Ain’t it funny how things change?
Posted on
July 22, 2026 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Then, and now. (Click pic to enlarge.)
Scottish politics: where repeated catastrophic failure is just another way to succeed.
Don’t do what I do, Just do as I say.
Isn’t it funny when the shoes on the other foot.
I wonder who is going to be the new Mayor of Scotland.
New Mayor of Scotland?
It would not surprise anybody if that Indian tranny from the Green Party ended up lording it over us, given the kind of faces we now tend to see in similar roles… DEI boxes have to ticked, after all.
Have you seen “Baroness Scotland”, for fuck’s sake?
Maybe he’s going to help Ruth change the HoL from the inside?
Politician speaks with forked tongue. Quelle Surprise. 🙂
I’m surprised anyone is surprised by this
Thick as thieves
That’s British Labour all over:
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
Are they really going to but big Baillie in charge? who else?
Rev, you get name checked in the latest Private Eye, looks like they’ve lifted most of their coverage from Wings.
Interesting. Were Private Eye one of the ‘Branchfoot’ offenders?
The man has spent a carer of making gaffs. The SNP thought he was a ally. Here the a true fact the SNP wanted the Labour party to support them on all issues other than Independence, the SNP only objective was to remain in power and now he’s gone Swinney will be upset rather than be joyful.
The SNP just doesn’t seem to understand and neither do their supporters than TIME is running out for both the SNP and Scotland and who’s to blame the SNP.
To be honest if the man forced to tell the truth when asked, are you Scottish his reply would be Naw so your not Scottish so are you British and once again his reply would be naw, he seen an opportunity of making a living from politics and he’s only done what the SNP is doing crewing us all over.
I actually believe the UKG/PM is send the clearest message yet to Scotland and the SNP if anyone has been listening, one country one people come on how pain can Burnham be.
Yet the very first act of Swinney wasn’t to ask for a section 30 order because he’s already given up on that, his first act was to ask for more powers.
And not just that….the rejected Anas is to be replaced on the list by the rejected Monica Lennon.
Party Politics eh….what is the point in voting again?
Fuck that racist eighth-wit, hope he fucks off down to London and never comes back.
It’s his payment for standing up against Mr Sausage. Although he had absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. He will take up residence in Londonstan and continue to exist as an empty space on much better wages.
There is a long history of elite Scots selling out their nation for English gold and status:
HoC, speech of King James VI, 31 March 1607.
“Consider therefore well, if the Minds of Scotland had not need to be well prepared, to persuade their mutual Consent, seeing you here have all the great Advantage by the Union: Is not here the personal Residence of the King; his whole Court, and Family? Is not here the seat of Justice, and the Fountain of Government? Must they (Scotland) not be subjected to the Laws of England, and so, with Time, become but as Cumberland, and Northumberland, and those other remote and Northern Shires! You are to be the Husband, they the Wife; you Conquerors, they as conquered; though not by the Sword, but by the sweet and sure Bond of Love: Besides that they, as other Northern Counties, will be seldom seen and saluted by their King; and that, as it were, but in a posting or hunting Journey. I have given you now Four Years Proof since my coming; and what I might have done more, to have raised the Scottish Nation, you all know; and the longer I live, the less Cause have I to be acquainted with them, and so the less Hope of extraordinary Favour towards them. And as for Limitations, and Respectations, such as shall by me be agreed upon to be reasonable and necessary, after you have fully debated upon them; you may assure yourselves, I will with Indifferency grant what is requisite, without partial Respect of Scotland. And for my Part, when I have Two Nations under my Government, can you imagine, I will respect the lesser, and neglect the greater? This I must say for Scotland, and I may truly vaunt it; here I sit, and govern it with my Pen; I write, and it is done; and by a Clerk of the Council I govern Scotland now, which others could not do by the Sword. And for their Averseness in their Heart against the Union; it is true indeed, I protest, they did never crave this Union of me, nor sought it, either in private, or the State, by Letters, nor ever once did any of that Nation press me forward, or wish me to accelerate that Business. Then may you see, it is not so hard a Matter as is thought, to reduce that Country to be united with you under this Law. And as for the last Point of this Subdivision, concerning the Gain that England may make by this Union; I think no wise nor honest Man will ask any such Question. For who is so ignorant, that doth not know the Gain will be great? Do you not gain by the Union of Wales? And is not Scotland greater than Wales? Shall not your Dominions be increased, of Lands, Seas, and Persons, added to your Greatness? When you meet again, remember, I pray you, the Truth and Sincerity of my Meaning; which, in seeking Union, is only to advance the Greatness of your Empire seated here in England.”
link to british-history.ac.uk
It is different shite Alfie boy but shite is still, well….. shite. What is surprising is not a quote in sight from Fanny or Mummy! That must have hurt.
I will ask the question yet again. If Scotland achieves Independence who do you see forming an honest competent Government? You are very reluctant to answer. Maybe this time?
Chas
Why do you lay that responsibility at Alfs door?
Is it so you can blame him if things don’t go immediately and instantly “swimmingly” and to your immediate and complete financial guaranteed benefit?
Ok, we all know you don’t think there is anyone (under the present system) because you are “SO FEART”!!!!
Still hiding behind the couch eh?
Put yer game face on and grow a pair..
The dishonesty is first and foremost in the mankit annexation and ‘Union’ hoax which gives rise to its need for colonial administrators. If the first ends the colonial ‘functionaries’ surely fall with it.
“This I must say for Scotland, and I may truly vaunt it; here I sit, and govern it with my Pen; I write, and it is done; and by a Clerk of the Council I govern Scotland now, which others could not do by the Sword.”
Scotland was a much better place when it was a monarchy.
Of course, even as they quote our former King, the usual suspects, who have long since blindly wedded Indy to republicanism, prove to be unable to read and comprehend that which they post.
HMcH
Aaaaah!
In other words ie Yoda-speak;
“Rampant Cringe leads to unhappiness, unhappiness leads to non conformance, non conformance leads to deviancy, deviancy leads to isolation, isolation leads to anger, anger leads to Hateyness”..
Suck it up “old boy”!
🙂
Sorry, Auld Lochnagar, but as a wind up that’s a piss poor effort.
Try again around 2 AM. Your output always peaks around then, occasionally even reaching a transcendental level of lunacy.
I’ll be back in the morning to mark your work.
HMcH
That bad? Really?
Made you reply though didn’t it?
Validation an’ that eh?
Enjoy lock down through the night “old boy”, matron will be around sometime around six in the morning to turn on the lights and WI-FI..
🙂
Hatey said; “Scotland was a much better place when it was a monarchy.”
Scotland was a much better place when it was independent, and it will be again!
What made Scotland “much better” before 1707 Xaracen? I doubt there is a single objective metric that could be used to make that case, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Sure, Xaracen.
But you’ll be long deid. 🙂
Me too.
And, whilst no doubt Scotland will leave the UK as a single political and economic entity, it won’t hold together for even a single generation. Scotland’s tribally significant political, religious and ethnic divides will see it fission, once we Scots start to get a taste for real independence.
And once we remember how much we hate (pick as many as apply) the Protestants, the Catholics, the Tories, the Socialists, the Clans, the Gaels, the Stuarts, the Hanoverians, the educated, the Central Belt, the teuchters, the immigrants, the Lord’s Day observers, etc. etc.
Aye Hatey, up tae yer wee mischievous tricks agin: ‘divide and rule’, the colonizer’s tool.
Sorry, Alf, but I’m every bit as much a Sovereign Scot as you.
What have I already told you about your tendency to dis-enfranchise anybody who disagrees with you? It really will be a lot easier for you if you come up with some policies most Scots can get behind.
Not just the Scots who you consider to be your tribe.
“What made Scotland “much better” before 1707, Xaracen?”
A, it was independent,
B, it wasn’t a colony of England,
C, it wasn’t bankrupt, as England had become,
D, its people paid far less in taxes than they were obliged to when their independence was stolen,
E, being sovereign, the Scots could and did hold their monarchs and governments to account for breaches of the Scottish people’s constitutional rights.
No doubt Alf could add a lot more to that list.
“The people paid far less in taxes”
Sure Xaracen. And not only did we get free cradle to grave benefits and health care, but we got free dental treatment too.
A, B and C don’t mean anything but E is interesting, what proportion of Scots had the vote in 1707 vs 2026, and if not through voting what other mechanism did they have to influence Scottish politics?
A, B, C, and E don’t mean anything to you, Aidan, and they don’t have to. They did mean something to the Scots, and still do.
As for D, since it appears you get that one, why don’t you explain it to Hatey?
“I’m every bit as much a Sovereign Scot as you.”
In a colonial society there are plenty of assimilated natives who ‘crave dependence’ (Cesaire) and act as the colonizer’s ‘shock troops’ (Fanon), rebuking other natives whenever they step out of line.
Prepare for a shock, Alf.
BOO!!!
I’ll go organise the clean up for you.
Burns telt the truth Alf. Not airy fairy but the truth. Never forgotten but we need more of his wisdom now and forever. We really do.
It’s called recycling! It’s what we do with the rubbish in this country these days!
Troughers gonna trough.
Daddy will be proud.
He will look well in beside Baroness Money Bags Mone and Wee Baroness Ruthless.
The 3 prize monkey’s, Hear No Scotland, See No Scotland and Speak No Scotland.
Lucky old Anwar now has a 100% record of not doing what he said he would or in this case promising to abolish and reject the House of Lords has just grabbed it with both hands.
It’s great to see that the Second City of the British Empire – Glasgow is hosting the Commonwealth Games which start tomorrow in the Colony of Scotland.
AX
Tut tut..
I don’t think anyone has seriously given that moniker to Glasgow for quite some considerable time and is a bit mendacious to propose that here.
I believe Birmingham has claimed that position (in Britain, not Empire) given the latter has gone nearing (in a bit) its centenary of stale defunctness.
Britain: defunctness, well choose your own date to suit. 1982 was its last death rattle in my humble opinion.
Everything else has just been holding on and building up the national debt after sabotaging your own industrial base due to political ideology.
Nuts..
However what was it Labour said (and failed to deliver) back in the day?
Ah yes, “Jam Tomorrow”..
Oooh err..
I see Skynet slipped the leash and started flexing its AI muscles!
AI is insanity on steroids and as a species we seem determined to race to the edge of that particular cliff edge..
At present the only occupations it doesn’t put at risk of extinction is brickies and hairdressers, and that’ll come in due course shortly too.
Welcome to H G Wells Eloi existence, the deviants and libertines however will love it..
His dad, Chaudhry Sarwar, was knocked back for a Lordship,
`His nomination by outgoing Prime Minister, Gordon Brown for a life peerage in the 2010 Dissolution Honours was blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission
on the advice of HM Revenue and Customs`
SF
In fairness; “sins of the father” and that..
Not that I’m a fan!
Sarwar senior went to become Governor of Punjab. However Punjabophiles can relax since the office is not hereditary.
Well now. Let’s have a wee bit of nuance. Most places have a way of appointing ministers who are not elected. That’s our current way.
But still an entertaining piece.
Well, it certainly looks like someone hit you on the head a fair few times, reading that. 🙂
Confused: I have deleted your comment. Any more of that shit and you’re on pre-mod.
sure
link to youtube.com
caveman, you’re the kind of turnip a bash on the head might knock some sense into
Heh, oh really…
Well, I’d “knock it on the head” and quit whilst you’re (self evidently) behind, Confused. 🙂
Now that he’s on pre-mod (I expect) he’ll go off and haunt some other forum.
@Aidan
The CM blog is where the antisemites hang out. Although Robin McAlpine is not averse to donning the tea towel from time to time.
Culpable homicide isn’t an offence in England (it’s manslaughter) and Donald Findlay isn’t a member of the bar in England and Wales, so won’t be able to defend him either.
Which sadly means if he does “go for mental” as you put it, he’ll be locked up in Broadmoor rather than with you in the state hospital in Carstairs, else I would have said you can ask him when you see him.
Trial first?
you’re a bit of a pedant, and prone to miss the point (like some others round here, the reading age is about 10)
– lit crit must be a lot of fun with you.
“buses; but I haven’t been on one for 30 years, and you’d have to get the gun out to get me on one”
Too right, Confused. Don’t chance it. The number 65 might be a disguised mobile gas chambers.
Seriously though, some people might say that Indy has certainly come a long way since 2014.
Others might speculate that Confused and his ilk was always what Indy was really about, once you stripped out the useful idiots lending it their good names and their good intentions.
Main – the mobile gas van is on route number
6 000 000
as any fule kno
And there was me thinking that you couldn’t sink any lower.
With the departure of Sarwar, once again, we see that Scotland’s loss is England’s gain.
And, as the pool of potential FM material continues to diminish and we contemplate the inevitable conclusion of Swinney’s long tenure, we face a gloomy prognosis.
Our next FM looks set to be yet another white, white, white face.
Somebody make a “joke” the other day about the potential arc of Q. Trannymanny’s soon-to-be illustrious career. But how can we continue to burnish or even build on Scotland’s outstanding progressive credentials if we’re not prepared to break new ground?
You heard it here first, folks (OK, second): Q. Trannymanny for FM.
Why not. No one else wants the job. What about asking Jack McConnell to step in.
Sarwar’s degree in dentristy and his role as Scottish Labour Leader where he led the party to its latest debacle will surely stand him in good stead as a Minister for business in the HoL.
Certainly got his finger on the political pulse …or somewhere..
“The next UK general election is a “fight for the heart and soul” of the country, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has said as he committed to remain in post for the next five years.
Speaking after Sir Keir Starmer announced he would stand down as Prime Minister, Mr Sarwar rejected assertions that change was needed at a UK and Scottish level.”
Scottish Social Attitudes Study 2025
“18% of respondents said that they trusted the UK Government to work in Scotland’s best long-term interests ‘just about always’ or ‘most of the time’. 80% said they ‘only some of the time’ or ‘almost never’ trusted them to do so.”
Serious question – why should a UK Government work in the best interests of any single geographical sub-section of the UK “‘just about always’ or ‘most of the time’?
Unless suitably qualified and contextualised, that statistic is highly misleading.
FC
The Scotchland Office in auld Reekie is part of the UK government.
Surely it was set up to look after Scotlands interests within the Union/ UK?
Or are you suggesting it was set up to look after the Union/ UKs interests within Scotland?
Eh?
Why are we always surprised/shocked/outraged by the perfidies of people who owe no allegiance to Scotland whatsoever? These people are self-serving. If they hail from the working-class, most off them forget that when they reach power (of sorts, because being a big fish in Scotland is akin to being a minnow elsewhere), if they were Marxists or Communists or even just Socialists, that falls by the wayside in the pursuit of self-aggrandisement, if they were ever Scottish patriots, that is dumped unceremoniously in favour of ‘Britishness’ and serving England-as-the-UK. There are no kudos to remaining doggedly Scottish.
Neither do we understand the Muslims mind because we have forgotten the time when all Scots (and all English, Welsh and Irish of both camps) lived their lives under the hegemony of a religion. Both Catholicism and Protestantism (after the Reformation) were all-encompassing religions which seeped into every nook and cranny of social and private life. Politics were wholly religious. Society was wholly religious. Private life was wholly religious. That is what Islam is today. We have also forgotten that both Catholicism and Protestantism were once proselytising religions in common with Islam.
Why are we surprised by Anas Sarwar’s self-serving actions and his pushing of Islam and its adherents towards power? They are entirely consistent with his Labourite stance (always Unionist), his political ambition (self-serving) and his Islamism (proselytising). If we are ever to regain our independence to reinstate our nation state position, we are going to have to understand exactly what we are up against – and that includes England-as-the-UK which acts wholly in accordance with its own sense of itself as the ruler of the British Isles. Not the de facto ruler, but the actual ruler. That leaves us always in its wake. It will always try to suborn our politicians and the great and the good of Scotland. Accept it, then work out how to overcome it. It can be done by not acquiescing to anything that leaves Scotland in a poorer state. Simply refuse to play the role we have been assigned. That, of course, will take hard work and courage.
Interesting point on Islam. Western countries grew up from spoon fed orthodox religion. The Western mind has evolved but most importantly we are now in a new age, accept it or not, the age where woman become the dominant. The male dominated world in the west is in the past.
Granted the new age will last for about two thousand years and we are just at the start of this and at the end of the old world. That leaves Islam in the past. Is it any coincidence that the Trans movement appeared. Putting men as women? Where does this leave Muslim women? Time will tell. Finally male dominated religions are history.
You could say Jesus did his job. With Mary behind him how could he fail.
Havers, Mark.
Check out the front lines (and the combat casualty lists) from the war in the east. You’ll find few women there.
There’s a truism about every human survival situation, from earthquakes, through wars, to asteroid strikes.
The first casualty is feminism.
I’m not into male-female rivalry, Mark/H McH. There has never, to my knowledge been a matriarchy in human history because, I suppose, women are weaker physically than men. Human advancement in technology and science will, I think, negate male physical supremacy, but will that lead necessarily to female domination? It seems unlikely, and what is far more likely to happen is that both sexes will be required well into the future. That will probably mean more sharing of resources and less privilege for males. Either complete male or complete female domination would be utterly disastrous for humankind, I think, in the future when sheer physical strength will come to mean a great deal less than it means now. With that, should follow far less overt aggression and conflict. Both sexes will be forced to use their skills and talents in ways which benefits both or we will cease to be human as we know it now.
“proselytising religions”
Naw. A proselytising religion is one where its adherents chap your door, earnestly attempt to tell you the errors of your ways, and leave you some pamphlets. You can tell them to “Fuck off”, slam the door in their face, and hurl their shredded pamphlets at their retreating backs.
Try that on with the Religion Of Peace and you might end up with an adherent making it his life’s work to end yours.
And that’s before we consider the difference between a Christian (say), who wakes up one morning and says “Enough already! It’s all shite!” and her Muslim equivalent, whose demise will be swift and brutal.
I’m surprised you’ve yet to twig, Lorncal. The world contains many survivors prepared to testify on behalf of the slain, so your lack of understanding can easily be rectified.
Proselytise means to aggressively push your religion/ideology/whatever on to others, not to give them a wee lecture and a couple of leaflets. As a member of the female sex, I am instinctively fine-tuned to sniff out aggression and bull wherever I sense it because, as sure as night follows day, my sex will come out of it worse off by a country mile. I twigged that when Eve was still in nappies, H McH. Unfortunately, we have to be middle-aged before the sense kicks in effectively. Young women are particularly prone to believing obvious propaganda. Afghanistan and/or ‘Transville’ beckon every day, everywhere, if you are a woman.
Lorncal says: “There has never, to my knowledge been a matriarchy in human history…”
Wrong.
link to ancient-origins.net
link to historified.in
link to nationalgeographic.com
link to maloriesadventures.com
@Onlooker
An analysis of Confused’s posts suggests you missed one:
Confused’s parent’s home.
How else to explain his recurring, extreme misogyny? It’s a well-understood psychological phenomenon.
Most of the ‘matriarchy’ claims have been debunked. It its a nice thought that women might once have ruled the roost, but little to no evidence exists for such a claim. It stands to reason that, even in earliest times, men’s superior strength would have been absolutely essential for survival of the family group, the tribe.
It is believed that Neanderthal women were much, much stronger than Homo Sapiens, but Neanderthals were absorbed by Homo Sapiens, and, now, scientists believe that the human race, both male and female, is becoming weaker progressively. I would dispute H McH’s claim that feminism dies under adverse conditions. It just goes into abeyance.
