The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


An Alternative Route To Indyref 2

Posted on September 14, 2020 by

The purpose of the paper below is to kickstart the process of examining alternative methods of holding a second referendum which can claim constitutional validity and thus satisfy both our voting public and, if necessary the courts, of its legality.

At the stage when the commitment to a referendum in 2020 was dropped, questioning of our leadership on the sole reliance on Section 30 to achieve a referendum and the need to explore alternatives, made it clear that this was not a matter for debate.

Whilst the First Minister has now committed to a referendum should the Holyrood elections provide a further mandate, it would appear that the strategy continues to be a sole reliance on Section 30 and a belief that the UK Government would consider further opposition to a Section 30 unsustainable.

The dangers of both leaving the initiative in the hands of a hostile UK Government, and of depending on a sole method of proceeding, are obvious. Whilst one can accept that the leadership, faced with the joint demands of Brexit and the COVID pandemic superimposed on the “day job”, is unable itself to prioritise the necessary examination of more innovative possibilities it does not preclude it setting up an internal group to do so using the expertise that lies within the Party.

All the evidence points to the fact that they are not disposed to do so or to look beyond Section 30 because “that is the law”. Furthermore, there appears to be no strategic framework within which activists can build up a momentum for Indyref2 .

It has been said that while there may be a number of options of what to do when Westminster says No to another referendum, one of them is not to sit on your hands. In the absence of positive action from the centre, nothing prevents members setting up a group to explore and put forward alternative, viable routes.

This paper, produced by a group of members and activists from the wider Yes movement, is the result. What follows can only be an outline. Its purpose is to kickstart the process of examining alternative routes to a referendum and we believe it postulates a legal route which takes it beyond the views of the UK Government – a political narrative likely to resonate with the electorate – and retains control of the processes for a referendum in the hands of the Scottish Government.

It is built upon claims made in the Scottish Government’s own case supporting a request for a Section 30 consent, merely accepting the logic that making a claim for nationhood implies certain freedoms.

It cannot be other than an outline since whilst we can present a logical argument, if examination shows it to be a potentially viable course to follow, it is for the resources of Government to turn it from a theory for discussion into a practical proposition capable of withstanding formidable opposition.

But we have to start somewhere and we are quite prepared to be told (with proof!! and a positive alternative) that this will not work – in which case we start looking for another way. And there are others, though few which exclude the UK Government legally from the process. The fog which surrounds constitutional issues in the UK leaves little room for dogmatism, so hand-sitting is out.

As we have said, the discussion of any alternative route to independence is not confined to a consideration of legal issues alone. While a basis of law is essential the political dimension is of equal weight. Joanna Cherry has said on various occasions that the balance of legal opinion is that it’s not clear Holyrood doesn’t already have the power under the 1998 Act to hold a referendum on the question of independence.

It is perhaps questionable whether, politically, such a simple assertion will attract public confidence, particularly among more recent converts, in the face of a barrage of UK Government and unionist media propaganda. It could well be that the UK government would choose to adopt this method of fighting the “No” case rather than a legal one.

It is in this area that the experience of grassroots activists is of prime importance. When push comes to shove will it stand up on the doorsteps? Let’s talk about it.

(signed)

IAIN LAWSON
KENNY MACASKILL MP
PROFESSOR ALLAN MACINNES
COUNCILLOR CHRIS MCELENY
DOT JESSIMAN

——————————————————————————————

AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE TO INDYREF2

At the beginning of this year the Scottish Government sought the agreement of the United Kingdom under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to the holding of a referendum on Scottish independence.

In the supporting argument they made two claims. First, that Scotland is, remains, a nation: “Scotland is one of Europe’s oldest Nations Following the integration of the Parliament of England and Wales in 1707 Scotland remained a nation within the new Union state.”

Second, that Brexit represents a constitutional change of major importance: “Leaving the EU represents a fundamental change in the constitutional arrangements of the country”.

If these two claims are legally sustainable they alter fundamentally the basis on which a Scottish Government may seek a referendum on independence. If Scotland remains a nation the powers available to it fall into two quite separate categories.

