be flushed down the pan just because the SNP has Leaders who have never actually led real men and women in any sort of real environment?

      The SNP Leadership is out of touch, not the whole Party and all that is needed is a change of leadership. Brexit should be a resignation issue for any SNP Party Leader – both at WM & HR – regardless.

      That that hasn’t happened is indeed worrying, but no need to throw the baby out with the bath-water just yet.

      The time for AS to make his move needs to be soon, even if just to bring down a few people at the top. The woke idiots need to wake up to the fact that the predators are circling, which is why some of them are cutting their friends and throwing them in the water to satisfy the sharks.

    248. Beaker says:

      @Socrates MacSporran says:
      15 August, 2020 at 9:34 am
      “It is after 9am on Saturday.
      I really need a laugh.”

      This might help. Two nights ago I was cooking pasta. Filled the pan with water and another for the veggies. Put the wrong fucking ring on which just happened to have a full bag of dried pasta sitting on it. I say full, that was until I tried to pick it up…

    249. PacMan says:

      Daisy Walker says: 15 August, 2020 at 11:45 am

      Pacman @ 8.59 14th August

      Re AI, algorithims and – how do we deal with it?

      We use humour and we use info graphics/posters.

      We use posters in windows – cars/houses/work, bumper stickers, T shirts and home made billboards, we print off our own posters and we stick them on wheelie bins.

      If we are really smart about it we pick one theme every 2 months so the whole of Scotland gets the message.

      Remember one of our demographics to change from No to Yes is our pensioners, and the other – is tories (I know, not everyones cup of tea, but hey). Both those groups of voters won’t want to – or won’t be able to pay for private health care… which is coming very very soon without Indy.

      And we campaign, we campaign and campaign, and we make it so that Indy is an unstoppable force – with or without Nicola.

      I believe what I had mentioned is how these Russian botnets are used by the Russians to meddle in elections in the UK and US. They create social media content in order to create trends and themes more popular as to game the various social media algorithms in order to push content to as many people as possible in order to influence it. The Russians are doing it, the Chinese are doing it, as I previously mentioned corporations are doing it and you can bet your bottom dollar the UK government is doing it as well.

      Looking back at my post last night, I was having a moan as I used to be optimistic about how technology can better us but it has become so depressing where is used in such a banal way where with my example a corporation is cynically using a serious subject just to push ice cream.

      With these movies we see technology destroying mankind but outside the Hollywood bubble, the reality is that technology is nudging us into a society of banal mono-culture where we think and consume at the whim of some corporation. Terminator, more like Boringator.

      You are right that social media has a limited impact on the scheme of things but like the Scottish media who are doing everything to try and chip away at the support for independence, it is just depressing how democracy is being subverted by special interest groups.

    250. schrodingers cat says:

      Pete Wishart @PeteWishart
      I’m sure I’m not the only one concerned at taking this court action at this time. It could have serious consequences for the whole independence movement if defeated.

      I’ve no doubt about his(martin) intelligence. It’s his judgement of doing this ‘at this time’ that is at question. Losing this could have dire consequences.

      Oh yes there is. (negative consequences) The wrong type of actions forced on us by frustration and impatience had more chance of beating us than the unionists.

      OK. I get this all the time so answer this. What would happen if we ‘just used the mandate’ without the participation of the UK?

      If it ‘wins’ the UK will simply change the legislation retrospectively as they did with the continuity bill. If it loses cock-a-hoop unionists securing a boost to their flagging campaign with a legal ‘cage’ that they will hope to confine us to.

      No. I’m saying that if a legal case (at this time) loses there could be dire consequences to the whole cause of independence.

      Front page – every paper in the country. All over BBC.
      ‘Court declares independence referendum illegal’
      ‘Jubilant unionists celebrate court decision’
      ‘That is the end of the matter says Boris Johnson’ etc, etc…..

    251. ronnie anderson says:

      Bill McGlen
      15m
      ?????????
      Sorry to bring v sad news, but Grouse Beater of the very important contribution to Scottish Independence blog is very ill and now in numbered days 🙁
      Scotland will hold you close to our hearts as a true Warrior
      and a true friend to many ???
      Sad to hear Grouse Beater is on the way out A true Gentleman .

    252. jfngw says:

      Has anybody worked out the total of downgraded results for England. I’ve only come across it as a percentage, they were so keen to tell us repeatedly it was 125k in Scotland. Just on population and the 39% that would make their total around 1.76 million downgrades. I’m not sure if all their results have been declared yet but why would the any other prediction changes differ in outcome.