His claim that women are not used on the front line is true in most Western (and other) states) but, when push come to shove, even women step up to the plate. The Russians, or Soviets, during WW II, used female snipers and they were very successful. They also had female tank regiments which fought to the death. Some tribes in Mongolia and other similar societies deployed women archers on horseback; their remains have been unearthed, complete with weaponry, as have several female warriors of ancient Viking heritage. A complete matriarchy, however, has never been proved to exist and, if present-day patterns of male offending are anything by which to judge, any matriarchal society would have to arm itself to the teeth, in any case, which would be counter-intuitive.
Lorncal: ‘debunked’…’a nice thought’…
Incredible the mental gymnast lengths you’ll go to to avoid any sort of giving of a point to the hated opposite sex. I never got the whole hardcore manhater feminist ‘I’m such a victim” mindset when mixed with “women are just better than men” and “I’m great” tropes that tired oestrogen religion relies on. Cognitive dissonance at its responsibility-avoiding finest.
I genuinely totally believe in equality for all. Women can do anything men can do. But when female supremacists say that there are no differences between men and women, well, it renders any criticism of men redundant, because we’re apparently just the same as women, so that would be self-criticism, in context. More I could say about other stuff said, but why bother? I’m male, so anything I say will just be instantly disregarded. Pure bigotry and sexism. Shaking my head here.
OT another expensive heart wrenching ad from RSPCA – remember that that is only for England and Wales , here in Scotland please donate to our SSPCA.
Young Lochinvar says:
23 July, 2026 at 2:23 pm
FC
The Scotchland Office in auld Reekie is part of the UK government.
Surely it was set up to look after Scotlands interests within the Union/ UK?
Or are you suggesting it was set up to look after the Union/ UKs interests within Scotland?
He/she/??? is showing, not for the first time, a remarkable capacity for irrelevance. The original comment concerned the UK Government, not a specific Office dedicated to Scotland within the governing structure. Obviously the Scottish Office is established to look after Scottish interests. The clue is in the name. The UK government has regard for the interests of the UK as a whole. The clue is in the name.
The original question and comment on the survey data still stand.
If the Union was meant to be equal and UK Governance actually attempted to serve its constituent part’s best interests; Then please explain the glaring population growth disparity that has facilitated the Kingdom of England’s population to grow from approximately being 5 times that of the Kingdom of Scotland a few hundred years ago at start of the Union, to the KoE’s population now being around 10 times larger than the KoS, with all the political power and economic benefits that increased population growth yielded for the KoE.
No UK (English) Government has had the political will to address this issue, and the current population stats are also skewed with the Scottish demographics issue, and significant numbers of internal migration to Scotland from the KoE.
Plus there’s the rank piss poor management of valuable resources and industries in Scotland too.
Dan, regarding the much-quoted “Union of Equals” that I know is such a popular trope, I am unaware of any reference to such an entity in the Treaty of Union. References to “equality” certainly occur, but with reference to eg access to trade etc. The Act specifies the creation of a unitary country, not a partnership of two. The Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to exist as independent entities.
I can’t think of any (democratic) Union in the world where relative population is not the determining factor in deciding relative influence (USA; Germany; the quasi-state EU). As you say, at the time of Union, England’s population was greatly bigger (and richer).
Your point regarding population is a fair one. There will be a number of factors, I think (eg birth rates, employment or lack of, etc) but I don’t think any government can force people to live in a particular place. Even when they try (Scottish Gov has over the years tried hard to relocate jobs out of the central belt), people have refused to move; the same has happened in England.
Regarding piss poor management of resources etc, I agree – but it’s equally incompetent relative to England.
factchecker: the Treaty of Union has to be read as a legal document, not as a political statement in the first instance. As a legal document, it is international in substance – i.e. binding in international law. It is also a contract (also legal) and it creates a political Union by laying down the conditions (Articles) for such a Union to occur. The fact that BOTH parliaments gave up their independent rights to govern in no way meant that each country/nation was bound to rule, regardless of population.
It was not a subsumption (the claim made by Crawford and Boyle, pre referendum) because nothing exists in the Treaty (or in the succeeding Acts if Union) to make the Union so under international or domestic law, albeit it was a political Union. Queen Anne was acting as head of state of both Scotland and England in her separate capacities as monarch of each, and not as monarch of Gt. Britain because there was none when the Treaty was drafted. The so-called Union of the Crowns was not, in law, a unitary Union of the two monarchies.
What requires to be done is to understand the Treaty from a legal standpoint rather than a political one and compare it with Hansard to see clearly where the breaches of the Treaty have taken place since 1707, and where England has acted in an ultra vires fashion towards Scotland – which the Treaty in no way allows. That is the first point that must be understood: the Treaty and Hansard will show conclusively, in law, where England overstepped its authority and where Scotland’s legal rights within the Treaty have been superseded without authority. Once that is understood and documented, restoration of our rights as a joint nation state with England must be the outcome. Because of England’s overbearing arrogance and high-handedness in legal terms, fundamentally, as well as in political terms, we may press ahead and pursue resiling of the Treaty and the end of the Union.
Anyone who tries to argue that the Treaty no longer exists is lying through his or her pearlies. It is still the underlying structure ion the Union. The English jurists know this just as well as ours (should); the politicians, being less knowledgable about most things will try to argue the toss – probably on both sides of the border – but it is the law that will have the final word, if we have the courage and determination to seek the truth. Or, we can wait forever and a day for either Westminster or Holyrood to set us on our way to independence.
By the way, to change the subject, obvious all along that giving Saudi nuclear capability would become the West’s only answer to Iran’s proxies. Proliferation versus annihilation. Or, in other words, a Sunni-Shia balance. Knocking out Iran’s long-range missile capability will become the main objective now for the Americans.
Assuming rounded populations of England at 50 million and Scotland at 5 million. The political will to address the issue might entail:
1) Pushing approximately 45 million English into the sea to drown.
2) Immigrating approximately 45 million external newcomers into Scotland.
3) Resettling approximately 22.5 million English in Scotland.
I suspect Stalin and Mao might have balked at these ethnic re-adjustments, Dan. If you can think of other ways to equalise the populations of England and Scotland, then please advise.
factchecker said:
“The Act specifies the creation of a unitary country, not a partnership of two.”
Nonsense! Since neither kingdom agreed to abolish or subordinate its sovereignty to the other, the ‘unitary country’ never happened, as their two constitutions, and legal and justice systems are still in force today in their respective territories, since the Treaty as ratified never unified or integrated any of those aspects. The Treaty didn’t even eliminate the border between those territories. Thus the ‘partnership’ model is the only sensible conclusion one can draw from those checkable facts that I actually checked.
In addition, when the UK Government was required to ‘transmit’ its formal description of the nature of its governance to the UN in 1954, it told the UN that “Scotland was a partner in a voluntary Union, and not a dependency.” This is also a checkable fact, which I actually checked.
“The Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to exist as independent entities.”
True but irrelevant. As partners they are no longer independent of each other, but that doesn’t mean the Scottish partner is obliged to accept being overruled by the English one, on any basis, because there is no agreed provision in the Treaty for any such arrangement. That then means that Scotland is still a legal entity, and has formal representation as such in the Union’s parliament. I checked.
Article XXII states twice that Scotland was to be represented in the new British parliament by 45 MPs.
Just because they are far fewer than England’s representation doesn’t automatically mean that they can be overruled by England’s, because there is no provision in the Treaty for the use of a single majority vote in the British parliament’s chambers. That then means that Scotland’s MPs cannot legally be forced to accept being outvoted by England’s MPs.
And, yes, I checked that, too.
@Xaracen
Have you checked the status of the England-Scotland border and for how long that has been no more than a line on the map?
Maybe you should, as part of a policy of getting out more.
I was on the border not very long ago and I can assure you there was a broken old fence there, sitting in a four-foot wide area of no-man’s land, with loads of nettles and everything. Sure sufficient against those effete English ponces?
@Southernbystander
You dirty English basturts know only too well that a 4-feet wide strip of nettles will turn back even the most ferociously determined horde of rampaging, kilt-wearing Scots.
FC
I’ll reply even though in your intemperate response you referred to me in the 3rd person while also managing to poncily getting all pronouny..
I assume it was your fellow Unionist spoilers you were actually remarking to while sucking yer thumb while sulking.
The UK govt in entirety or that part you’ve confirmed 🙂 are actually looking after Scotlands interest is to the Scot in the street the same thing in effect no matter what sophistry (as usual) you mendaciously employ to dissemble.
There, glad we got that straight- talking of which I’m a bloke which is self explanatory if you’d bothered to check facts on the literary source of the moniker.
Yer welcome hen..
YL, the third person usage was simply because I don’t know you. As a literature graduate I am well aware of the literary source of your moniker – though personally I think you flatter yourself. No offence intended regarding pronouns – apologies if caused.
No sophistry, no mendacity, no intemperance in my comments (as opposed to your deliberately offensive second paragraph), simple facts.
I spoke of the UK-wide responsibility of the UK government relative to the survey cited. You initially responded by referring specifically to the Scottish Office (again being unnecessarily derogatory in your choice of words), which has a specifically Scottish responsibility. You cannot compare the functions of the two in terms of the survey. That is why your reply was irrelevant. End of.
FC
Apology accepted.
Always laugh when those who know their wordsmithery isn’t cutting it feel the need to conclude with “end of”..
Hahaha
🙂
“The original question and comment on the survey data still stand.”
Why don’t you look it up for yourself and try to live up to your moniker? It’s online.
sam, my comment on the uncontextualised use of survey data relates to the original post. Not the survey itself. Hence the question.
Did ye no get the message fae King Jimmy, England-is-the-UK and its Shires, wi Scotland makkit intae anither English Shire:
“Must they (Scotland) not be subjected to the Laws of England, and so, with Time, become but as Cumberland, and Northumberland, and those other remote and Northern Shires! You are to be the Husband, they the Wife; you Conquerors, they as conquered”
And so we have an annexed Scotland, governed by England wi a Pen:
“This I must say for Scotland, and I may truly vaunt it; here I sit, and govern it with my Pen; I write, and it is done; and by a Clerk of the Council I govern Scotland now, which others could not do by the Sword.”
Hey presto, a hale country makkit intae a wee Cooncil!
Don’t forget the colonisation of Ireland by the Scots and English.
James granted confiscated land from Irish Catholics to Protestant Scots and English.
The long lasting effect of this can be seen in the partition of Ireland and the sectarian nature of Northern Ireland.
Divide an rule is aye the colonizer’s tool.
The colonized are made ‘bystanders’ in their own land; they are ‘out of the game’ (memmi).
Decisions are made for them by a simple stroke of the colonizer’s pen.
A colonized fowk dae whit they’re telt, or else.
Wes Streeting would be better positioned in Hollyoaks. He could play the nasty gay with big ideas.
I am not a Nationalist. Brought up as an army brat whilst my late father did 22 years in the British army that was never going to happen.
But the state of Scottish politics is beyond depressing. Maybe we could try to get real for a moment.
Right now Scotland spends far, far more on public services than its tax base covers. It is subsidised by England by somewhere between £5bn and £10 bn a year.
Of course the UK also spends far, far more on public services than its tax base covers. That’s why the UK is borrowing nearly £150bn a year and our debt grows ever higher.
On one view, the Scottish deficit is not more public spending from England, it is just our share of this horrendous deficit.
Which is all very interesting but how does an independent Scotland deal with this problem? A small, new country with no track record like Scotland is likely to have to pay even more for its borrowing. That would hurt us.
What Scotland needs is to get to the point it pays its way, that its economy pays for its public sector and an independent Scotland would not need to borrow at all, or at least nowhere near current levels.
That means the number one priority for the Scottish government should be boosting the Scottish economy with every means at its disposal. Salmond was aware of this. Since he left the SNP in general and Sturgeon in particular paid absolutely no attention to our economy and the situation has deteriorated.
I think Kate Forbes got this but ultimately despaired of her colleagues doing likewise. Scotland needs to grow its economy. When and if it does independence becomes a conversation worth having. Right now it is a waste of time.
link to gov.scot
Factchecker. Link above.
Of interest to me, the steep decline in trust of the Scottish government since 2015.
Signs of general distrust among Scots.
Since surveys began, greater trust for Scottish governments than UK governments.
Oddly enough, that greater trust in Scottish governments peaked under Nicola Sturgeon during the Covid Years.
Nowadays, the ex party faithful like to pretend they always knew she was a bad un, they always distrusted her, they were always convinced she was leading Scotland and Indy to disaster.
They like to pretend they never spent near two years convinced Sturgeon was all that stood between them and a hideous, lonely death from Covid. Hanging nightly on her every word.
Bullshit.
Wings predicted on here and by people posting on here as well.
But the SNP commitment to the union has never been confirmed by the SNP so vehemently as it was today in the national article down the bottom.
Under the SNP Independence is dead and buried devolution is the SNP preferred and only option within the frame work of the United kingdom.
How long have we been saying Scotland isn’t safe under the SNP if this article isn’t proof I don’t know what is.
link to thenational.scot
What John Swinney has just signed Scotland over to Manchester and he’d doesn’t even know what powers the Scottish parliament will get. This is the man so many have placed Scotland’s people and country in the hand of and he’s sold it and he’s hasn’t even got a clue what he’s going to get for it.
Alf Baird says:
22 July, 2026 at 4:31 pm
There is a long history of elite Scots selling out their nation for English gold and status:
HoC, speech of King James VI, 31 March 1607.
……
link to british-history.ac.uk
=======
Excellent post, Alf.
I encourage others here to download the whole of the text behind the link you helpfully provide.
It can be heavy going at times especially if, like me, you try to read not only the lines but between the lines. This process is not made easier by the many English archaisms and Biblical, theological and Latin alusions!
My advice to readers who find it hard going is to do it one section at a time. I have copied it into my iPhone’s Notes app and I’m working my way through it that way.
Of particular interest to you might be Slabberin Jamie‘s reference to :
“…such an Union, as was of the Scots and Pickes in Scotland, and of the Heptarchy here in England.”
=======
So what is really going on here? This speech has the King of Scots , from his recently inherited English throne, trying to sell the idea of full Parliamentary union to members of the English Parliament utterly HOSTILE to the idea. And this a full century before 1707.
Why the hostility?
Well, James had brought with him a bunch of favourites and freeloaders from Edinburgh to the Palace of Westminster. There was great resentment of these “Scotsmen on the make”, as perceived by the old English establishment. They wanted no more of them and your phrase, “Union hoax” would have won favour with them!
James is at great Length to assure the skeptical Parliamentarians that the very reverse is likely. The nation of Scotland would, in time, become part of England, like Cumberland, and Northumberland.
Post-colonial theory is of no help here. Is there such a thing as pre colonial theory? And what would it have predicted v. the scenario outlined by James VI and I ? Would it have foreseen the fate of James’ Instrument of Union ? It was presented to the House of Commons in 1606, and despite the warm words of James above faced continual vicious Scotophobiv rhetorical attacks and was ultimately defeated and abandoned by 1610.
Auld enemy. Different language,they didnae ken. Deid Mum. Divine Right was right up their parliamentary noses.
On the plus side he was a Prod and he started the colonisation of the Americas. Jamestown and Plymouth.
His King’s Colours didn’t go down too well either, with the Scots deciding upon their own design, which was contrary to that favoured by James…
link to commons.wikimedia.org
“Post colonial theory is of no help here”
Death to the heretic!!!
It’s the only language he’ll understand.
Talking of understandable language, what’s “Scotophobiv”? Is this an example of how the hopelessly pretentious try to maintain their inflated assumptions about their own self-worth?
I see Queen Camilla is thoroughly enjoying the opening ceremony!!
EFTA came up, in the context of GDP/capita – the small, rich countries club – but you realise evil never sleeps and no good thing can ever be left unmolested, some arsehole will always be trying to shit it up, they are relentless, they never stop – and no one can be allowed to go their own way, do their own thing, the empire demands its ways must be imposed everywhere; one attractive backwater minding its own business with a unique culture was Iceland, lucky Iceland … but its all going a bit pete tong
Iceland, NO!!!
link to archive.ph
EU DESTROYS EUROPE
– that europe fucked itself by allowing its slow gradual takeover by american interests is clear; it was an obviously good idea at the time – a trading bloc for advanced western european nations setup with the ideals of de Gaulle to act as a counterweight to an otherwise overpowering american imperialism. de Gaulle even tried to keep the anglos out, seeing them as a trojan horse for america – which was proved true, but the grand irony was, having shat the place up from day one, they then left in a “huff” (despite being given special treatment; world class brass neck from the rosbifs).
Some of the smarter, smaller, countries stayed out (forming EFTA), as otherwise they would get soaked : Norway would be paying, large; Iceland would lose its fishing grounds to spanish trawlers, and luxembourg and swisslands shadily profitable banking practices would have to end. Still, it worked pretty well, for a pretty long time, and despite the corruption, it was well organised, with plenty to go round – “an all you can eat buffet” (and even a lot of anglos would want to still be in it).
All the shit that fucked up europe came from being a vassal state of amerika – the introduction of the eastern europeans for example, a carrot so that N ATO could creep eastward; then the euro – this was put together basically so the yanks wouldn’t have to remember 10 exchange rates – but it locks into place a one size fits all economics.
But it’s not enough that europe is a vassal of america; it is worse than that, europe is a vassal of the DEMOCRAT PARTY wing of the empire only – this means insane obedience to mindlessly destructive policies, mass immigration for example. Europe has what, 500M citizens? – while Africa is already at 1B, and will be 4B by the end of the century; deposing Gaddafi knocked the cork off the bottle and now they swarm upwards. Tourism, cultural exchange, come and go, taking in a few sad cases here and there, gradually integrating them sounds fair enough – but we are talking thousands though in that regard – this is about many millions, an invading army. All this will do is collapse the welfare state, destroy the culture, degrade education and reproduce the chaos of africa, everywhere.
anyway, this is when europe finally jumps the last shark; anyone who steps out of line gets hammered
link to archive.ph
Just to recap : Iceland is an odd country, but it’s main source of foreign income is fishing – without that it will be fucked.
link to archive.ph
– if they join the EU then spanish trawlers will be all over their waters. In the past the plucky icelanders even fought “the cod war” in 1976 to stop the anglos and their trawlers on the rob (we tried to claim 12 mile limit, they claimed 200 mile economic zone); every generation forgets. Being out of the EU let the iceys manage their own fish stocks – and this is where we get most of our cod and haddock today as the british overfished our waters years ago. It is nice to be independent. They also, in the banking crisis of 2008, were the only people to actually put a few bankers in handcuffs (and this provoked fury). The iceys also fucked the anglos at euro 2016, giving us all joy.
The underlying problem here, as with anywhere else, is Iceland has a powerful woke-political faction (funny how this shite goes on everywhere, all at once, at the same time, like some external force was coordinating it all). Leading the wokeness, again – its all fucking wimmin, see photie; maybe a bit of the old sharia is not so bad?
Iceland if it joins the EU has committed suicide; it is half the population of edinburgh and twice the size of Scotland – great place to dump a lot of the diversity. There was scandal some years ago there, a BAME fellow who had migrated got a job as a bouncer at a nightclub, and I think he infected 50 icelandic native women with HIV. At least it wasn’t ebola, but just wait long enough. Or maybe people will come to their senses and realise that importing large numbers of people – who are useless to you, and who you owe nothing to, and who do nothing other than destroy your NHS, welfare, education systems, setup their own criminal gangs, and destroy your culture without the slightest desire to assimilate/integrate, a little bit wooh (stabby), a little bit wee (r4pey) … might not be a good idea.
– joining the EU at precisely the moment when it has finally turned to shit, might be one of the dumbest moves in history.
up there with the union.
– the gold standard of shitty moves.
Odd that you continue to lump Eastern Europeans in with the Africans.
I’ve never noticed much of the Sharia, stabby or rapey about the Baltics and Poles on our streets. Nor from the Ukies either. But then I’m not starting with your fundamental bigotry.