The first is the powers that accrue to a Scottish Government acting in its role as the duly elected government of a nation. The second is the powers that accrue to it acting in its role as a partner, and a minority partner, in a union governed by its mutually agreed internal laws.

To date all discussions surrounding the sovereign rights or otherwise of the Scottish Government have taken place within the context of the latter following on from the method chosen to call a referendum in 2014, when the two Governments agreed to proceed in the interests of convenience under internal enabling legislation and implement Section 30 of the Scotland Act.

Alex Salmond has claimed that the form of the Edinburgh Agreement, if not its legal title, was that of an international treaty signed by the heads of the two governments and thus recognised, rather than undermined, the claims of Scottish sovereignty. That may be so, but the crucial factor present in 2012 is surely that the two governments were in agreement and that whether the UK Government would accept that reading was never an issue.

This is no longer the case. Indeed, the formal refusal of the present request and its endorsement by opposition leaders is by definition a rejection of such a claim.

Any Scottish Government therefore which chooses to continue to rely on the internal arrangements which govern the United Kingdom will undoubtedly fall foul of the doctrine of supremacy of the Parliament which can legislate to counter any moves made with retrospective legislation, or intervening legislation such as that employed over the return of powers from the EU, leaving the implementation of any referendum result to secede open to legal challenge. And more importantly, perhaps, undermining its legitimacy in the minds of the electorate as they prepare to vote.

However, the powers that accrue to the Scottish Government acting in its role as the democratically elected government of a nation cannot be so circumscribed.

While the UK Government may interpret the Act of Union as an aspect of parliamentary sovereignty under which the partnership operates internally and thus withhold consent to a referendum; the Treaty of Union signed in 1707 by the incontestably sovereign nation of Scotland and with its status essentially unchanged, gives the people of that nation, through the lens of popular sovereignty expressed in a democratic vote, the legal authority to determine whether they wish the Treaty to be abrogated.

The enabling Act of Union 1707, should, therefore, be seen as the contemporary interpretation of that Treaty and was voluntarily agreed by the Scottish Parliament which then adjourned itself – a choice of action which in itself implies reserved judgement for the future.

Since that time there have been challenges. In 1713, for example, there was an attempt in the House of Lords to reverse the 1707 Act. The Jacobite rebellions of 1715, 1719 and 1745 all proposed a return to an independent kingdom. Recently there were the referenda of 1979 and 2014. Since 1707, not unnaturally over a period of around 300 years, the original terms in which the Treaty was expressed and the political background which dictated them have undergone change.

These changes include a succession of Acts extending suffrage, the recent Scotland Acts varying how the internal arrangements should be managed, and two major constitutional variations: accession to the EU in the 1970s and currently Brexit.

The response to all these events – the rejection of the challenges and the voluntary agreement to the amendments – was, with one exception, a clear indication from the Scottish nation that it considered the enabling Act, as amended, remained in its interests and acceptable therefore within the framework of the partnership.

That altered with the onset of Brexit. The results of the Scottish vote in the European referendum, the European elections of 2019 and the general election of 2019 – all fought with the ruling Scottish Government party proposing total opposition to Brexit – provide clear evidence that the Scottish people do not consider this latest constitutional amendment to be in the interests of their nation.

Recent polling, whilst never as conclusive as a vote, seems to reinforce this evidence. In circumstances where the UK Government has refused to negotiate in any degree the terms of Brexit to meet its partner’s needs, the Scottish Government is entitled, indeed obliged, as the legitimate successor to those who signed the Treaty, to use its powers as the legitimate guardian of the interests of the Scottish people to call a referendum to ascertain whether they consider this amendment to the terms of Union is one change too many and abrogate the Treaty.

(An action very similar to that of the United Kingdom in relation to continuance in the European Union.)

Consideration of the viability of this option cannot, of course, stop there. It seems probable that the UK Government will challenge such action in the Supreme Court. However, notwithstanding ratifying legislation in the Scottish and English Parliaments, the Treaty is an international treaty, not just an enabling Act. The prevailing view in England is that Parliament can amend, adjust and negate any legislation including the Act of Union and, as has been said this may well be so in terms of internal legislation relative to the internal administration of the partnership. However, this does not tie the hands of the Scottish Government in seeking to revisit the Treaty.