    253. Contrary says:

      Iain mhor @ 4.23pm.

      Well, of course not, no one is suggesting the court case is a golden bullet that will resolve everything – it’s ONE thing, and a thing that should have been done well before now, but it also seems to be the only thing that IS being done at the moment.

      You appear to be arguing that we should do nothing, lest we offend the English sensibilities, is that correct?

      And then once we have not offended by taking zero action for long enough, at some point in the future, independence will miraculously appear?

      Well. That’s how I read it. I’m sure you have lots of support for total inaction, but I’m at the opposite end of that opinion. I believe the inaction so far has narrowed our political routes to independence significantly, and will continue to do so until there is no political route, and I think anything that keeps that window of opportunity open is worthwhile – and that is the only thing the court case does, is to keep a small narrow route open (if positive) or closes all the routes that the SNP have proposed, so makes a mockery of their PlanA, so they need a new ‘holding’ plan, or start actually working towards independence.

      Of course the state machinery isn’t going to roll over and accept it – but that’s the choice isn’t it – the crown accepts our sovereign right to choose or it is subjugating us. To not even try? I can’t even think why that might be a valid strategy.

    254. Contrary says:

      SC & Pete Wishart:

      No. The consequences will be to the SNP, not the cause of independence. Pete is concerned that he’ll be forced to piss or get off the pot. A valid concern for a polititian. But not a valid concern for supporters of independence.

      If anyone finds it difficult to face up to the truth of the matter – and that’s all it will be, is the truth of the matter (as the judiciary see it, though I doubt it would be worth an appeal) – you should question your resolve.

      Again, when did not even trying become a strategy? Is the fear of the British press and the BBC so much now that we not dare to even breathe a mention of the word independence?

    255. jfngw says:

      @ronnie anderson

      I know Grouse Beater is very ill and wrote a piece about his last visit to hospital just last week. He is still sending out tweets and published a piece about the BBC today. He hasn’t said anything on his feeds about an imminent demise, if that is the the fact it would have been better to let him announce it himself, imo anyway.

    256. Dan says:

      @ s. cat

      What’s your thoughts on this tweet?

      https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/status/1294578513656401920

    257. jfngw says:

      @Dan

      I’ll give you my opinion, it’s fucking pathetic (I’ll leave s’cat to give you his own opinion).

      I’d like Mr Wishart to tell us how many countries leaving the English Empire used a referendum and not just the will of the people, and how many of these countries are not internationally recognised.

      If this is now official SNP policy then they are a lost cause.

      I’m still currently a SNP member.

    258. schrodingers cat says:

      @dan

      for the moment indyref2 is the snp plan a.

      if they do move to making the election a plebiscite it wont happen until the election campaign actually starts

      it will also depend on the polls.

      pete seems to ignore the obvious fact that the next (and any subsequent) election will be viewed by everyone as a plebiscite on indy regardless of what he thinks or wants.

      Also, he doesnt say why the snp making their manifesto in the next election a defacto indy plebiscite would be such a bad thing?

      I understand this position if the polls are below 50%, but they arent??

      seriously dan, can you think of any reason if the polls are at 57% that the snp wouldnt take this route??

    259. Big Jock says:

      Stu- Can you clarify it’s the SNP government that tried to block the Meetings legal challenge?

      I posted something about this last week, and some say it was the civil servants not the SG. I would assume that even then the Civil Servants were taking their orders from the SG?

    260. Big Jock says:

      Correctiion- Keatings..

    261. Mialuci says:

      its a strange place this wings over scotland, we have people who say they support Independence but never say anything good about the SNP, they seem to think that the leaders of the SNP can do as they like and act like dictators, where does this absolute nonesense come from, and we have some people who think we need another Independence party to rival the SNP, now I have come to a conclusion, these people are unionist trolls or they really do need medical intervention if they are Independence supporters they have lost the plot and a bag of those glass things as well, what are they called again, ah yes, marbles

    262. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Mialuci.

      There is an old saying…

      If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck and has one leg less too many, It’s most likely a covert duck.

    263. Cringe says:

      I disagree about councils not facilitating a referendum. Councils can’t refuse to implement laws made by Scottish government, they derive their authority and part of their funding from them. Pothole repair administrators are not known for martyrdom and revolutionary fervour and I don’t recall any of them threatening this. It would be like a Labour council setting a council tax rate above the Scottish Government cap. Until and unless a court declares a referendum illegal then they have to cooperate.

    264. George Rollo says:

      Great cartoon!



    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