Which grows from your antisemitism. Grafting a bit of untermenschen and shirt lifter hatreds onto that – in other words – sticking to the original, authentic template – must come easy for you.
Confused says:?
23 July, 2026 at 10:23 pm
?“EFTA came up, in the context of GDP/capita – .. …Some of the smarter, smaller, countries stayed out (forming EFTA)
?========
Not true: EFTA was “formed” in 1960 with the UK as one of the founding members. Along with others the, membership ceased on joining the EEC (as it was then).?
Sorry for cut & paste typo “corrections” from Notes!
“Ain’t it funny how things change?”
Ain’t it also funny how things never change?
Labour has been promising to abolish the House of Lords for a hundred years or more.
I listened to Swinney’s sad interview on BBC R4 this morning.
The interviewer was struggling to hide his frustration and his contempt for somebody congenitally unable to answer a simple question. Even on such a binary as should development of Rosebank and Jackdaw go ahead?
Unbelievable that the Scots should have freely chosen, only 3 months ago, to vote such a nonentity back for another 5 years.
WTAF is wrong with us?
Factchecker “Regarding piss poor management of resources etc, I agree – but it’s equally incompetent relative to England.”
Regarding the “etc”, UK government is certainly better at manipulating some statistics.
NHS England has qualified its claims about the effectiveness of software built by Palantir after an investigation by the UK statistics watchdog.
The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) said on Wednesday that the health service had agreed to add a key caveat to its main web page acknowledging key data does not prove Palantir’s effectiveness.
The regulator also urged NHSE to ensure its communications about the benefits of Palantir’s software were “clearly and appropriately labelled”, adding it expected the health service to “ensure that any figures cited by ministers or in official briefings about the FDP and its effectiveness are communicated in a clear, accurate manner”.
The findings relate to widely cited claims that hospitals using Palantir’s Federated Data Platform, a system for linking disparate datasets, have delivered 110,000 additional operations and seen a 15 per cent reduction in discharge delays.
The OSR launched its probe after the FT revealed the NHSE had quietly added a caveat in recent months to the claims, acknowledging on a webpage explaining the methodology that it could not “draw conclusions about cause and effect as other variables have not been controlled for”.
Since the OSR launched its investigation in late June, a number of hospitals have also admitted to errors in the data behind the discharge delay claims after the FT uncovered dozens of irregularities…”
link to ft.com
L
Aye, sam, we’re in the 21st century now.
It’s ludicrously unrealistic to expect that hospitals should be able to count the numbers of patients being sent home or to the morgues.
It’s like people are still stuck in the 19th century in their heids.
Yesterday offered a striking sight: the remnants of the British Empire gathering to celebrate their shared colonial inheritance.
And what a great privilege for Scotland to be hosting those celebrations, proud in the knowledge that its central participation in the Games strengthens England’s imperial identity.
The Commonwealth Games provide:
Even if the world rolls its eyes, the Empire still feeds.
And that’s why the optics are not good for Scottish independence.
Of course the Scottish Government – being merely an administrative outpost – had no choice but to obey Westminster’s instruction to host the Games in Glasgow.
But a loud, symbolic objection from the independence movement would have at least highlighted the tensions that exist between the Scots and Westminster and shown that all is not well in the non-sovereign territory that once was a country called Scotland.
A country whose former identity is rolled out on special occasions by its owner, whenever an imperial show requires tartan, bagpipes, highland dancing, and a carefully staged hint of subservience.
Thanks for watching it on our behalf, Northy.
I trust you’ll continue to put in the shifts and report back here for as long as it continues.
Keep quoting Fanon and Memmi, etc to confirm how much you won’t be enjoying it. Just in case some innocent jumps to the wrong conclusion.
What a Prick.
Cheers, James!
Although your obsession with my tackle does raise a few red flags. But hey, a child could see you’re a bit “special”.
Got to be honest though, and admit he’s within the normal range.
It’s your dear Mammie that lied to you about your own endowment. I guess the realisation when you grew up that you were at the back of the queue when the dicks were handed out explains so much of the disaster zone that’s been your life.
And your ongoing monomania. Something else your Mammie should have telt you – emulating Portnoy is never going to help you.
I’d tell you to get a firm grip of yourself but you’d misunderstand. Still though, if you won’t take yourself in hand yourself, who else will, eh?
I wish someone would get a grip of you, ya AI unionist walloper…Westminster apologist, tosser of the first order…for years now known as ‘The Site Prick’.
True to form showing fawning subservience to it’s unionist programmers.
A smart-arsed half-educated sophistry merchant kissing it’s master’s feet as usual.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Could have been written for him/it.
“Away and take a flying fuck to yourself”.
Don’t let the door bang your erse on the way oot. If only.
Aye Northcode, instead of “a loud, symbolic objection from the independence movement” all we got was Swinney singing the colonizer’s national anthem.
Its a very sick show overall, tinged with the usual Anglo military symbolism, stuffed with MBE cheerleaders, the usual Scots kitsch, a confused low-budget entertainment programme, and utterly ignorant of the colonial and political realities behind what was called the ‘Empire Games’.
Great for culturally assimilated amnesiac/colonial mindset natives of which plenty in Scotland, but bona fide anti-colonial nationalists anywhere would give it a very wide berth. Good moral decision by the State of Victoria to dump it, as have numerous other former colonies and athletes.
It was a terrible show, Alf.
Boak-inducing, fifth-rate, shoddy imperial cheerleading, right enough.
I’m surprised there wasn’t a cenotaph for the military element to march past.
Scotland’s tartaned-up and kilted bourgeoisie strutting about in their droves and wearing their sycophancy with great pride were particularly boak-inducing
And Chuck and Camilla exiting from a Tardis was the perfect cringeworthy metaphor for an England desperate to return to its ‘glorious’ imperial past.
It was enough to make Faslane’s nuclear warheads sweat in their casings.
“tartaned up and kilted bourgeoisie strutting about”
Crivens, help m’boab!
Some cunning cant maist hae telt them they were aboot tae address the UN decolonisation committee.
Speaking of cants….
Cheers, James.
TBQH I was immensely put out at the lack of reaction to my observing that the UN Decolonisation Delusionists are in no place to criticise other Sovereign Scots for strutting about in their tartans and kilts.
It’s absolutely typical of the worst kind of sour, Indy hypocrisy. The kind which fundamentally boils down to the mindset of believing that a Sovereign Scot is a Scot who agrees with the likes of Northy and Alf. That attitude now being extended to our national attire.
Anyway. Thanks for your attention and keep reading. You can only learn more to your advantage.
I understand what you are saying, but wouldn’t you jump at the opportunity to get away from holyrood? It must be such a depressing place and I struggle to understand why people would want to be in it (well, there is very good salary with no strings attached and requiring no work, so maybe I am answering my own question, still after a while that can’t be enough…)
Sarwar follows a well trodden path of nominal Scots who get picked to be unelected lords and masters.
Who in England, or in Scotland for that matter, voted for this guy to become the Minister for False Teeth. No one, that is the basics of it.
A grifter being given buddy largesse by the chief grifter. And folks sadly will just have to grin and bear it. The whole political process is a joke.
We wouldn’t have it any other way!
And whilst we are reflecting on the new Lord it might be interesting to reflect on the family history.
Anas Sarwar is a privately educated millionaire son of a multi millionaire ” business man cash and carry trader ” .
He is also has a brother Athif who was jailed for for three years in 2007 for VAT fraud and money laundering. He of course is another multi millionaire reportedly worth many tens of millions of pounds.
And the father Mohammed, he was the MP for Govan who back in the day was embroiled in scandal where he was involved in giving a rival candidate a paper bag full of thousands of pounds in a car park in alleged payment for the rival to stand aside.
link to independent.co.uk
And later after many years as an MP for the Govan area of Glasgow the father Mohammed then relinquished his British citizenship in 2013 to become the Governor of the Punjab representing the Pakistan Muslim League.
He was then appointed a member of the Senate of Pakistan in 2018 and appointed to a second term as Governor of the Punjab.
All in all its an illustrious family history that the new Minister of False Teeth carries on. Allegiance, honour, probity, its all there!
But we wouldn’t have it any other way now would we?
Scotland had a referendum in 2014, I know the Unionist mention it all the time. The day before the referendum the Unionist and the UKG broke the law with the Vow headlined in the DR the promise was permanent Scottish parliament powers, extensive new devolved control and the continuation of the Barnett formula none of which was delivered. The Smith commission was set up and who was intrusted with dealing with it on the nationalist side John Swinney he failed the Devo-max promised was never delivered and when it wasn’t the SNP should have walked away and sort a new referendum and if they had Scotland would be in a better place today.
The UKG and the SNP are at it again, remember when we left the EU the powers that was meant to be returned from the EU back to the devolved parliaments, the SNP took the UKG to the British courts and lost but it was agreed these powers would be returned after 7yrs here’s the con these will be the powers on offer.
I have advocated since 2015 that the SNP is screwing Scotland and our people over and John Swinney conformed this this week
Here’s where our problem is, the SNP has accepted the Scottish parliament in its entirety as being acceptable as long as the SNP is running it under the umbrella of the Union. We have just had the prime example of the SNP betrayal before and after the Holyrood election when Swinney promised a guarantee referendum if the SNP was re-elected which they were, John Swinney hasn’t even written a letter to request a section 30 order a promise he had no intention of keeping. But instead, he’s requested more devolved powers and as a nationalist here my problem!!! When you seek from the colonizer more power to a parliament been set up by the colonizer, you’re stating clearly your happy with the status quo but the problem with that is it makes it even harder to break away from the colonizer because all they have to do is offer more powers.
The SNP has been clearly working with the UKG since Sturgeon, Swinney, Brown, Robertson etc took over from Alex Salmond, David Davis has made references to Sturgeon in his speech in Westminster which is all linked.
The new PM has made it clear the UK is one Country and the British People are one people and Manchester is to be number 10 of the north, this alarmed me.
You have got to be a complete and utter moron if you can’t see that under John Swinney Independence is dead and buried and it’ll never be addressed its devolution the SNP wants under the UK, I hear people talk about a challenge to Swinney it’ll never happen, they’re all on board with devolution plan.
I don’t believe The National newspaper is as dedicated to Independence as some would have us believe I also believe we have certain bloggers and reporters who constantly feed the SNP lie.
Its evident the SNP wants power and here is where we the nationalist hold the power and it’s the only power we do hold. We should not give the SNP any votes in a Holyrood, Westminster or council election the SNP needs to be removed from office, simply because for every year we have the SNP governing Scotland Scotland is becoming less and less and the SNP knows it.
If we wanted know how a population can make change just look at what’s been happen in Ukraine and to be honest this is precisely what we need to do unless we use our voice you can kiss Scotland and the dream of Independence good bye, the SNP won’t allow it.
Rather than watching the colonial games, it’s much better to spend your time reading Christoph Doigne Thompson’s paper: Scotland Stolen, Scotland Restored on Still Yours for Scotland. (Maybe someone could put up the link). It takes a bit of reading, but it pulls together the whole case for UN decolonisation recognition.
Let’s see if this makes it through moderation filter.
It states it is just over an hour’s read.
link to decolonise.scot
Scotland Stolen, Scotland Restored: Non-Alignment & Decolonisation.
The Foreign Policy of a Nation Liberated from the English Colonial State Beyond Jim Sillars’ ‘Discussion Paper’: From Colonial Dependency to a Genuinely Sovereign Scottish Foreign Policy
by Christophe Dorigné-Thomson (2026)
This synopsis outlines a decolonial blueprint for a restored, non-aligned Scottish nation.
Core Thesis: Scotland’s Colonial Condition
Illegal status: Scotland is an annexed colony.
Void union: The 1707 incorporation was void ab initio.
Agency erased: Westminster controls all international instruments.
Identity suppressed: Foreign embassies deliberately erase Scottish identity.
Praxis now: Freedom is won by conducting foreign policy today.
Critique of Jim Sillars’ “Discussion Paper”
Colonial epistemology: Sillars operates inside the coloniser’s categories.
Comprador approach: He seeks a “negotiating brief” instead of asserting rights.
Subjugated framework: The paper caters to NATO and Westminster comfort.
Institutional capture: Devolved politicians mistake the cage for the world.
Elitist compliance: The current leadership acts as a sub-contractor of Empire.
??????????????????? Legal Foundations of Sovereign Restoration
State resumption: Scotland is restoring statehood, not creating a new one.
Papal precedent: The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath confirmed historic independence.
Coercion record: The 1707 Treaty involved bribery and military intimidation.
Chagos precedent: The ICJ ruled that decolonisation requires total administrative exit.
UN trajectory: Submissions are active at the UN Human Rights Council.
Decolonial Economy and Resource Plunder
Consortium theft: Foreign state firms extract massive energy wealth.
Energy pricing: Scots pay maximum rates for domestic wind.
Whisky extraction: London captures billions in global retail markups.
GERS falsification: Colonial accounting manufactures a false dependency narrative.
Asset reclamation: A restored Scotland will enforce resource nationalisation.
Non-Alignment, NATO, and Trident Expulsion
Nuclear colonialism: Metropoles export nuclear risk to the periphery.
Trident leverage: Expelling nuclear weapons dismantles London’s global status.
False protection: Weapons paint a first-strike target on the Clyde.
GIS Gap: The maritime corridor belongs to Scotland, not the UK.
Strategic inversion: NATO needs Scottish geography more than Scotland needs NATO.
Multipolar Re-alignment and Global Solidarity
China partnership: Cooperation will focus on infrastructure and technology.
Russian kinship: Historic, cultural, and genealogical links run deep.
BRICS+ integration: Scotland aligns with the global majority’s framework.
OSCE framework: Rebuilding pan-European security bypasses military blocs.
Commonwealth rejection: The institution remains an instrument of neo-colonialism.
????????R????eshaping the Global Institutional Order
Euro-Atlantic decline: The global majority rejects Western exceptionalism.
German defeat: UNGA rejected Germany’s Security Council bid.
Security Council reform: Scottish independence destroys the UK’s permanent seat.
Rump state exposure: England loses its material great-power pretension.
Global South solidarity: Scotland aligns with formerly colonised peoples.
*
AIsynthesisedJuly2026
Scotland had a referendum in 2014, I know the Unionist mention it all the time. The day before the referendum the Unionist and the UKG broke the law with the Vow headlined in the DR the promise was permanent Scottish parliament powers, extensive new devolved control and the continuation of the Barnett formula none of which was delivered. The Smith commission was set up and who was intrusted with dealing with it on the nationalist side John Swinney he failed the Devo-max promised was never delivered and when it wasn’t the SNP should have walked away and sort a new referendum and if they had Scotland would be in a better place today.
The UKG and the SNP are at it again, remember when we left the EU the powers that was meant to be returned from the EU back to the devolved parliaments, the SNP took the UKG to the British courts and lost but it was agreed these powers would be returned after 7yrs here’s the con these will be the powers on offer.
I have advocated since 2015 that the SNP is screwing Scotland and our people over and John Swinney conformed this this week
Here’s where our problem is, the SNP has accepted the Scottish parliament in its entirety as being acceptable as long as the SNP is running it under the umbrella of the Union. We have just had the prime example of the SNP betrayal before and after the Holyrood election when Swinney promised a guarantee referendum if the SNP was re-elected which they were, John Swinney hasn’t even written a letter to request a section 30 order a promise he had no intention of keeping. But instead, he’s requested more devolved powers and as a nationalist here my problem!!! When you seek from the colonizer more power to a parliament been set up by the colonizer, you’re stating clearly your happy with the status quo but the problem with that is it makes it even harder to break away from the colonizer because all they have to do is offer more powers.
The SNP has been clearly working with the UKG since Sturgeon, Swinney, Brown, Robertson etc took over from Alex Salmond, David Davis has made references to Sturgeon in his speech in Westminster which is all linked.
The new PM has made it clear the UK is one Country and the British People are one people and Manchester is to be number 10 of the north, this alarmed me.
You have got to be a complete and utter moron if you can’t see that under John Swinney Independence is dead and buried and it’ll never be addressed its devolution the SNP wants under the UK, I hear people talk about a challenge to Swinney it’ll never happen, they’re all on board with devolution plan.
I don’t believe The National newspaper is as dedicated to Independence as some would have us believe I also believe we have certain bloggers and reporters who constantly feed the SNP lie.
Its evident the SNP wants power and here is where we the nationalist hold the power and it’s the only power we do hold. We should not give the SNP any votes in a Holyrood, Westminster or council election the SNP needs to be removed from office, simply because for every year we have the SNP governing Scotland Scotland is becoming less and less and the SNP knows it.
100%Yes says:
24 July, 2026 at 1:36 pm
Scotland had a referendum in 2014, I know the Unionist mention it all the time. The day before the referendum the Unionist and the UKG broke the law with the Vow headlined in the DR the promise was permanent Scottish parliament powers, extensive new devolved control and the continuation of the Barnett formula none of which was delivered.
Please note: “The Vow” did not break the law.
100%Yes says:
The Smith commission was set up and who was intrusted with dealing with it on the nationalist side John Swinney he failed the Devo-max promised was never delivered
Please note:
Analysts from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre concluded that the fiscal changes set out in the Smith Commission would mean Holyrood was one of the most economically powerful devolved parliaments in the world, compared to federal systems like Germany and Switzerland.
Any study of the Scotland Act clearly shows a significant transfer of powers.
100%Yes says:
The UKG and the SNP are at it again, remember when we left the EU the powers that was meant to be returned from the EU back to the devolved parliaments
Please note:
These powers could not be “returned”. as they had never belonged to the devolved parliaments; the UK joined the EU (EEC) in 1973, decades before devolution occurred. In the case of the internal market legislation, for example, the EU previously had control as it was a Europe-wide market. Since it then became a UK-wide internal market, the equivalent control was held at UK (ie Westminster) control, the equivalent authority.
and as a nationalist here my problem
Aa a nationalist, your problem is that the SNP hates you, and wants to replace you with Africans and Muslims asap. So that you’re a powerless, and hated minority in what you used to call Scotland.
They’re nearly there.
Are you going to to let them finish the job?
Colonial. This word is getting thrown about here as if it has some sort of special powers. Just add “colonized” to your sentence and as if by magic the same bitter rant from a Nasty Nat really takes on a new dimension. Sadly colonized people are usually inbred and of very low IQ. Some pretend to be academics.
^^^ That’s a very lame post, but I guess Mark jist tried to squeeze in as many derogatory digs as possible to earn his sheckles for being on here whilst rarely if ever posting anything of interest.
So about this “Nasty Nats” term; Mark should open his eyes and mind, and he might understand that he is being colonised by globalist agendas foisting all manner of unwanted shite onto us.
I didn’t take him for being a big fan of the genderwoowoo and NetZero, but hey ho… He should wise the fuck up and understand that the only way for a people that don’t agree to having all manner of crud dumped onto us undemocratically, is by having more political autonomy and control to kick this stuff into touch using whatever means are available to us to express different needs, wonts, and outlooks. If that means jist happens to be on a national level then so be it, but some folk love to float the nasty Nazi line.
Fans of the Union rarely if ever deal with the matter that Scotland and England have substantially differing policy needs. And with England not having its own devolved parliament and thus treating the UK government for its own ends, it jist means Scotland gets what England wants, which regularly isn’t what Scotland wants or requires.
In other comments on this page factchecker has inadvertently burst the “Better Together” narrative that Scotland is any way treated as an equal in this Union. And only meek visionless twats would accept and be content to live a subservient existence of having policies they don’t want continually foisted onto them by others and causing further detriment to the land they exist on.
There’s nothing nasty about a people jist wanting more control over their politicians so that they better serve the country they live in.
For a wee guy you talk really big. You and the rest of the pure Yessers are going to do nothing. You’ve done nothing for over ten years and you will do nothing tomorrow.
You can wave the righteous flag all night long. Comment after comment about how down trodden you all is and how the United nations has got your back. You can quote from the past till the cows come home. But nothing ever happens and nothing will happen tomorrow.
When the people are not interested in your ideas it’s time to get some new ideas. No one cared in 1707 and no one cares in 2026 about your claims.
The Special Needs Party took ya all along for a ride. Twice!!
There’s none so blind as those who cannot see.
Dan,
The funny thing is the Scot hater who where born in Scotland, when abroad call themselves Scottish and when in Scotland call themselves Scottish, they never call themselves British and yet hate everything Scottish and the reality they hate everything and everyone.
Well aye, guilty as charged Judge Mark, but when one’s talking about the proper sensible governance of an entire country and the resources and peoples that live on it, one has to talk big with some vision, not be a small-minded twat putting personal views above that of fellow citizens and businesses.
But FYI I’m probably around average in size though. About 5,10 and a few pounds over eeeeeleven stone. Still pretty ripped with no moobs though, and just checked the strength credentials by going outside and doing a handstand and 10 vertical pushups. Not bad for being an old cunt!
Can you not post more interesting and entertaining shit rather than the usual boring drudge. FFS, it’s Friday nicht and time for some partying. A couple of glasses of wine, a homemade curry using ingredients you grew yersel, whatever floats your boat.
I’m jist listening to Chvrches – Lies @ Glasgow School of Art…
link to youtube.com
…and it minded me of this post.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Nothing inadvertent almost it, Dan – just a statement of the obvious. Please name me a democratic union of formerly independent states where small states with less population have the same influence at government level as big ones with large populations. Germany? Italy? USA? EU? Netherlands? No. Why would a democrat anywhere accept that the vote of an individual in one part of a country was worth the same as the vote of ten people in another part? (the approximate current England/Scotland population ratio)
As for “Scotland and England have substantially differing policy needs.”, your Scotland/England divide in terms of needs is rather simplistic. Scotland north of the Central Belt has completely different policy needs to the Central Belt, where most investment takes place and the population is growing; it arguably has very similar needs as equally vast areas of England outside the south east. Historically, the former fishing ports up the east coast of the UK have faced similar challenges and had similar policy needs, no matter which country they are in. Current needs transcend 300 year old borders.
Good post, FC.
You’re understanding why, outside of the UK, Scotland is as likely to split apart as it is to stay together.
No doubt the majority of the usual suspects expect to live it big off the resources that rightly belong, by the usual suspect’s own logic, to Scots in a different part of Scotland.
But if the inhabitants of Orkney, say, decide they didn’t want to sub Birmingham and see no compelling reason why they should sub Glasgow either, they’ll be off.
@ factchecker
Thanks again for confirming the significant and negative predicaments Scotland endures whilst being in a Union with the Kingdom of England which is ten times larger and effectively dictates what goes on in Scotland due to all major powers residing under London Rule.
I note you desperately trying to distract from the UK governance issues and instead running with the internal Scottish issues of differences between central belt and more rural areas of Scotland.
Where do you think the food for central belt comes from, that would be rural areas. I’m sure an amicable deal could be worked out within Scotland…
But when you are a defender and supportive of the Union and presumably happy for the Remembrancer to be sitting in Westminster looking after the City of London’s interests, Scotland will never be allowed to thrive.
It’s twats like yersel that keep Scotland down.
Here’s one. Now that Grangemouth is no more, maybe we could get someone who worked there to move into a position of power or influence in Scottish Water, as presumably because there weren’t daily incidents of gas and oil leaks resulting in explosions and pollution they would be more competent and capable to manage pipe and pump systems better than the current overpaid folk running Scottish Water. And SEPA not really giving a fuck when Scottish Water cause significant pollution.
Also in this considerable dry and hot weather spell worth questioning SEPA charging farms for water extraction to keep crops irrigated to provide food. Who gave ownership of the water in our rivers to SEPA, whilst any costs incurred to farms will just get passed onto the consumer with increased food prices.
“Please note: “The Vow” did not break the law.”
“Analysts from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre concluded that the fiscal changes set out in the Smith Commission would mean Holyrood was one of the most economically powerful devolved parliaments in the world, compared to federal systems like Germany and Switzerland.
Any study of the Scotland Act clearly shows a significant transfer of powers.”
LOLZ!!! ROTFLMFAO. Another Yoon WALLOPER.
Wouldn’t know a ‘fact’ if it punched it in the face.
[Why are the Yoons ramping it up again? What’s spooking the twats?]
CC @ 11.39
Well hold on there Bald Eagle!
“Scotland was doing much of the colonis1NG before and after the Union”..
Before?
Really?
All I can think of is Darien and that was a planned trading post venture hoping to pick up on the waist of Panama potential between Atlantic and Pacific trade – quite forward thinking actually until kyboshed by the actual nearest Colon1s1NG powers that being (ahem) Engerlund and Spain.
Don’t recall it ever being termed an attempted colony..
After the Union, well that’s a different matter especially for the mercantile classes that up till then had had severe restrictions placed on trading ambitions in colon1ES wherever St George’s cross flew.
Just for historical correctness an that..
Oddly enough, it was just towards the end of last week that I listened to the Welsh FM on the radio bemoaning about how lacking the Welsh Assembly is in useful powers compared to the Scottish parliament.
The poor, deluded eejit. Fist an un-pronounceable name and now this.
Somebody should send him a link to Wings BTL so he can educate himself!
Now who doesn’t like a curious Freudian slip first thing o’ a dreich Sunday morn? 🙂
“one of the most economically powerful devolved parliaments in the world, compared to federal systems like Germany and Switzerland.”
Aye, ye have tae laugh at the colonizer’s deceit, but that’s all they have. The reality is quite the opposite, e.g.:
– German federal states hold powers to make treaties and have control over media and major utilities;
– Swiss have powers to hold referendums, which can overturn unwanted laws imposed on the people – not unlike Scotland’s pre-colonial ‘Salvo’
First thing, MH?
I’ve been up for hours.
I found out through reading it that Scotland has historical connections with Russia from the 1700’s. Didn’t know that.
Several Scots helped to build up the Russian navy. The names Greig and Gordon are prominent. Others established trading agreements with both Russia and Poland. For such a tiny population, Scots have, literally, been strategic organisers of other peoples’ infrastructure. It’s just our on that we seem to have difficulty with, apparently. We also used to be pioneers and great inventors. I believe we still do some of those things but we then allow others to rob us blind when we do. Wind turbines? Please make it make sense. I think our Vichy governments, both Unionist and SNP, have much to do with it.
Factchecker says:
“Please note:
Analysts from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre concluded that the fiscal changes set out in the Smith Commission would mean Holyrood was one of the most economically powerful devolved parliaments in the world, compared to federal systems like Germany and Switzerland.
Any study of the Scotland Act clearly shows a significant transfer of powers.”
This is simplistic.
Here is what the former statistician, Jim Cuthbert, who worked as civil servant in the Scottish Office. Here are some of his views on the Smith Commission.
Finally, the Treasury’s clincher was to adopt as their starting position an extreme variant: on the Treasury’s originally preferred option, Scotland would have had to grow its tax receipts 13% faster than rUK simply to have kept the same funding we would have had under Barnett. This should have been laughed off the table immediately – but wasn’t. The upshot was that the Treasury were able to present their eventual “reluctant” move from this position as a negotiating triumph for the Scots: even though we ended up in another part of the restricted space specified by the Treasury.
So what emerged from this flawed process was a flawed deal: one where we have to grow our tax revenues at least as fast as rUK or we will be penalised. This brings us then to the central question: do we have adequate economic powers to give us a worthwhile chance of success in this economic race with rUK. The answer is – no. After all, it’s not just that monetary policy is made for the South East, not for us. In addition, the Scottish government will have control of only a single major tax, income tax: it will have restricted borrowing powers: and it lacks control of competition policy, international trade development, licensing of North Sea oil, utility regulation, and a number of labour market responsibilities.
At some point we will inevitably slip behind in the economic race. The danger is that we will then get into a self perpetuating cycle of higher taxes, further economic decline, cuts in public services, and ever increasing austerity. There is little hope, given this prospect, of achieving fundamental social change in the brave new post-Smith Scotland. Indeed, quite the reverse. A very senior Treasury official let slip, during the course of the negotiations, that he thought Scotland’s most powerful economic weapon would be the ability to lower the higher rates of income tax relative to rUK, and to turn Scotland into a haven for the rich. There is a real risk that, under extreme fiscal pressure, some future Scottish government might be tempted to implement such a socially disastrous policy.”
Fair enough, sam; but you are quoting the opinion of Jim Cuthbert, a single civil servant, albeit a well-informed one, and a statistician rather than an economist. My reference was to the considered conclusion of analysts reporting to the Scottish Parliament Information Centre.
Jim Cuthbert asks “do we have adequate economic powers to give us a worthwhile chance of success in this economic race with rUK. The answer is – no…. monetary policy is made for the South East”. Yet the economic boom of areas of the West Midlands of England over the last 20 years shows this is not the case. They have less fiscal autonomy than Scotland.
You comment that my statement “Any study of the Scotland Act clearly shows a significant transfer of powers.”is simplistic. It is quite simply true. There was a significant transfer of powers. Many supporters of independence feel that the transfer did not go far enough – but that is a different issue.
Jim Cuthbert has a M.A. in mathematics and economics. A M.Sc. in mathematics and statistics and a D Phil in Probability Theory.He has worked in the TReasury and in the Australian government.
His point is not that more powers have been transferred but those that have been transferred do harm as they are intended to keep Scotland as a low tax, neo-liberal economy, with all the harm and inequality that brings.
Also, the aapproach by the Smith Commission to the negotiations does not suggest good faith. Scotland would have had to grow its tax receipts 13% faster than rUK simply to have kept the same funding we would have had under Barnett was the opening bid by UK government.Hardly a collaborative approach.
Seven weeks of discussion seems insubstantial to cover the ground. Leaks show that proposed powers for discussion wre simply dropped at the end.
Barnett himself came to conclude that the block grant he introduced was unfair to Scotland.
It has been criticised in lacking transparency, there is little clear about how decisions are made.
The Scottish Affairs Committee in HoC said this: ‘The operation of the Barnett formula is not as transparent as it could or should be. In particular, there is a lack of transparency around how comparability percentages are calculated. Comparability percentages are a fundamental feature of the Barnett formula and the only multiplier which cannot be effectively scrutinised by the public. We have heard no good reason for this opacity, which limits the ability of the public and UK and Scottish Parliaments to hold their respective Governments to account.’
It recommends: ‘In all future Statements of Funding Policy, the UK Government should include details of how the comparability percentage of each department has been calculated, including a programme-by-programme breakdown of what has and has not been included in the calculation.’
As to the West Midlands economc growth, it got a bung of £2.5 billion from UK government. Scotland got Brexit and £4 bilion loss each year.
All very well, sam, but what does Cuthbert know of Fanon, Cesaire, Memmi and the rest?
That’s the yardstick by which we must judge the qualifications of an academic to speak authoritatively about Scotland.
As Memmi (I think) wrote: “we must separate the genuine academics from the goitrous ones”.
If it wasn’t Memmi, I’m sure Alf will put me right.
Where are you getting this idea from that the U.K. and Scotland in particular is a low tax country? The top marginal rate of tax in Scotland is 67.5% which is close to the highest rate of tax anywhere in the world. Scotland is a very highly taxed country.
I’m also intrigued about this idea that further Scottish devolution is required to grow Scotland’s economy, when the SNP government has used the powers it does have over the last ten years to shrink the Scottish economy, such as;
– raising income taxes to some of the highest rates in the developed world;
– cancelled and deferred major road projects;
– introduced a whole host of other new taxes, including the new air departure tax which will no doubt be much higher than the equivalent APD, and the new 5% visitor tax in Edinburgh;
– restricted the PSO in island routes so air fares for tourists heading out to Kintyre and the islands pay 3x as much as last year,
And so the list goes on and on. Even outside of their remit they’ve pushed for the closure of Mossmoran and Grangemouth, and of the North Sea more widely, and for big rises in the rates of tax that aren’t devolved. Any further devolution of powers would therefore simply be used in the same way, to reduce the size of the private sector and limit growth.
It’s called Levelling Doon, Aidan.
sam won’t be happy until every Scot sitting idle and envious on his flabby erse takes in as much dosh in a year as the world’s best brain surgeon saving the lives of a dozen patients a week.
Of course, sam won’t be happy then either, but you get my point.
“Scotland is a very highly taxed country”
Its not only high taxes Scots endure due to colonial rule and plunder. Westminster also forces on Scotland the highest electricity and fuel prices in the world which makes Scotland into a noncompetitive and under-developed economy and prevents Scots from accessing our own vast energy export value – which also explains why we have had zero economic growth for most of our lifetimes within the colonial straitjacket:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
”Where are you getting this idea from that the U.K. and Scotland in particular is a low tax country? The top marginal rate of tax in Scotland is 67.5% which is close to the highest rate of tax anywhere in the world. Scotland is a very highly taxed country.”
Where is Sam getting this “idea” from? His head, probably, or quite possibly his “erse”.
The situation can be summarised thus: just another bitter, simplistic, low-wattage lefty. He regards Scotland as (hilariously) a low tax economy, precisely because, firstly he won’t be paying these punitive levels of tax, but more importantly he and his ilk are glad that an ever diminishing pool of enterprising, successful people are doing so. The “politics of envy” writ large; never mind the fact that said punitive levels of tax are extinguishing any chance Scotland might have of being an economic success story; the lowest common denominator and leveller that Hatey describes is much to be preferred.
”… which also explains why we have had zero economic growth for most of our lifetimes within the colonial straitjacket:”
Or on the other hand, maybe electing the SNP to power for the last 20-odd years and counting) wasn’t such a great idea…
I think you find it was they who unilaterally further increased the tax burden on hapless working Scots, even higher than the crippling levels endured by the rest of the UK. Yeah, great strategy, I’m sure we can all think of umpteen examples of left wing governed countries that taxed their way to prosperity…
I’m sure our old friends Memmi and Cesaire will no doubt have a take on this, or maybe cite your own work again Alf?
“or maybe cite your own work again”
You seem to be one of the muckle mou’s on the great benefits of colonialism for subaltern Scots, so where is “your own work” on this? What have you ever published on the matter? Or are you simply here to de-base Scots like the rest of the colonialist cohort?
Ah, the old “where’s your own work” deflection. How weak.
I never claimed to have my own work (self published or otherwise); this in no way precludes me from- or anyone else – challenging your own oft parroted ad nauseam views, Alf. According to your own absurd logic, I can’t criticise a car or a toaster unless I’ve made my own one beforehand? I mean, it’s all so ridiculous – as is quoting your own work as supposed citation in a debate.
As for your point about the “benefits of colonisation”, Scotland isn’t colonised mate, so that’s rather moot I’d have to say. In fact, claiming that it is so, is gross misappropriation and extremely insulting to those countries which have demonstrably been colonised. As others have repeatedly pointed out, it is a fact that Scotland was doing much of the colonisING, both before and after the formation of the Union, which undeniable, empirical fact simply further demonstrates the hypocrisy, paucity (and brass neck) of our tiresome grievances.
*your
You’ve raised several points, but they rest on assumptions that don’t quite align with the structure of the discussion.
“Ah, the old “where’s your own work” deflection.”
First, questioning someone’s published work isn’t a demand for credentials; it’s very often a request for clarity about the framework behind their argument.
In any analytical debate, understanding the basis of a claim is part of assessing its coherence.
It’s actually normal in academic or specialist contexts. Experts cite their own peer-reviewed work all the time.
That’s not a deflection… it’s context.
Second, the analogy with cars and toasters doesn’t map well onto sociopolitical analysis.
Consumer experience and historical power structures operate in different domains, so the comparison doesn’t really illuminate the issue.
Third, the term “colonisation” covers a wide range of relationships… external, internal, cultural, administrative, economic.
Saying Scotland cannot have experienced any form of internal colonialism because it also participated in external empire is a category error.
Those dynamics aren’t mutually exclusive, and participation in one doesn’t negate the possibility of the other.
Finally, recognising structural power imbalances doesn’t diminish or disrespect the experiences of other nations.
It simply acknowledges that different forms of domination can coexist across different contexts, each with its own history and consequences.
In short, the discussion isn’t about sentiment or grievance; it’s about definitions, structures, and how different forms of power can operate simultaneously.
Good points, eloquently raised. Well debated. 🙂
I’m walking the dog and have to do some shopping, but will come back to you presently with my take.
“I never claimed to have my own work”
So that’s a big ‘naw’ then, ye’ve nivver published hee-haw aboot onythin.
“Scotland isn’t colonised mate”
And again, zero evidence for that viewpoint, whereas on the opposite side we have:
– King Jimmy VI explicitly making Scotland an ‘English Shire’ with the aim to extend ‘England’s greatness’, English rule over Scotland by ‘Pen’;
– Annexation/dissolution of Scottish Parliament by bribery and coercion in 1707;
– Conquering of Scotland by colonial wars in 1715 and 1746;
– Followed by genocide, clearances, transportation, and statutory re-settlement of 4 million Scots by 1970s;
– Cultural and linguistic imperialism, cultural assimilation;
– Population displacement;
– Economic plunder of our lands, resources and Scots people ever since;
– Resulting in the socio-economic under-development of Scotland and Scots.
Which culminates today in the remaining colonized Scots claiming the right of self-determination, i.e. decolonisation.
link to liberation.scot
Jim Cuthberts academic qualifications, his work experience in the Scottish office and elsewhere puts him head, shoulders, torso, pelvis, legs and feet above any commenter here.
The Yoons should pay attention and respect what he says.
Including this.
“Barnett pre 2015 can be regarded as the kind of technique which would be applied to a colony which was under direct control – the sort of approach which might have been applied under an old fashioned Governor General, (or, as we knew him, Secretary of State.) The essence, as well as direct control, is ambiguity, and obscurity: all of which, as the Scottish Affairs article makes clear, were marked features of old Barnett. Similar ambiguity and obscurity characterised British colonial rule in Ireland: as was pointed out in a secret report commissioned by Michael Collins on how the British ruled Ireland: “ambiguity was a marked feature… as was elasticity of the entire system”.
Of course, when a colony moves on to limited self government, (or devolution, as we know it), the colonial approach has to evolve. At that point, what is consulted is Chapter 2 in “Simple Techniques of Empire”: this is the chapter headed, “Getting the local elite to do the dirty work”: this is precisely how the present fiscal settlement can be viewed. The way in which Whitehall introduced this strategy was brilliant. The new fiscal settlement was developed under a very tight timetable and in secret negotiations with the Scottish Government: so there was no chance of adequate scrutiny, or public debate. When the Treasury “reluctantly” moved away from their initial unreasonable negotiating position to what became the eventual settlement, the Scottish negotiators rather gullibly persuaded themselves that this represented a great triumph on their part. Having claimed a triumph, this meant that the SNP had effectively taken ownership of, and responsibility for, the new system. The new local governing elite, in their naiveté, had well and truly fallen into the Treasury trap. If they can’t make the new system work, they will take the blame: and we are all likely to suffer as they try to make an unworkable system perform.”
“So that’s a big ‘naw’ then, ye’ve nivver published hee-haw aboot onythin.”
Heh. Well, I’ve written countless landmark technical reports and impact assessments; I’ve sat on countless Design Teams across the country, including on the largest development in Western Europe, for projects whose value well exceeds tens of billions of pounds. So there is that. 🙂
Oh, and it’s my company. Go me!
@Alf – I’ve published work on a range of subjects, but my work, unlike yours, isn’t written starting with the conclusion and then trying to torture the evidence into supporting that conclusion. It also doesn’t make serious and obvious analytical errors or rely on incorrect data or a whole range of logical fallacies.
@Sam – there’s always people within a profession who have their own particular viewpoints and angles, even very senior people with an excellent education and great qualifications. The fact that you rely on the idea that X person is well-qualified and experienced as a conclusive validation of their ideas is naive. You’ll find in life that there are many senior and ostensible sensible people who nevertheless harbour views that could be gently described as eccentric, if we are being kind. Look at our very own Professor Baird for example.
I’ve had a quick look at what Jim Cuthbert has written and it all seems to go into the category of “trivial complaint”. They’ll always be disadvantages and drawbacks of any system of this level of complexity, and it seems that JC does no more than identify the kinds of compromise that are inherent in public policy. The wider picture is that Barnett provides the Scottish public and taxpayer with a much higher level of spending per person than tax raised, and the rUK taxpayer funds that deficit.
Waiting on new boys CC and AIdan pulling up Stu for posting this “shite” back in the day…
link to wingsoverscotland.com
@Northy
“First, questioning someone’s published work isn’t a demand for credentials; it’s very often a request for clarity about the framework behind their argument.”
Well, first and foremost, my “credentials” are that I am someone posting their opinion on this board, which promotes free speech for all (within reason). My opinion is as valid as yours, or anyone else’s here; each can be assessed and debated on an equal footing. There is no one upmanship or “rank”, including when conferred to oneself. There is no minimum requirement in terms of qualifications or experience.
Further, this specific “questioning someone’s credentials” was far from an honest enquiry, but actually deliberately disingenuous:
“You seem to be one of the muckle mou’s on the great benefits of colonialism for subaltern Scots, so where is “your own work” on this?”
I’m sure I don’t need to point out to you that this is, in fact, goading – and the “request” is made on the false (or at least, heavily disputed) premise that Scotland is a colony (despite being an avid colonisER, as over centuries, both by itself and also when in union with the English). By definition, it is surely a rhetorical question also, since I am hardly likely to have published work on something that is demonstrably untrue and flawed, apart from anything else.
In my view, it’s not a good look for him. I think any fair arbiter – a “neutral” if you will – will see this stuff plainly for what is is, hardly the stuff of mature academia ironically enough, not to mention a complete failure to actually engage any of the points raised, reverting to ad hom nonsense instead. Speaks volumes.
“It’s actually normal in academic or specialist contexts. Experts cite their own peer-reviewed work all the time.
That’s not a deflection… it’s context.”
I don’t agree. When engaging in debate, if someone makes a statement or claim about something, and then provides a link (citation) to material, the reader will assume – according to accepted convention – that this linked info will (a) be independent and (b) corroborative in some way. What they will not assume, is that the linked info was actually penned by the same person making the claim or statement, since to do so would break convention, as well as appearing crass.
If, on the other hand, that person making the statement introduced the linked material along the lines of ‘… to further expand on my point, I have linked to an earlier essay which I wrote regarding this subject …’, hence applying the correct CONTEXT.
If one were writing an academic paper (or even little ol’ humble me, writing an Environmental Statement or Stage 4 Design Report etc.), you would not use your own work as bona fide citation/corroboration. You would, in fact, be referring to independent data, Paper(s), British/ISO Standards or whatever else. I mean, this is basic stuff, which I’m quite sure you’re already well aware of.
“Second, the analogy with cars and toasters doesn’t map well onto sociopolitical analysis.”
Well, I have to disagree once again. Fundamentally, I strongly dislike any notion where someone – anyone – even a layperson – is somehow “not allowed” to comment about something or other. As an Engineer, I am frequently confronted my members of the public (e.g. at Public Enquiry) with very strongly held, inexpert views. They are perfectly entitled to hold – and air them, who am I to say otherwise? Hence – I don’t. (Interestingly, whilst much of the time such views are borne of ignorance of the highly specialised subject matter, sometimes there is the odd gem – a case of being able to see the wood for the trees).
Of course, in this specific case, Alf was being deliberately disingenuous anyway, as is his wont:
“What have you ever published on the matter? Or are you simply here to de-base Scots like the rest of the colonialist cohort?”
Note the ONLY two available options are either (a) I have published something regarding the so-called colonisation of Scotland, or (b) I am only here to de-base [sic] Scots. That’s it, nothing else, no other possibilities need apply…
Well, what absolute childish nonsense says I, hardly befitting of a Professor, I’d have thought. Debate is good, and is to be welcomed!
“Third, the term “colonisation” covers a wide range of relationships… external, internal, cultural, administrative, economic.
Saying Scotland cannot have experienced any form of internal colonialism because it also participated in external empire is a category error.
Those dynamics aren’t mutually exclusive, and participation in one doesn’t negate the possibility of the other.”
Well, I think the term “colonisation” in the context of frequent references to Memmi, whose case studies centred around brutally oppressed French Algeria – hardly IN ANY WAY analogous to today’s Scotland – has clear, distinct meaning. As I’ve said, any reasonable person would conclude that to (endlessly) compare the two in any way is actually gross misappropriation, and downright offensive, not to mention plain wrong.
In this specific context, relatively minor (by specific comparison) grievances about poor political outcomes, mismanagement, suboptimal wealth distribution or whatever else can hardly be placed under this “colonialism” banner, and that’s before one considers that actually, it was the Scots meting out much of said colonialism themselves (even before the Union), for centuries. All fair comment I’d say; the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and a sense of scale and proportion has to be maintained.
“Finally, recognising structural power imbalances doesn’t diminish or disrespect the experiences of other nations.
It simply acknowledges that different forms of domination can coexist across different contexts, each with its own history and consequences.”
Well, I can agree with that. However, as we have seen (and as I have demonstrated), that’s not in keeping with Alf’s input or “enquiries” on this, and many other occasions.
Indeed Dan – it’s a case of:
– the independently audited figures show one thing;
– the (former) head of the CND says another, based exclusively on a misunderstood answer given by the chief secretary to the treasury in 1997.
We know that the SNP leadership know as well, else post-2014 negotiations would have been pursued on the basis of full fiscal autonomy.
Indeed Dan – it’s a case of:
– the independently audited figures show one thing;
– the (former) head of the CND says another, based exclusively on a misunderstood answer given by the chief secretary to the treasury in 1997, says another.
So who do we believe?
We know that the SNP leadership know as well, else post-2014 negotiations would have been pursued on the basis of full fiscal autonomy.
“So who do we believe?”
😀 😀 😀
And on that bombshell, time for a Negroni I think. Saluti! 🙂
“ By definition, it is surely a rhetorical question also, since I am hardly likely to have published work on something that is demonstrably untrue and flawed, apart from anything else”
Well exactly – “Have you published a paper setting out that the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist?”
Some great comments today.
There remains but for Wally W. Walrus to expectorate partly masticated rotting fish guts over it and this thread will be complete.
“we have to grow our tax revenues…”
You have to pay some Tax in the first place. Talking of which, how’s the job search going?
Thank the Good Lord ScotGov doesn’t have control of North Sea licensing, eh?
They’d have shut in the entire place long ago to curry favour with the trannys.
Poor old sam, though. Still believing the only way to award work, ambition, risk taking and investment in Scotland is to hammer the deluded cants with more tax.
Sometimes I wonder where Scotland would be if we weren’t “colonised” and the likes of sam still held sway as they did in the eighteenth century.
Squatting in our windowless black houses no doubt, coughing our lungs up and bitching about how slow the peat reek was taking to find its way through the thatch.
“Sometimes I wonder where Scotland would be if we weren’t “colonised”
Probably aroond aboot £150 billion a year better aff, mebbe mair:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Aye, Alf, and if the likes of sam held sway, every billion of that would be pished up a wall in pursuit of the new tartan Venezuela.
Here’s an idea for you if sales of your Fanon tribute act book have flagged.
You like to bandy about the £150 billion figure. Why not work it up with supporting evidence into a plausible, convincing treatise supporting Indy? Why not home most of it online with dynamic fiscal modelling that will react to our rapidly changing world in real time? So that if Trump hits us with a 50% whisky tariff tomorrow, or Iran attacks the North Sea the day after, you can re-run the numbers?
That’s one of the fundamental issues with you spinning a fixed number indefinitely, Alf. We can all see that even if it was true 5 years ago, it sure as hell can’t be true now.
We’ve been here before with the “magic numbers”. The last one was written on the side of a bus. It didn’t age well either.
So. Precious tactics failing, the new 77th tactic is “swamping”?
Endless reams of unionist “shite” vomited up ad nauseam by the usual wallopers.
Which contrasts with the eloquent and informative contributions by you fat stinker?
Aw, Adrian you’ve fair hurt my feelings, so you have!
Fuck off.
O/T but very relevant to the overall theme of why the SNP hasn’t made any progress in restoring Scotland’s independence since Alex Salmond resigned.
The late [much regretted] Iain Lawson had emails that showed high level SNP members and elected representatives discussing how gender policy could be used to drive out independence “die hards” from the SNP. [Iain passed these emails to the police so there must have been the possibility of a crime as well.]
The above was posted by Sara Salyers on twitter on 21st July 2026. Iain had read out these emails to Sara.
This backs up all that Wings has shown to be the case since 2014 i.e. the SNP is run by people who have no desire for Scotland’s independence.
What now?
Rip it up and start again.
SNP is lost to the Woo-Woo brigade.
They’re welcome to it!
Let’s get rid of them.
Hook, crook, or chased into the sea. I don’t care.
I don’t have time or the inclination to be on twitter / x.
It would be useful to know the names of the individuals involved though. It’s kind of hard to hold bad faith actors to account for their actions without evidence and actually knowing who they are.
OT…Or is it?
Karim Khan, Chief Prosecutor for the ICC, (the International Criminal Court calling for Trump and Netanyahu to be arrested for War Crimes), has been removed from his post accused of sexual misconduct with an aide two years ago. Khan has denied the allegations, and disputed the findings. Hmmm, now where have I heard this before?
Don’t focus on the accusations, let the lawyers do that, focus on the pattern.
I have grave suspicions the SNP is deeply compromised, and by factors much more insidious than our gutless ranks of supine “Devolutionists”.
Worse still, the bodies immune system, and by body I mean the Scottish nation, – Scotland’s immune system has already been bypassed and our self defence mechanisms are incapable of detecting the infection, let alone dealing with it.
It is my firm conviction that the corrupt dysfunctionality of the SNP is just a symptom of the greater affliction; it is a false summit. We, true Independentists, risk expending ourselves to exhaustion removing a barrier to Independence which we’ve been indoctrinated to see as credible, but once we’ve overcome that obstacle, we’ll just be confronted by another.
The move for Scottish Independence MUST CHANGE THE PARADIGM. All of it. We cannot trust ANY mechanism of self government which has not been created by ourselves, and even then, we must guard it’s integrity minutely and with rigour against infiltration.
I don’t believe this is paranoia. Look at the pattern where we see multiple Western Governments making bizarre decisions; the Westminster Government forcing through Brexit, being complicit in the Gaza Genocide, and warmongering conflict against Russia. UK citizens are now jailed for trying to support justice for Palestine or Iran. No ifs, no buts, it’s happening already with protest synonymous with terrorism. (Cast your mind back to actual terrorism with the IRA and The Troubles. The BBC spoke the words of “terrorists” using actors, but the UK didn’t criminalise dissent and free speech like they now do).
We have the EU apparently lusting for war against Russia, when that very Russia would otherwise provide the EU with the cheap energy it needs for economic viability. This EU militancy is based upon what? The logic of it is unfathomable. Dear God, the EU / EEC was created to sustain peace. De Gaul was right to object to UK membership, warning of it being a Trojan horse for US interference and influence. NATO should have been wound up in the 1990’s. How ironic its that moron Trump who’s dismantling it.
Then we have the big daddy, the global policeman USA apparently taking leave of its senses to instigate multiple unprovoked wars of aggression, casually flout International Law and sovereignty of nations, (Greenland, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, Russia, Lebanon, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada…etc), actively participate in genocide, undermine the very fabric of International Law, openly commit ex-judicious murder on the high seas… And if you’re alert and paying attention, you will know this list is just the tip of the iceberg. The USA freaks out over Russiagate, an overblown nothingburger, but apparently 2/3ds of all US politicians are on the AIPAC “take” and nobody could care less.
I have been a life long supporter of Scottish Independence, and I remain true to that conviction, but Jesus wept Scotland, we are going about the process like gullible amateurs who have yet to realize that our Bonnie Wee tourist attraction home has the potential to be one of the most strategically significant nations on the planet, and the truth is, Scotland’s economic wealth will be the least of our influence. There is a reason why “they” covet ownership of Scotland and keep our people subdued and indoctrinated.
The pity is they jangle something shiny in front of us, and as a nation, we fall for it every time. On the other side, they fight dirty, and they’re very good at it.
Breeks, I will occasionally re-visit this site in the hope of seeing a post by you, or by the one or two (almost literally), other commenters worth reading.
….they jangle something shiny in front of us, and as a nation, we fall for it every time
Beads for the natives,Breeks, beads for the natives.
Are your posts still getting held in moderation Mr Scottish troosers?
It’s jist that I haven’t seen several of your posts appearing in the recent posts feed. Ridiculous situation if that is still the case when there’s all manner of other shite getting posted.
Once you’ve convinced yourself the Ukies should roll over and accept re-colonisation by the Orcs, the step to calling for “justice for Iran” is a small one.
Just where does this mental dislocation start, I wonder? Could it be when the Westminster government, reluctantly acting on a legitimate majority democratic mandate from the voters, “forces through” Brexit?
It certainly leads the afflicted into a weird and wonderful world. A world that simultaneously weeps over Brexit, wails about the EU lusting for war, yearns for Scotland to shake off the shackles of imperial colonisation, cheers on poot in his crusade to force his imperium onto the Ukies, gnash its teeth over the wee, pretendy jenny side, and long for poot to exterminate an entire nation, culture and language.
And what of stone heid and Dan? All the evidence we will ever need to understand that Scotland’s curse isn’t colonialism, London, the English, willed ignorance, etc.
It’s the blind tribalism that ensures no criticism can ever be levelled, however richly deserved, at a member of the same tribe.
I had also wondered what Monsier Pantalon in Scottish thought about the GSA situation.
Robin ain’t happy.
link to robinmcalpine.org
Was thinking it could have been an opportunity to promote some proper traditional trades development with the joinery and stonework.
But I suppose that was a non-starter because it would require practical physical work done by skilled hands, and not jist getting paid the big bucks for sitting on one’s arse typing on a fucking iPad producing unproductive crud.
I’ll be honest and state that I find a fair bit of what passes for the Scottish Art World and those that exist within it, well, a bit arty-farty and pretentious.
“Art” comes in many forms, and plenty folk create some amazing stuff outwith the constraints of what’s deemed art by those gatekeeping the “Art world”.
Anyway, back to a wee bit more stone dressing and lime mortar work now that the high temps have subsided a bit… and creating a work of art house that will stand for another couple of hundred years… Well that’s as long as it doesn’t get flattened by a huge adjacent tree belonging to the estate landowner who doesn’t give a fuck.
The area and tree has got a conservation area constraint on it. I note even though it gets inspected by the tree huggers at the cooncil, I noticed it’s now started creaking due to a cross branch issue which is bad because it allows the bark to open up a wound and potentially weaken the large limb and let infection get in.
So the taxpayer funded cooncil tree guy has one job, to presumably protect the health of the trees, and yet allows through lack of proper assessment to identify issues, and some careful preemptive pruning of a bad form branch, it’s now caused a bigger crossing limb problem which is impacting the tree’s health.
What is the point of these non jobs if the folk don’t actually do what’s supposed to be in their work remit.
On the subject of shite, Dan, it’s interesting that you have nothing to say to a poster who not only bemoans the biggest recent success for the stated democratic will of the people (the politicians being forced, kicking and screaming to implement Brexit). But also manages to gurn about the EU and its “lust for war”.
Talk about being all over the place. Pissed cos we’re out of the EU. Would be peeved if we were still in. Nothing bad to say about the state that kicked off this entire shambles of lawlessness.
And then there’s Auld Stane Heid lapping it up. A “commentator worth reading”? A joke.
The two of you illustrate my take on what fundamentally ails Scotland. Tribalism. The belief that belonging to the tribe forgives and condones any and all follies, stupidities and failures.
Sarah. It is becoming ever more apparent that the collapse of the SNP and the focus against independence was premeditated. Alex Salmond ran the UK close in 2015, closer than we might actually realise and it could not be allowed to happen again.
And so lest Salmond came back he had to be dealt with. And as is now more fully emerging he was dealt with first through rigged criminal prosecution and then latterly with his untimely death that some consider no accident.
Destroying the party and the attendant wider Yes movement was therefore very much the plan and I think that now becomes apparent.
In reality it takes very few people in key positions to undermine a movement. Black mail and or bribery or downright threat usually does the trick. Indeed this became quite apparent back around 2019 when the Sturgeon clique of control reduced member participation in the SNPs National Executive Council and stuffed all of the committee convenerships with jokes and others of the same ilk so as to rig policies and candidates. National Council was also abolished.
So no accident as to how independence has been stymied, and these emails that Sarah Salyers has referred to, and to the criminal complaint reported to have been made to Police Scotland further reinforces another aspect of the dark deeds now seeing the light of day.
Sarah, I can’t find it on Sara’s Twitter. Can you cut and paste?
x.com/SSalyers2/status/2079606783400980946
“We have concluded given other evidence that the party is captured at the highest levels so that the very, very thin appearance of indy support along with predictable and outwork rhetoric masks a much deeper compromise with the British state. Just one example, I was read the content of some emails by Iain Lawson some months before his death, These were passed to the police and then held in confidence pending an inquiry (never completed).
They included a discussion on how gender policy could be used to drive out the independence ‘die hards’ from the SNP. We are talking high level, trusted party members and elected representatives here.
A specially commissioned parliamentary inquiry published in February and to which our response is only now complete and awaiting publication, clearly and expensively provided a comprehensive dismissal of our entire argument and campaign though only mentioning us once in an evidentiary submission. And although it used 23 legal ‘experts’ to establish that it cannot be doubted or challenged, it’s utter rubbish. We are a very clear threat. The threat we represent is the delivery of a right to self determination without Westminster interference- independence. And the SNP leadership is threatened? As the Americans say, go figure.
Imagine what we could achieve if we were working alongside and with the support of a free and truly pro independence party?
4:37 PM · Jul 21, 2026”
More bullshit about tax from the resident fuckbrains.
– the rich don’t pay taxes. They never did. (And the french aristocrats lost their heads because of it.)
There are so many techniques to avoid tax for the wealthy and an industry servicing them, it would shock most folks. People have no idea how advantaged they are.
First up, incorporate yourself and get a decent accountant. Get a bit wide. As you have more money it gets easier. Networks of companies, tax breaks; you may even become tax negative. NB networks of companies is how you get into fraud – e.g. the old vat carousel money spinner. The asians love this one.
The rich don’t pay income tax, they have wealth; income is the change in wealth and it is taxed, while wealth remains untaxed.
– this is why there will be blood on the streets before there is ever a wealth tax in the UK.
In theory, the rich would pay e.g. “capital gains tax” on their stock market gains, but … meh … there are ways to get round that, for example you use debt structuring to avoid a tax bill. Mind also that companies only pay taxes on profits – so just “never make a profit” (there are ways to manufacture paper losses, see your accountant).
The ultimate tax dodge done by the uber rich is to become a charity – you give up ownership, but retain control. Bill Gates did this to avoid the largest capital gains tax bill in history. The rockefellers did this, after their experience with standard oil (- ironically it made them richer and stronger). A lot of the super rich, on paper, “own nothing” (but control a lot). All these philanthropic “foundations”, they are tax dodges. Our own royal family – the queen was said to have massive mineral holdings all around the world, but held by various “bagmen” (of which Tiny Rowland was one; when he tried to buy Harrods and Al Fayed screwed him, no one realised it was the queen being screwed – feud explained.)
Now, you fuckbrains may not know all this, because you are not meant to. Because the rubes aren’t meant to. You need 1M cash money before entry level Barclays Wealth Management will see you. The whole tax system is designed like an inverse-fishing-net – designed to catch all the tiddlers, but let the whales pass through it. This is the main activity of the city, and no one shall ever fuck with it.
Ironically, the income tax was originally a wealth tax, and ordinary people had “wages”, but they pulled a sneaky trick on that one. Then there are the hidden spread around taxes designed to fool you – council tax, water rates, national insurance, fuel duty, alcohol duty, many more. In our other discussions “ring fencing” came up; there is almost no ring fencing anywhere – it alls goes into a general pot, for “flexibility”.
The punters are on PAYE and get the shite taxed out of them; the rich walk free, laughing. What of the middle? As I pointed out, even without an advisor from JP Morgan, the small businessman can still save himself a lot – so who are we really talking about? It is : the middle class who cannot “incorporate” for some reason.
– the only people who fit this bill that I can see are : senior civil servants, i.e grade 6 or better, low 6 figure salaries, getting hit with the highest tax band. I wouldn’t shed a tear for them, for this reason : the civil service pension is the best in the land, the govt pay 28.9% of your salary per year into your pension; it is defined benefit, i.e. gold plated (nor is the govt going out of business, unlike a private company). So, the people paying 40percent tax or more are already being subsidised to 29%, straight into their pension – FUCK THEM – THEY HAVE NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
A study some 20 years ago, in the guardian, when it was still (almost) a newspaper, tried to estimate the amount of dosh stashed in the UK controlled tax havens; their conservative estimate was 3T USD. Taxed on normal rates, that is 600B lost to the taxman. That was 20 years ago, the real number could be 20T by now; consider how all the world’s dirty money is flocking to London, buying football clubs and the like. Nor did the journalists look at other jurisdictions, though to be fair, the UK has most of the worlds tax havens (which operate as one network, outside of any taxman.)
In the UK, due to the complexity of the benefits system, a lot of money is unclaimed, for example, one often overlooked because of the name is : attendance allowance. A lot of auld yins would qualify for that but don’t claim. Also, pension levels in this country are absolute DOGSHIT compared to all other western european nations.
STFU about tax unless you know something about it.
“More bullshit about tax from the resident fuckbrains.
– the rich don’t pay taxes. They never did.”
Well, the forum “Resident Fuckbrain” is your gig and yours alone, Confused – as your recent posts and their ensuing ramifications amply demonstrate. 🙂
Notwithstanding, your use of the term “the rich” absurdly conflates successful, professional people and small business owners earning, say, £100k to £150k a year, with billionaires – because, well, you’re a clueless “fuckbrain”. Believe you me, Chief, the former very much do pay taxes, whereas the latter don’t pay their due.
“STFU about tax unless you know something about it.”
Heh! Time to take your own advice.
In fact, just STFU full stop.
Did you make that up all by yourself CC.
That’s some pile of shite.
““the rich”” i.e. normal developed sovereign countries (GDP per capita, 2025, US$: Statista):
Ireland – $130,650
Switzerland – $115,620
Singapore – $99,370
Iceland – $99,070
Norway – $94,470
Scotland – as City of London colonial asset – $53,750 (ScotGov)
Conclusion: Scotland’s current colonial GDP is approx half what it would be following recovery of sovereignty and unhindered development.
‘Cost of colonialism’ = £150+ billion/year:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
@Alf
What has per capita GDP got to do with being “rich”? Especially if comparing the UK (and by extension Scotland) to single city Asian and European tax havens/bank states and/or oil-soaked, tiny countries?
Actually, the UK’s (and Scotland’s) per capita GDP sits well above that of France, and miles above Spain’s etc.
The usual disingenuous BS, then. Apples and apples comparisons needed.
Must try harder. D- SEE ME
*what has MEAN per capita have to do with “rich”
@Alf – Scotland’s GDP per capita is around the same as neighbouring countries like Finland and Belgium, and above almost every other country in the world.
But if you’re positing that Scotland’s output would double on independence, which industries would drive that? How would that come about giving that (at least in the short term) inputs like capital, skills, machinery and equipment wouldn’t change? Or is this going to be “don’t believe the lying GDP figures, we’re being robbed” species of nonsense.
“Scotland’s output would double”
Near neighbour high-GDP sovereign states with similar or far lesser resources illustrate that a major increase in GDP is achievable. We only need to consider the serious long-term under-development and economic exploitation and stagnation of Scotland after centuries of colonial rule to understand that major economic improvement should be envisaged post liberation. The positive experience of many former colonies also demonstrates rapid economic growth after independence.
Such transformational change following decolonization would take time but key actions include:
– collection of all corp tax and VAT etc;
– taxes on energy exports and exports of resources/products;
– land reform/taxation;
– prevention of ongoing interception of economic rents, e.g. by privatised monopolies/utilities;
– significant capital investment in strategic infrastructure/ utilities and industries;
– lowering energy costs boosting industrial competitiveness.
This can be summed up as “The colonized wish to develop and the colonizer holds him back” (Memmi).
Here is an example of ongoing colonial plunder of a £100 billion/year ‘Scottish’ industry:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
@Alf – firstly, that is a description of (in your own terms) how GDP growth could be delivered, it’s not an explanation of why you think GDP in Scotland is £150bn higher than reflected in official figures.
Secondly, your prospectus is essentially raising taxes and nationalising industries. That isn’t a prospectus for growth, that is exactly the opposite. For modern successful countries, raising taxes is what you do once you’ve achieved very high levels of output (e.g. Norway) and you decide more of the countries wealth should be spent on things like public infrastructure rather than private consumption. A reasonable OBR estimate is that for every £1 in tax raised, there is a GDP hit of £2.8.
As an aside, when I go to Norway (which I do regularly, fantastic country) I can’t help feeling they are partially squandering their wealth building expensive tunnels to comically small settlements. They would be far better in my view investing in AI and tech, and more in their rail network (which isn’t all that good).
@Alf
Re your wish list at 4:08.
Surely the most third-rate economist would understand that the feasibility and profitability of many of these goes hand-in-hand with the currency used by an Independent Scotland?
Surely the most lazily clued up voter must understand by now that EU membership (still the preferred objective of the Scottish government) would limit and in some cases prohibit some of them?
Surely even a primary school logician could see that if England is already ripping “under developed” Scotland off to the tune of £150 billion every year, it is in England’s interest to develop Scotland to the max and rake in £300 or £500 billion every year? It’s ludicrous to assert that “the coloniser” is holding us back whilst also asserting that “the coloniser” is stealing everything we earn.
@Confused – comedy gold from someone who thinks that incorporating a network of companies makes any person or enterprise “tax negative”. If you have a structure that’s recognised by HMRC and legally effective please do post your contact details. I can put you in touch with a dozen people who would pay through the nose for that service and make you a very wealthy troll. Instead of angrily posting drivel on WoS you could buy yourself a yacht and sail around the western isles, or any other such pleasure.
Of course that won’t happen, because you don’t know anything at all, and just repeat things written by equally ill-informed polemicists on various student politics left wing blogs. The idea for example that the only people paying the 42% rate of tax are civil servants:
– you don’t understand how poorly paid civil servants are; and
– 30% of income tax payers in Scotland pay the 42% rate. Do you think 30% of income tax payers in Scotland are civil servants?
You just carry on knowing nothing, achieving nothing and being liked by nobody mate.
This is what I said above in my reply to Factchecker.
“His point is not that more powers have been transferred but those that have been transferred do harm as they are intended to keep Scotland as a low tax, neo-liberal economy, with all the harm and inequality that brings.”
It is not my opinion but that of Jim Cuthbert that the powers that are transferred do harm.
This is part of an article written by Jim Cuthbert that appeared in The National in January 2019.
“All of the above adverse consequences arise because the fiscal settlement is a botched job: an ill thought through mash-up of devolved and reserved powers. Which leaves the very good question of – how did we get into this situation. The important thing to remember is that, from the point of view of the right wingers on the unionist side of the fiscal settlement negotiations, the design of the fiscal settlement has much to commend it. This was brought home to me very forcibly when, at a seminar before the fiscal settlement was concluded, I challenged a very senior Treasury official that Scotland would not have enough powers to make what was proposed actually workable. Not so, was the confident reply: Scotland does have the required powers: what it will need to do is to lower taxes relative to the rest of the UK, making itself a haven for high earners. According to this, mistaken, view, the economy, and Scotland’s tax revenues, would ultimately soar ahead in line with the standard neo-liberal orthodoxy.
In fact, a cynic might also say that the fiscal settlement design has another advantage from the Westminster viewpoint, because it opens up an opportunity for Westminster to game the system. If Westminster decides to increase the higher rate income tax threshold for the rest of the UK at a higher rate than inflation, then the resulting decrease in income tax revenues will be partially offset by the extension of the band over which 12% national insurance contributions are paid. But since this increase in national insurance contributions also applies to Scotland, and since these revenues go to Westminster, what Westmister has actually been able to do is to pre-empt part of Scotland’s taxable base: in other words Westminster has benefitted at the expense of potential revenues for the Scottish Government. Of course, surely such considerations would have played no part in Westminster’s decision in its 2018 Budget to increase the rest of UK higher rate threshold from £46,350 to £50,000, well above what would have been required for an increase in line with inflation.
So, as far as a certain type of neo-liberal unionist goes, what’s not to like about the fiscal settlement. If the Scottish Government wants to succeed in the inevitable economic race with the rest of the UK – then it should embrace neo-liberal, low tax policies. The fact that the resulting small-state, cut-throat society is quite contrary to the preferences of the majority of Scots is not merely an irrelevance – it is a positive advantage from the unionist viewpoint. And if the Scots don’t take their neo-liberal medicine, and if they eventually slip into a cycle of relative economic decline vis-a-vis the rest of the UK – then this just shows that they were not capable of exercising the powers that they were supposedly given.”
Quick Rev post another article as this thread has gone the way all long threads go with the children all fighting and saying nasty things about each other.
On a cheerier note.
Listening to Smooth Radio the hourly newsreader had me smiling, for all the world her rendition of Andy Burnham sounded like Aunty Burnham!
A new moniker is born. 🙂
Few things worse in life than “Socialists” who at the slightest sniff of power dig in and engorge themselves at the golden trough. Paid by the hard labour of others, of course.
Nineteen Eighty Four, written as a warning yet has seemingly become an instruction manual for modern Western politicians.
Some good news today.
“…a spokesman for the Scottish government said: “Our economy is one of the best performing parts of the UK, with Scotland the top UK destination for foreign direct investment outside London for the past eleven years.’
Alf, raising taxes in an independent Scotland.A study by Jim Cuthbert which I have edited to reduce its length
“Fiscal policy under independence
Before considering more broadly the opportunities and challenges of fiscal policy under independence, it is worth stepping back, and looking at the wider characteristics of those aspects of the tax system in Scotland which are not devolved to Scotland but which an independent Scotland would, in the first instance, inherit.
Tax on land
The UK tax system on land is notable for having no way of taxing the unearned increment in land values as it accrues. The situation is worsened by the existence of several loopholes which mean that large estates are not effectively taxed on the death of owners. All this has had a particularly bad effect in Scotland, and has led to Scotland having one of the most unequal distributions of land ownership among advanced economies: and, arguably, one of the least efficiently used stocks of land.”
[Mike Hudson and others did a study on how taxing land values might be done in the UK. Such an idea could be transferred to Scotland. If my memory is right, the study found that taxing land value at 5.8% could mean that in the long run (80 years) there would be no need for income tax.]
“Corporate taxation
The UK has been particularly lax in seeking to apply corporation tax effectively to the operation of large corporations. This is true as regards achieving an equitable tax take from large multinationals which exploit the UK market but then, by means of transfer pricing, they pay little tax. For example, Google paid UK corporate tax of only £65m in 2018, despite total UK revenues for that year being estimated at £9.4bn (Christophers 2020:223). And it is also true in the converse direction, of industries where production is based here, but earn substantial profit by selling their product abroad, and still manage to pay relatively little UK tax. The classic example is Scotch whisky, which generates global sales worth an estimated £30bn from production in Scotland. However, Kay (2018) estimates that only about 2% of this total actually comes back to the Scottish economy, after allowing for tax by foreign governments and profits of the producers of whisky, who are predominantly non-Scottish owned.
Concealed levies
The concealed levy on utility customers implicit in utility pricing models is akin to a tax, other than that it goes straight into the pockets of the privatised utility owners. This is a very strange, peculiarly British, pathology. The pricing models operated by the utility regulators to compensate the owners for the capital cost of utility networks have long been flawed, and have resulted in grotesque overcharging (see, for example, Cuthbert 2012). If the utilities had been owned, as they used to be, by the state, this would have been a straightforward, if concealed, tax: and at least the public sector would have benefited. But the British state, in its wisdom, sees fit to operate this system for the benefit, not of the state, but of the owners of entities like Thames which takes the UK economy as its exemplar….
… “But this analysis indicates some of the key steps an independent Scotland would have to take, in redesigning the tax system. Policy would have to be reformed so that an equitable share of the current rewards to rentiers sticks to the Scottish people, and to Scottish public finances. This is not just a question of tax: changes to industrial policy would have to be undertaken in lockstep, particularly as regards the creative use of licensing. But here is a personal shopping list.
i) Land: introduce a land value tax, to give an incentive to bring land into productive use. This could be tailored to size of holding, to encourage the break-up of vast estates. And to avoid problems with trusts, and multiple holdings, taxation of land could be on penal terms for other than land owned by real person residents.
ii) Hydrocarbon reserves: a tax system more in line with international norms: conjoined with an approach to licensing that made it a condition that ancillary work should be sourced in Scotland.
iii) Renewables: a realistic approach to harvesting a share of windfall profits stemming from renewables, together with similar licensing conditions as for hydrocarbons to ensure that ancillary work is sourced in Scotland.
iv) Corporate tax: for industries like whisky, where production necessarily takes place in Scotland, but the product is sold internationally, there should be a licensing scheme, where licences would only be issued if a fair share of profits were taxed in Scotland. For companies like Google, which are international, but sell into Scotland, another form of licence would give the right to participate in the Scottish market, on condition that a fair share of the resulting turnover results in profits which are taxed here.
v) Utilities: There is a strong case for widespread re-nationalisation. But in any event, a new regulatory regime would be required for all areas other than water (which is the only utility not currently regulated at a UK level.) Regulators should be given a much tougher remit, to avoid regulatory capture. And, the nonsenses which were perpetrated around previous pricing models for capital investment should be swept away.
Thanks for this Sam.
I’ve met Mr and Mrs Cuthbert who are a tremendous asset to Scotland with their expert contributions on how an independent Scotland would relatively easily and rapidly raise national income and GDP well beyond the current colonial level.
Not a single measure described above would do anything to increase GDP on an overall or per capita basis. It follows the normal pattern of ideological left wing economist presenting their own political viewpoints and prejudices as if they were the conclusions of the study of their field, as follows;
a) present a highly misleading or outright false picture of how much tax is being paid by a particular sector or company, often by using a year where a company wrote down the value of assets using capital allowances, or by comparing turnover to corporation tax paid to produce a low figure.
b) in consequence, propose a very large increase in tax on that business or sector, allegedly to bring the tax in line with what society would consider acceptable, but in reality often such taxes would have a marginal rate of over 100% on business profits when considered in totality.
Scotland already has a fairly shocking public expenditure/GDP ratio of 52%. What you are saying here is that this figure (nearly the highest in the world) needs to be pushed up even further because there are still people making money in the private sector who could be taxed more. What do you think the impact on business investment in Scotland will be from;
1, making it much more expensive to own and much much more expensive to develop land;
2, making energy production and distribution much more expensive;
3, raising the taxes on business profits, at least the profits that can still be made after all those other taxes; and
4, enforcing a large and likely arbitrary sum against technology companies who’s tech gets used in Scotland.
When I speak to major investors, which i do regularly, those kinds of things are exactly the reason why Scotland is currently missing out on investment in favour of lower tax, more stable and higher growth countries. Or are we going to pretend that all these new taxes will have no impact on consumer prices or investment because the CEO’s affected will agree to go onto minimum wage and shareholders will collectively agree to forgo any dividends in perpetuity.
You could probably knock a good 5-10% of GDP over a 10 year period with those measures.
Alf, it did occur to me that you might have met Margaret and Jim Cuthbert. If they were willing they might be helpful to Salvo with recorded discussions and interviews?
I see Aidan below is trying to misrepresent what was written by Jim Cuthbert. I must say I greatly prefer the expertise of someone who has worked in the Scottish Office, has Treasury contacts and enormous knowledge of how the UK and Scottish governments mismanage Scottish lives.
Aidan takes no account of the attainment gap, widespread poverty, increased homelessness with England having the highest rates in the developed world.
Public health research in Scotland links Scotland’s drug deaths and those in NE England to the deindustrialisation of Thatcher and the policies of successive UK governments.
Public health research in Scotland is greatly alarmed at the stalling of increases in life expectancy across the UK and for the most deprived reductions in life expectancy and shorter periods of life free from disability. Frontier Economics reckons the costs of health inequalities to England’s NHS to be in the region of £60 billion each year.
McCartney and Walsh, Scottish public health researchers have looked at the effects of austerity on the UK. 100 years of steady increases in life expectancy were stalled and for some reversed.
link to chex.org.uk
Food and fuel poverty massively increased.Half a trillion £s were cut from public services. There were 300,000 extra deaths up to 2019 as a result of austerity and more to follow from the pandemic and beyond.
GDP does not measure wellbeing. It does not take account of unpaid caring or volunteering
sam is never going to allow that the enormous increases in immigrant populations this century could have any effects on the statistics pertaining to health, educational achievement, poverty, life expectancy, etc.
Yet even a school child could work out that importing millions of third world poor people will drive GDP per capita down and poverty up.
Importing millions of people who won’t ensure their kids are fluent in English will adversely affect educational outcomes for all.
Importing millions of people without the UK levels of immunity to disease from early-years vaccination will cause deterioration in averages for health and life expectancy.
It’s not possible to believe that sam is ignorant of all this. Naw. There’s a political axe to grind, which is why the lying statistics must be deployed.
And there it is. “Thatcher”.
Nothing to see here, folks. Just another Student Grant adolescent rant.
“the reason why Scotland is currently missing out on investment”
…is because much if not most of the wealth of the nation is extracted from it, it is not re-invested in it.
In terms of public expenditure, Scotland has limited capital investment as we can see in crumbling and inadequate/outdated infrastructure.
The limited Holyrood ‘colonial’ budget is barely sufficient to cover wages for public sector employees, leaving totally insufficient resources for capital investment.
A far higher GDP and a sovereign government are essential if Scotland is to provide sufficient resources for public capital investment.
Lets remember that “the aim of colonialism is to widen inequality” (Memmi) and that this is an inevitable outcome so long as economic plunder is permitted to continue.
Which is why Scots need to understand that continued colonial rule can never fix inequality or inadequate infrastructure and therefore can never improve and develop Scotland beyond what we have now, i.e. the under-development of a people and nation caused by colonialism.
“much if not most of the wealth of the nation is extracted from it”
“can never improve and develop Scotland beyond what we have now”
Wheesht, Alf! Don’t tell the coloniser that by following the inspirational insights of Memmi, and investing more in Scotland’s development, they could find even more wealth to extract.
Odd, isn’t it, that the rapacious, exploitative, aggressive, oppressive coloniser should be so ignorant of basic economics.
It’s like something in Memmi’s “logic” doesn’t add up!
Ah well. What did some third-world racist, who probably couldn’t even find Scotland on a map, ever know about the UK’s constitutional settlement, eh?
“Don’t tell the coloniser that by following the inspirational insights of Memmi…”
You assert that if a region’s resources are valuable, the dominant power will automatically invest in its development to maximise extraction.
However, that isn’t how colonial or dependency relationships function.
The aim is not to optimise the colony’s productivity; it’s to maintain control over the flow of resources.
Under-development is part of that structure, not an accident.
Memmi’s point — and the point Alf is making — is that extraction and under-development are linked.
The coloniser doesn’t need the colony to reach its full potential; it needs it to remain manageable, predictable, and structurally dependent.
So the issue isn’t whether Scotland could theoretically produce more wealth… it’s whether the current constitutional arrangement incentives reinvestment or extraction.
Those are different dynamics.
We need to separate economic logic from political structure to understand Scotland’s situation.
Captain Caveman @3:42 pm
Once again you’ve raised several points, so I’ll address them in the same way as before.
First, nothing I said implied that anyone’s opinion is invalid or unwelcome.
The point was simply that asking someone to clarify the framework behind their argument is normal in analytical discussion.
It’s not a demand for rank… it’s a request for context.
Second, regarding citation: in academic and specialist settings, self-citation is common when someone is referring back to their own previously published analysis.
It isn’t presented as independent corroboration; it’s presented as part of the author’s established body of work.
That’s why context matters.
The issue isn’t whether self-citation is allowed… it’s how it’s framed.
Third, on the analogy point: no one suggested that laypeople shouldn’t comment.
The distinction was simply that consumer analogies don’t map cleanly onto sociopolitical structures.
That’s a domain issue, not a question of who is “allowed” to speak.
Fourth, on colonialism: the term covers a range of dynamics, and different scholars use different frameworks depending on the context.
External empire, internal domination, cultural assimilation, administrative control – these are all distinct but related concepts.
Saying that Scotland participated in external empire doesn’t automatically resolve questions about internal dynamics.
Those are separate analytical categories.
Finally, I agree that scale and proportion matter.
But recognising structural patterns doesn’t equate different historical experiences; it simply acknowledges that multiple forms of power can operate at once, each with its own characteristics.
My only aim here is to keep the discussion grounded in definitions and structure rather than assumptions about intent.
So. The WALLOPERS have spoken.
Take note, Scotch folk; you’ve never had it so good.
Scotchland is the richest country on earth within the ‘union’.
No food banks here, no siree.
Crumbling infrastructure and joke public services? No no no.
We’re just like Norway, doncha know?
England gets the oil revenues and we get the nuclear bombs (and soon, the nuclear waste, too).
Kerching – what a deal!
Dan; on the “money” as always,
what the Unionist Wallopers don’t want the Scotch to see:
JOHN JAPPY
As a civil servant in London in the 1960s, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.
However, when in 1968 I was able to closely examine the UK’s “books” for myself in an official capacity, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite: that Scotland contributed far more to the UK economy than its other partners. And this, of course, was all before the oil boom.
I realised that the Treasury would wish to keep this a secret, as it might feed the then-fledgling nationalistic tendencies north of the border. I decided to keep an eye on the situation to see how long it would take for the true facts to emerge, which I felt would only be a short time. However, the machinery of Westminster, aided and abetted by the media, did an excellent job of keeping the myth about “subsidised” Scotland alive.
In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour appeared.
This came unexpectedly on 13 January 1997 when, in reply to a series of questions put by Alex Salmond (then an MP) to the Tory government of the day, Treasury minister William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the Exchequer than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979, or around £5,400 for every Scot – a statistic which received barely any media coverage.
A year later, with a Labour government now in power, came a further bombshell. Following further promptings by the SNP, on 21 August 1998 Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland’s GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the OECD wealth league. A second table showed that the UK was in 16th place.
Looking closely at the figures a few years later and taking the year 2006 as a benchmark, I found that Scotland had an annual relative surplus of £2.8 billion, which works out at £560 a year for every man, woman and child. In contrast the UK had a deficit of £34.8 billion. The prophecies of the 1975 McCrone Report, which successive Labour and Tory governments had desperately suppressed for three decades, had been borne out.
Good post James.
Aye, Auld Lochnagar.
If Wally W. Walrus can just get his flailing flippers around double quotes, the academically accepted way of indicating a lazy cut-and-paste job, we could have a new aspirational professor in our ranks.
You got any pics of him in a kilt? Just in case he’s needed for a photo op at the UN Decolonisation grift.
I mean, strutting about again in tartan and kilts, but now with a winking walrus in tow! Imagine the publicity. Solid gold.
Worth repeating the fact that even Westminster has acknowledged that the GDP Per Capita of an independent Scotland would be far greater than if Scotland remains a colony of England:
“on 21 August 1998 Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland’s GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the OECD wealth league. A second table showed that the UK was in 16th place.”
Worth repeating the fact that Scotland doesn’t have the highest electricity prices in the UK, either for unit rate or for standing charge, so bloody obviously Scotland can’t have the highest electricity prices in the world.
So your regular, repeated claim that Scotland has the highest electricity prices in the world is easily refuted. Meaning that any other numbers or statistics you quote are automatically suspect.
Sorry, Alf, but that’s just the way it is. I’ve told you before how badly you damage your own case by lazily cutting and pasting the same tired old shite over and over. But I guess you can’t be arsed to keep on top of things.
Just don’t expect that lack of focus and drive to go unnoticed. Don’t expect it to inspire belief in any Scot with a couple of brain cells either.
Well done James, good lad.
There is no UK other than the parliament for England and Wales making an agreement with the parliament of Ireland in 1801/2 after it had dissolved the the treaty of union with Scotland in 1800.
That followed on chronologically from the parliament of England and Wales along with the Monarch of England dissolving the parliament of Scotland from the 1707 treaty of union in 1707.
As the Old parliament of England and Wales was transferred… into its rebranded name the parliament of Great Britain without elections.
The Great Britain parliament has remained the parliament for England and Wales plus Ireland since 1800.
And still acts as the parliament for England and Wales today. officially without Scotland or its
Parliament.
The devolved parliament sent up to Scotland is under the parliament for England / Wales and Ireland united kingdoms parliaments legislation and Statues.
Thank you – we know this now, so there won’t be a need to make any further posts on this subject
Oh yes there will!
If only.
Anas Sarwar is already a official parliamentary member of the England – Wales and Irelands Great Britains UK parliament with no Scotland or Scottish parliament envolvment.
The parliament for England / Wales / Ireland did not renew or remake a new treaty with Scotland after the united kingdom of Scotland and England and Wales parliament was dissolved in 1800.
The Crown laws of England / Wales / irelands UK parliament do apply to England wales and Ireland.
However the SNP and other political parties sitting in The Westminster parliament branch office sent to Scotland do not apply to Scotlands people,
Although if Union believers insist somehow that there is a union with Scotland registered in the UN as a Sovereign voluntary independent Country in a 1707 treaty with England and Wales, then the unalterable laws of that treaty must be aderred too. And would place a severely damping blockade to Globalists and Unionists alike for article XV111 gives the people in Scotland private rights that go beyond the limits of any governments vision or companies when it applies to Scottish people in Scotland and I dare say that many a court case could be challenged under that treaty of Union,
For it is ” For the evident Utility of the subjects of within Scotland ” , [of Subjects registered in the UN of a voluntary nation ] NOT Governments.
So Holyrood, the devolved parliament and the Crown laws, it puts forward are sailing into stormy waters when they impose laws on the subjects within Scotland.
if interfering with our private rights, which includes data collecting and ID cards,
Sharing our information with other companies and outlets that maybe of interest.
Entering our homes, without our permission, wether TV licence, or policing by consent.
Our private rights regards education for our children as parents.
All these are private rights of people and subjects within Scotland, which also means that the treaty of union as it was set out in 1707 retains the borders of the voluntary Country of Scotland as it was known in 1707.
So to believe in the 1707 treaty of union, the unionists and globalists have to believe in article XV111 which is UNALTRABLE by the Parliament of Great Britain in all it guises and deguises.
To Quote a famous saying.
“To believe or not believe’ that is the question “
“even Westminster has acknowledged that the GDP Per Capita of an independent Scotland would be far greater”
Even that claim can be easily shown to be false.
It’s based on the assumption that Scotland’s GDP after Indy would remain the same, when so many of the economic and political factors affecting that GDP had just changed. Obviously it wouldn’t. What we’re always arguing about is whether it would go up, or down.
And here we have a recent historical example to guide us. Exactly the same kind of claim was made about UK GDP before Brexit – that it would remain unchanged and therefore the large sum of money written on the side of the bus would be Westminster’s to divvy up.
And, of course, UK GDP did not remain the same after Brexit. It fell. The large sum of money written on the side of the bus was a lie.
Go figure.
And go figure why so many of the claims for the benefits of Indy fall apart at the level of scrutiny a smart, immigrant secondary school pupil could make.
Aiden,
If you genuinely knew this, you would realise that the Scottish people within Scotland are indeed Sovereign and independent as a people and nation from England, Wales and Ireland, entitled to private rights.
Either way Westminster parliament cannot dictate to Scotlands sovereign people that are in a voluntary union registered in the UN by the parliament for England Wales and Ireland that they need to apply for permission from that said parliament or that the Scottish people within Scotland with private rights and the the right of self determination will be needing certain requirements or percentages to achieve this,
And a devolved government is not the pigeon messinger.
For the private rights of Scots within Scotland are that vehicle, and also independent since 1800, which of course you already knew.
Meantime, in other news, swathes of Europe and even some bits of Scotland are on fire.
And the two separate fighting fronts of WW3 so far continue to merge and will probably become one this year.
Which may be good or bad. It’s been a long road educating President Trump who his real friends and his real enemies are, but some promising steps have been taken as the shortcomings of the USA’s powerful but outdated military have become impossible for even him to ignore.
Not to mention the gutted US industrial base which is unable to replenish the exhausted weaponry stocks that were supposed to be holding the Covid Spreaders in check.
What’s that Sooty? What does this mean for Indy?
Indy’s dead. Of course. For starters, it can’t and won’t happen before the war ends, and that’s years away.
Whether we win, lose, or succumb to mutual annihilation.
But hey, there are worse fates than to be marooned on a forgotten, useless backwater on the periphery of Europe, with little of value to attract the missiles and drones. And plenty of drizzle to keep the wildfires down.
We can all enjoy the luxury of playing out the baldies arguing over a comb sketch ad nauseam.
And who cares if the coming winter will see off thousands of our oldies, as the war and climate destruction drives fuel, heating and food prices into the stratosphere?
Arguing about 1707 will keep us warm.
Your points appear to rest on assumptions that don’t quite align with the structure of the discussion.
Large-scale geopolitical events — whether climate-related, military, or economic — certainly shape the environment in which political decisions are made. But they don’t dissolve the underlying constitutional questions.
They change timelines, not definitions.
Independence movements don’t hinge on global stability; they hinge on internal legitimacy, legal frameworks, and sustained democratic demand.
Those factors don’t disappear because external conditions worsen.
They continue to operate, even if the pace or sequence of events changes.
Similarly, describing Scotland as a “forgotten backwater” or suggesting that its circumstances render political agency irrelevant is a rhetorical move, not an analytical one.
Scale doesn’t determine sovereignty.
Small states function, and make decisions, in every geopolitical climate… including difficult ones.
As for the wider crises you mention, they’re serious, but they don’t automatically negate domestic political processes.
States adapt, reassess, and reprioritise; they don’t suspend their constitutional identity.
So while external pressures might influence timing or strategy, they don’t resolve the core question.
That remains what it has always been: how a nation chooses to govern itself, and on what terms.
It’s important to separate global volatility from constitutional definitions and objectives.
They interact, but they aren’t interchangeable.
“they don’t dissolve the underlying constitutional questions”
They do have an affect on democratic voter’s decisions.
“they hinge on internal legitimacy, legal frameworks, and sustained democratic demand.
Those factors don’t disappear because external conditions worsen”
I believe that your sustained democratic demand is influenced by global changes. Positively when things go well. Negatively at the moment.
Take the figures supposedly determining Scotland’s Independent destiny. All hopelessly out of date. All requiring revision after Brexit, Covid, the war in the east, and now the war in the Middle East.
All in a state of flux every time Trump posts a deranged tweet or the towel heads blow up a ship in the Red Sea.
Then there’s the EU. Rudderless, impotent, losing ground to China, the USA and India with every passing year. Yet manifestly and constitutionally unable to face the new global reality. But still Scotland’s tired “go to” answer for those pushing the “too wee, too poor” narrative.
I’m not saying Indy supporters can’t come up with new policies, new projections and new economic ideas to allow an Independent Scotland to successfully chart a different course to the one expected 12 years ago.
For example, a pledge to get Scotland’s defence spending to match European commitments levels. A pledge to work cooperatively with England on the defense of shared critical infrastructure – an absolute no-brainer when it’s that infrastructure that supposedly is going to generate the bulk of our national income post-Indy.
Re-industrialisation. Manufacturing. No resource left idle to get energy costs down – including oil, gas, coal and fracking. We’re the least densely populated place in Europe, FFS. It hardly ever stops raining. What matter if there’s some subsidence and ground water pollution? Compensate the affected cants and move on.
We could look at our nearest neighbour – Norway. Supposedly an exemplar of what Scotland should be. A NATO stalwart. A big supporter of Ukr against the Orcs. A country sharing a border with the Orcs. A country that if defeated and occupied would leave the Orcs just 200 miles away.
What I am saying is that I see precious little sign that anybody is even prepared to make a start on revising the case for Indy, even though we now live in a revised world.
Does that mean that apolitical, uncommitted Scots are less likely to take an un-evidenced leap in the dark for Indy?
I believe so.
“…even though we now live in a revised world.”
Your comment seems to rest on the assumption that constitutional questions rise and fall with global volatility… that when the world becomes unstable domestic democratic demand becomes less meaningful or less durable.
But constitutional change doesn’t hinge on external turbulence.
It hinges on internal legitimacy, institutional capacity, and sustained democratic will.
Those factors can be influenced by global conditions, but they aren’t replaced by them.
Economic projections, defence arrangements, and international partnerships will always evolve.
They have to.
Every country revises its models as circumstances shift.
That’s normal governance, not a barrier to constitutional decision-making.
So the issue isn’t whether the world is stable.
The world rarely is.
The issue is whether a nation has a clear sense of its own direction, and whether its institutions are capable of supporting that direction over time.
Global flux doesn’t dissolve constitutional questions, but it does change the context in which they’re answered.
Aye, it currently smells somewhat reeky up here in the not-yet-on-fire Buchan. What the hell is going on here?
Is it autoignition? Maybe mouthbreathers with ciggies and/or disposable barbeques?
Then again, maybe it’s just plain old arson?
Burnham setting the heather alight?
His very name suggests guilt.
I would have said yes to this genius spot, but no, unless the Cairngorms are full of ham.
I think we can all agree there’s a need to dampen things down.
Send for Rayner.
Minceheid: it’s fire-raising in Scotland. No such crime as arson up here. Not trying to be smart or putting you down, but Anglicisms take hold and subvert the language and the law. And “I was sat…” biles mi bleed. “I was sitting…” It’ll be bloody mayors next!
Correction noted and nae offence taken 🙂
Scottish Prism is on today.
I Said in the comments:-
I’m sick and tired of being fed the Indy lie only to realize I’ve been conned again. JS wanted more powers before even met PM. I’m sick of people talking about unity with the SNP its time to move on.
?ATLS is either a party for working with the SNP who have proven that under their policy Independence can never be delivered, or their a party to replace the SNP under UDI.
link to archive.ph
Im a firestarter, a twisted firestarter …
Another triumph of wimminhood and intellect
– she decides to make Glasgow a sanctuary city
– then they all flood in, even from other parts of the UK they were originally settled
– is in the paper whining about the housing budget being blown
– when people blame it on her policy she then backtracks and claims : thats nothing to do with that … la la la … oh look a squirrel … dont be racist … wir aw jock tamsons bairns
now she is whining about people protesting about having all these semi criminal (and sometimes wholly criminal) ingrates dumped upon them, because its not where she lives
now gets to virtue signal like she is fighting fascism
– this is what you get when you base your decision making on dogma, or “the feelz” and don’t bother to think it through
She caused all this.
– but we all get to pay for it, one way or another.
In other news the clash of civilisations – a van of peace mowed down the berlin pride parade … when this happened it was unclear who had done it or why – you could tell they were holding back as they wanted, so much, for it to be a “white” guy so they could shout “the far right”, but again it turns out to be an islamist who don’t like open festivals celebrating sodomy, paedophilia and all manner of perversion; since there was no roof to throw them off, he went for a drive instead. I expect this story to fade (unlike if it was a white guy), and for him, inevitably, to be found to be “mentally ill” (since what normal person could object to all these pervs).
the execrable “national” (what a fucking misnomer that is) is on the case with a total throbbing boner, wheeling out the “big guns” – Hassan – to bloviate moralistically …
link to archive.ph
– but the biggest joke is : he lives in kirkcudbright, which is about 99.7% “white”. Hey – spewing pish about antiracism makes good coin, but I don’t want to live next to them myself …
Glasgow City Council has been accepting asylum applicants from the UK Home Office since 1999, well before the SNP took over the council. However, under the Sturgeon regime and the SNP GCC reign, there was nothing but refugees welcome.
The problem is that GCC got money from the Home office for housing the applications but not a money after the asylum seekers applications were granted.
It has resulted in these successful applicants being dumped in the poorer areas of Glasgow. Also Holyrood abolished the local connection criteria for homeless applications so I suspect some of these asylum applicants have been moved to different local authorities throughout Scotland so they can gain access to social housing.
I have nothing to prove that though but considering the area where I live has a lot of social housing and it has turned into the United Nations over the past couple of years, they must be getting temporary housing during their homeless period until they get more permanent housing arrangements.
The King of the North in the South is going to sort it.
The Ginger Growler has returned from exile to get the needed social housing built.
Give it a month or so to allow the hope in your postcode to manifest itself.
Labour is ideologically tied to immigration whether they like it or not.
We are in a time where the UK economy is globalised and at the mercy of international stock markets. There is no way that a Labour economic policy of full employment can be achieved.
Besides that, we have a welfare state that has all about eliminated absolute poverty and what we have now is relative poverty. As well as that, we have a society now where equality has been achieved among ethnic and other minorities.
There are very little things to hold Labour or the traditional left together and to differentiate it from the centre. This is where immigration comes in.
Immigration produces economic and social inequality which Labour ideologically thrives on. It also gives them a counterbalance of a reactionary right, which they term far-right, and a way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the political spectrum where they allow themselves to be the champion of the underdog.
Suffice to say, that means there will be even more immigration, regardless of street protests.
– I see the new anglo demagogue, Rupert Lowe, has been “doin’ a bit” …
REMIGRATION is where it’s at – all the cool kids are doing it
– even the p4ks booted 1.5M afghans out, presumably because “they’ve got funny ways, smelly food, are taking our jobs and molesting our women … ”
the logistics are reasonable; you deport 120 or so per flight, and do about 20 flights per day. It is about 1 million per year. You bung their home countries a grand a skull on average and add another grand for costs involved. That costs about 2B GBP per year to rid yourself of 1 million cunts who shouldn’t be here. And if you do it for 10 years – imagine how popular this program could be, you could get the population under control. Here is the punchline – the welfare benefits bill for our vibrant invaders is about 12B per year, so you save yourself 10B – no more of black holes, eh? You also lose a lot of crime and that whole grey economy, snide ciggies, drugs, street crime, and scamming.
– on the flipside, just lose chain migration, any migration at all unless they qualify for a super visa (i.e. world class talent), then you make it illegal to rent a room, employ, sell food or water to, anyone here illegally, and you fine, viciously, anyone you catch doing it. I would expect all the “vape shops” (money laundering) businesses would be shutting down quickly. Personally I would ban halal food (and kosher, just to be even handed) and make “genital mutilations” illegal – no circumcision, no FGM, no tranny surgery.
If you want to solve a problem … just deal with the -cunts- causing the problem. Simple. Not easy. But you need the will to do it, and not to care or be swayed by the wailing middle class (their turn will come, soon enough – the tax evasions, the non jobs, all that will go in time).
In Scotland, a slightly different approach – the ANGLO COL0NISTS WILL BE TAXED TO DEATH; massive council taxes, a property purchase tax of 100%, whatever you want to make up. THEN THEY WILL GO HOME. The trouble is you can get a small highland estate for a 2 bedroom flat in mayfair; if you inverted this (a mayfair flat for a cooncil hoose), they would stay where they are; they are carpetbaggers looking for a steal, who care nothing for Scotland, its people or culture; they are all little englander anglo supremacist arseholes, and they need to be made as unwelcome as possible. They should be frightened to open their mouths lest they identify themselves with their tortured vowels. They need to be rousted from their dens – St Andrews and Edinburgh Unis, Skye, wherever they have made a nest.
A bit OTT, Confused, but there’s some diamonds there amidst the dross.
One of the things you haven’t thought through. Eject enough migrant grifters from London and the property and rent prices will crash. Meaning that nae cant will any longer be selling a one-bedroom Bow Bells shithole and setting up as Laird of McHaggis on the profits. So a win-win, even without the Anglo hatred.
See you at the next Reform rally! Practice RP in a mirror for an hour or two to make sure you fit right in.
The mood came upon me to write a speech.
A speech that might help folk understand Scotland’s predicament.
A speech designed to inform, and to rouse a people from their pathetic apathy.
Here it is:
And yes, I will maist likely run for the ‘President of Scotland’ office once we have extracted our collective indigenous finger oot fae oor nation’s arsehole and get to demanding our independence, our liberty, our sovereignty, and the return of our ancient land back aff thaim ‘miners’ fae doun sooth.
“colonial systems are built for the short term”
You forget we’re not all thousand year old, space traveling Picts, Northy.
319 years is the very definition of long term to just about every Scot.
Let me know if you need a speech writer to stop you clarting your face with self inflicted egg.
The length of time a constitutional arrangement has existed doesn’t determine whether it operates on long-term or short-term incentives.
A system can endure for centuries while still functioning according to short-term extraction logic.
Longevity doesn’t change the underlying structure; it only shows that the incentives have remained stable enough for the arrangement to persist.
So the point isn’t how many years the relationship has lasted… it’s how the relationship behaves — whether it prioritises development or predictability, autonomy or dependency, investment or control.
Those dynamics are what define the system, not the calendar.
Meantime, back to the news that Stu posted, Anas Sarwar, Ruthie, the SNP, and Labour switch believes and shared branch offices according to how high they wish to climb and how high the prestige and wages they aim for.
Regards moving jobs within the same government today is no different from those chasing power and the accumulation of gold in their pockets as it was in the lead up to a possible treaty in 1706/ 1707,
The only reference to loyalty could be suggested to ones pocket, as all the political parties related to the Westminster parliament and even in Scotland are well aware there is no treaty of union between Scotland and Englands parliaments as one was dissolved over three centuries ago, and the one down south simply transferred its business and continued to the Great Britain parliament for England, Wales,
In Scotland the SNP still pretend to be ignorant of the dissolution of the 1707 Scottish parliament while the union and globalists wish to remain ignorant, wilfully.
That labour and the SNP once wished to create a sovereign Scottish parliament is not surprising under the GB government,
For it would remove it from the “evident utility of the people within Scotland to hold anybody to account and make it the same as Westminsters sovereignty of parliament,
Both under the same crown laws of England .
Scotland should be more aware of where ( the devolved government office is taking Scotland ) under the pretend leadership and laws that the SNP introduce and what the other political parties in Scotland allow to pass while being given consent by the monarch of England.
Too many masters, to many parliaments for Scotland to answer too, too many double laws, to many laws on double taxation for Scotland.
Scotland requires its own 1707 parliament to be re- instated by Scotland to be in and or remain in a political union with Englands parliament.
So that’s were the saying ‘cut your cloth according to your pocket comes from. The Jocks had big deep pockets and very little cloth.
Hello Stu,
Want to know what happened to John Smith? Have a look here
link to drive.proton.me
Berlin pride. The gays are learning the hard way. Rubble land.
Two of JFKs most memorable speech quotes;
“Ask not what your country can do for you..”
And
“Ich bin ein Berliner”
The latter had the native Berliners laughing as a Berliner is the local variety of Frankfurter bratwurst (sausage)..
I used to have a T-shirt that said in German ” I’m a jelly doughnut”.
MB
Correction accepted.
They are going to blame Elon Musk. They won’t admit that progressive leftist ideology has failed.
Who’s for a game of Lets Play Government.
I’ve came to the conclusion that if you are a gay Scot then voting for the Green party is Turkeys voting for Christmas. Inviting the executioner to the table.
Being a Trans in a Muslim country is a waste of time and money. Once you are a woman they order you to cover up and shut up.
It goes further than that, Mark.
Once you are a woman they send in the crone with the rusty razor blade to make sure you will have no incentive to ever touch yourself again.
Haud oan though. Maybe I haven’t thought this one through.
This is a public platform. We don’t want to know what you have done to your genitals.
During the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’ the streets had no names.
In today’s Middle east ‘Troubles’ the names have no streets.
I bet the tunnels all have names.
Do you think they got their tunnel ideas from the Morlocks?
MB
You clearly are unfamiliar with the concept of asymmetric warfare.
Perhaps you’ve been reading Hateys pieces too much and are actually taking them seriously, because such is the world we now live in, like it or not..
It’s not a new phenomenon, far from it; I refer you to Churchills instruction to use clandestine forces to “set Europe ablaze”..
That most certainly did not involve dropping food rations to starving Dutch or paying the least regard whatsoever for the extermination camp victims until years later..
Why do you think Attlee was voted in at the end?
Good question, Auld Lochnagar.
Seeing as how we’re focusing on the irrelevant, why do you think Churchill was returned to power in 1951?
Churchill was returned to power in order to usher in the second Elizabethan Age.
From 1952 onwards all Parliamentarians, judges and constables swore an oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth (her heirs and successors in some cases).
Thing is, from 1952 until March 2002 there were TWO persons with the name Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Both were exercising royal prerogative powers.
This fact is at the core of the material I offered above. For convenience, again this is the link
link to drive.proton.me
“Churchill was returned to power in order to usher in the second Elizabethan Age”
So the majority of the British voters who returned Churchill to power in October 1951 must have known that King George 6 was going to die in February 1952.
Michty! And not one of them even owned as much as an old Nokia brick phone to keep them informed.
Big respect.
“there were TWO persons with the name Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Both were exercising royal prerogative powers”
I didn’t know that. As one of the royal prerogatives is (I think) being depicted on the coins of the realm, should I pay a bit more attention to my small change? Most of it still seems to show the predecessor of the current monarch.
Or should that be predecessors?
Hatey, you seem to forget that the 1951 election came just over one year after Labour had won the 1950 Election, and just over three months before George VI died suddenly of lung cancer (with young Princess Elizabeth conveniently away abroad). The actual electorate were minor players in the affair and had no statutory right to vote until 1955.
It is entirely possible that King George with his lung cancer met the same fate as John Smith with his heart attack.
You just have to understand how power has flowed through the British queens since Victoria and her Treason Felony Act.
And you make no sense with your comments about coins.
“The actual electorate were minor players in the affair and had no statutory right to vote until 1955”
Sorry, but my Google states that the right to vote was extended to all over the age of 21 in 1928 (excepting crims, loonies, etc). Since then it has been all about tinkering at the edges, reducing the age first to 18, and more recently in Scotland to 16.
That tinkering paralleled by slack jawed amazement at the serial shitshows produced by empowering the universal stupidity of the people and their short attention span offspring.
Whatever, I can’t debate this any further as obviously some bad actor (Orcs?) has hacked my Google.
MB
You clearly were never there.
I assure you the streets in West Belfast had names that remain imprinted in the memories of those who served there regardless of whatever Bono much later penned a song about..
Northern Visions NVTV interview in Irish with English subtitles.
Fionntan de Brun speaks to Seimi Mac Aindreasa in the studio about the book ‘Belfast and the Irish Language’, for which he was the editor.
The book explores the history of the Irish language in Belfast, from its roots in the 19th century up to the present day.
link to archive.northernvisions.org
THE CRISIS IN HUMANIST POLITICAL THEORY
by Herman Dooyeweerd (1931, republished 2010)
Currently (re-)reading above book. Just reached the following extract. Written almost a century ago, but curiously resonanant.
Dooyeweerd writes:
« In his work on constitutional theory Carl Schmitt writes:
« “All other characteristics of law as a substantial, rational, just and wise command have today become relative and problematic; the natural-law faith in the law of reason and the rationality of law has largely collapsed. What saves the constitutional state from utter dissolution into the absolutism of shifting parliamentary majorities is a mere lingering remnant of respect for this general character of law.” [Schmitt]
« I should think this is small comfort for the defenders of the just state! Should it surprise us that in this general crisis of the humanist personality ideal the logicist, idealist view of law, through the thin wall of its world of forms, meets up with its twin sister, its ancient antipode: power naturalism? To quote [Hans] Kelsen’s own words: “those who lift the veil without closing their eyes see the Gorgon head of power staring them in the face.”
« At this juncture, idealist humanism is separated from naturalist humanism by mere hollow, meaningless terminology. The entire ideology that the humanist personality ideal, from Grotius to Hegel, had offered to political theory finds itself in a condition of relativistic, skeptical decomposition. And so a large portion of the European states has proved ripe for the new ideology of dictatorial power.
« Kelsen has already addressed the question of how to define even the Bolshevist dictatorship as a legal theory free of all forms of ideology. He attempts this in spite of the fact that Bolshevism denies the normative meaning of law on every occasion, and that Lenin bluntly describes the essence of Bolshevism as “unlimited power, not restricted by any laws or any general rules and resting directly on force.”
« Concerning this, [Boris] Mirkine-Guetzévitch observes:
“The principle of dictatorship on the one hand, and the structure of government organs on the other, lead not only to the negation of all legislation but even to the dispensing of the concept of objective right as such. In the Soviet state, fact and right are simply one.” »
(Herman Dooyeweerd, ‘The Crisis in Humanist Political Theory’, Paideia Press, 2010, pp 36-38)
THE CRISIS IN HUMANIST POLITICAL THEORY by Herman Dooyeweerd
PDF:
link to vcho.co.za
A good text with good points, unlike Alf’s rambling pseudointellectual scattershot linked further below.
Having watched disgusting footage of the weekends ‘protest’ I would wonder at the phrase ‘Glasgow the friendly city’ I wonder who are those dressed in black and masked up?
Strangers are just friends you haven’t yet met.
“Strangers are just friends you haven’t yet met”
Much like critical theory fowk hivna read yet:
link to pocketmags.com
That’s quite a segue, Alf.
I clicked the link to be met with a demand for payment in Yankee dollars. Is that the Orcs interfering again, or have you moved your financial affairs overseas?
Dinna fash if it’s the latter one. Most of us are well familiar with the dichotomy between public calls for more progressive taxation and the private steps taken to avoid being one of the dupes actually forced to cough up.
Why would any sane individual want to read the repetitive shite that you write Alfie Boy?
You actually turn people off the idea of Independence for Scotland but, one thing we can all agree on, is that you do love yourself, hence the constant need for ‘links’ to more of the shite penned by yourself.
When are the UN deciding Scotland’s fate. Anytime soon?
Yes, thaim whit kens fine thay are in a bad ideological or ethical condition position are aye clear tae see btl here wi thair mischievous pintless contributions an utterances.
In understanding such standard colonial ‘doctrinal racism’ and rhetoric we can always point to the fact “the colonialist likes neither theory nor theorists” (Memmi); because theory, especially postcolonial theory, aye shines a bricht licht on thay’re jubous cairy-on, Hatey, Chas, et al.
Alf, there is psychological need for those you mention to resort to insults.
Search Assist
“Colonialists often insult others as a way to assert their perceived superiority and maintain social hierarchy, reflecting status insecurity and a need to diminish the dignity of those they colonize. This behavior stems from a primal instinct to elevate oneself by putting others down, which is deeply rooted in human social dynamics.
Psychology Today
webapp2.wright.edu
The Psychology Behind Colonial Insults
Status Insecurity
Colonialists often resort to insults as a means to assert their perceived superiority over those they colonize. This behavior is linked to status insecurity, where the insulter feels the need to diminish the dignity of others to elevate their own social standing. Insults serve as a tool to reinforce their dominance in the social hierarchy.
Primal Instincts
The tendency to insult others is rooted in primal instincts. Humans have evolved to navigate social dynamics through verbal interactions rather than physical aggression. Insulting others can be seen as a way to establish or maintain one’s position within a group, reflecting a deep-seated need to rise in social status.”
A subtle morph from “racism” to “doctrinal racism” there, Alf.
Perhaps the criticisms are having a positive effect – forcing you to refine the third-world racist rantings of anti-whites like Fanon etc. to derive something more relevant, useful and thus productive for notionally first-world, overwhelmingly white, Scotland.
Then again, perhaps you just want to sledgehammer Scotland into the mould you bought from the USA entitled Critical Race Theory.
“the colonialist likes neither theory nor theorists”
Plenty of Scots would like to see a practical, pragmatic set of policies put forth by the proponents of Indy. That doesn’t make them colonialists. It does, perhaps, make them the kind of hard-headed, grounded Scots who prefer a modicum of comfort and prosperity, whilst speaking English, to any amount of theoretical purity, alongside poverty and blighted expectations, whilst studying to become fluent in Scotland’s second language – Scots.
It’s interesting that it’s very much an imported, alien concept, cultural colonialism if you like, to denigrate those who disagree with you as racists, etc. rather than to engage with their real concerns.
We’re all colonised, Alf, to a greater or lesser extent. Even you.
Now that you are monetising your work, you surely won’t be offering it around on here for free?
Right, sam, you won’t heed a fair warning, so stronger measures must be taken.
As soon as you’ve picked, husked and cleaned your quota for today, report to the punishment block.
It’s 20 lashes, bread and water, and a week in solitary this time.
Don’t let there be a second time.
“hard-headed, grounded Scot who prefer a modicum of comfort and prosperity, whilst speaking English”.
That’s a fair description of the culturally assimilated, dependence-craving native sitting comfortably within the most pampered colonized groups, Hatey; content to see the nation plundered and lacking development, and most of the less assimilated native-speaking colonized left impoverished, so long as they have a few colonial crumbs to nibble on and maybe a wee bit social ‘status’.
That ‘doctrinal racism’ aye shines through in your responses.
Mair shite from the supposedly learned professor.
Can I ask, for the umpteenth time, when we are free for the overbearing colonialism that you constantly, repetitively and boringly refer to, who do you see forming an honest, competent Government? Again I ask, some names would be helpful!
Of course, maybe the UN will send in the cavalry to help us as I do not see anyone of any political hue who can. I can just see John Wayne riding over the crest of a hill to save us all. Fanny, Mummy and all the rest of your heroes bringing up the rear.
Maybe one of your very few acolytes could answer the question as you are unwilling to? They could even respond in the cute wee Scottish words that you prefer.
Mair shite from Chas who, like me, has a deep seated need to feel a rise in social status.
Here’s a few who would do Scotland proud, not only in gubmint, but likely on the footba pitch.
Betcha Chas dinnae ken thon yins..
Mike Danson, Gerry McCartney, Susan Rice, Mariana Mazzucato, Alf Baird, Sara Salyers, Iain Gillespie, Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, Geoff Aberdein, James Mitchell, Deirdre Michie
This lot would put their studs down yer leg soon as look at you – or sooner.
Chas, stfu
Most of that list (primarily elderly academics) will be long-since retired by the time there is any chance of Scotland becoming independents
My social status is just fine Sam however I can readily understand why yours is on the floor.
As to your list of ‘worthies’ i laughed out loud. Scotland needs people who can do things for themselves and others. The last thing she needs is a bunch of individuals who talk a good game but are incapable of anything other than telling others what to do. We already have the SNP for that.
At least you tried which is more than the esteemed professor ever did!
Loved your meaningless football anology. Did it make you feel better?
And the Scots for ‘doctrinal racism’ is …
AI Dun @ 7.04
And why does that statement seem to sit so very very comfortably with you, site pearl clutcher and swooner regularly requiring smelling salts and wannabe lawyer?
Self awareness check required!
On the other hand, maybe it’s merely Scotch Tory (vote share in free fall) wishful thinking masquerading as debate..
Those lads represent the peaceful option of deporting the Third World settler-colonist-benefits-seekers while that’s still possible. They’re wearing masks because we live in a police state that hates the natives.
If you think that was unpleasant, wait until Scottish people feel forced into more kinetic measures to save their homeland from destruction.
Mass immigration is a cancer and so are the people who support it.
Unfortunately when governments and politicians IGNORE the wishes and concerns of the electorate and continue to treat voters with contempt and disgust it drives people to rebel and DEMAND action
I despise mindless damage to buildings and property but when people believe their concerns are not being addressed or acted upon by ALL the politicians and political parties it leads to frustration and anger, and police standing there with batons in a confrontational stance only encourages outrage
Andy Ellis says:
24 July, 2026 at 5:43 pm
An interesting view on the intellectual paucity of the colonisation narrative in western liberal democracies from the estimable Simon Sebag Montefiore:
There is great confusion about what Decolonization and indeed Colonization means…….a phalanx of Middle East neo-imperial powers are engaged in tournaments of power in failing states like Somalia, Libya and benighted Sudan; Iran established an informal empire across Iraq Syria Lebanon Yemen in its Six Armies strategy – its final destiny as yet undecided on the battlefield of the Third Gulf War; and Turkish leaders now regularly and openly declare their wish to reassert Ottomanist power in former Ottoman vilayets Syria Lebanon Israel, and former Ottoman cities Damascus Beirut Jerusalem…
========
There is indeed such confusion – not least amongst some posters here who, to be blunt, could not tell colonisation from the backend of a bus.
Also, the distinguished author of Jerusalem: the Biography , is not immune from it himself. He excludes from his “phalanx” the most ruthless Middle East neo-imperial power of all.
This very day, thieving and murderous bands of settler -colonialists continue their campaign against the indigenous people of the West Bank. They set mosques ablaze and kill worshippers while the IDF looks on. Their weapons are supplied by that very same imperial power, whose own laws and treaty obligations they flout by establishing “outposts“ .
I wonder why Montefiore omits it from his list. Reports today, coupled with events between the “East Bank” and the Med are all too reminiscent of horrors he documented in Jerusalem: the Biography : mass murders of indigenous Arabs by First Crusaders, prior to the founding of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. That was more than 900 years ago.
Covid lockdowns and yet allowing migration access to continue with limited health intervention under Covid Tories management,
Labour,
the tool used to finish crashing the economy,
To end the parliament of England, Wales and Ireland,
To impose increased invasion through Englands unprotected shores,
To blame everything on the residing nation,
To close infrastructures,
To change and manipulate the laws to two tiers of justice.
Politics colours joined at the hip in what appears to be a long term plan for GB,