For action to be taken in this regard the Scottish Government must first establish its position as the ruling government with a mandate which endorses its authority and the action it proposes to take. The looming Scottish Parliamentary elections provide this opportunity.

With an eye to a possible eventual challenge in the courts from the UK Government, all the actions which follow – SNP Manifesto, implementation of the Referendum Act, the question posed in the referendum itself – must be explicit that the mandate sought is based on the Scottish Government’s powers as the successor to the signatories of the Treaty.

Once in government with its status endorsed its path is clear – not only to call a referendum under the Referendum Act, but to organise the voting process and arrange any international oversight (it might be politic to request the EU to undertake this). The position of the Electoral Commission on the form of question will be advisory only.

The possibility of a challenge in the Supreme Court raises the question of whether the Scottish Government would consider it an appropriate body to rule on a matter of its status in respect of a Treaty. In which case it might argue for a reference to the International Court of Justice to obtain a ruling on its right to proceed under that Treaty, albeit one some 300 years old.

A ruling in its favour would leave it free to implement the democratic mandate and organise a referendum to decide whether the partnership of the Union should continue.

Print Friendly

    331 to “An Alternative Route To Indyref 2”

    1. Bob Mack says:

      Considering we are taking on a Westminster government who find breaking the law acceptable in an international forum, we can expect breaking internal UK law of any descriltion to be a cakewalk for them.

      We must seriously look at alternatives no matter how improbable.

    2. Bill Fraser says:

      Angus McNeil recently commented on Twitter that Nicola Sturgeon can’t go for a referendum without a section 30 because conference decided that that was the only legitimate way forward. Angus did try to get an amendment to that motion to allow another way but if failed to get the support of the delegates.

      The first order of business must therefore be to get a resolution allowing the Scottish parliament to establish and act on an Indyref.

    3. ahundredthidiot says:

      is this it?…..is this the splitting of the ranks?

      Country over Leader. Every day of the week.

    4. Andy Ellis says:

      This is far too long, muddled and difficult to interpret. What (if anything) are you actually advocating? It sounds like just another appeal for a national discussion or convention. Haven’t we been there, seen it, done it and bought the t-shirt already?

      If we want anything done in the short to medium term it is only feasible to do it via a referendum (which presupposes having the SNP on side – so good luck with that!) or advocating for plebiscitary elections at Holyrood and/or Westminster. The former Holyrood 2021 option has a fast closing window of opportunity to stand up list only parties to pressure the SNP to abandon their “legal S30 order” monomania. It’s probably already too late for that and may be pointless if the SNP gain an absolute majority: they’ll simply sit on their hands for another few years.

      The latter Westminster option gives the broader Yes movement more time to prepare, but unless the SNP can be brought round to accepting the logic of plebiscitary elections in place of referendums as a suitable mandate, we’re probably looking at establishing a “full fat” alternative Independence Party alongside the SNP.

      If we’re going to expend efforts coming up with new ways to ensure we get a vote, let’s at least be clear what the process entails. We need action not another talking shop.

    5. leither says:

      so the plan b is..?

      indyref2 without a s30?

      a lot of words to say very little

    6. birnie says:

      Grouse Beater’s recent blog article on UDI (he is not in favour) and the Articles and Acts of Union is a very useful complement to the Deliverance Policy Group’s initial statement.

    7. Bob Mack says:

      “Various authors” does not necessarily mean Stu. It is a collective.

      @Leither,

      Section 30? I admit to laughing at that one.

    8. Peter A Bell says:

      Alternatively,

      Manifesto for Independence

      Renounce Section 30 process

      Assert competence of Scottish Parliament in constitutional matters

      Recall MPs to join with MSPs in a National Convention

      Propose dissolution of Union subject to referendum

      Call referendum entirely made and managed in Scotland

      #NoSection30 #ScottishUDI #UnionNoMore

    9. Bob Mack says:

      @Peter A Bell,

      Don’t always agree with you but this is the way to go.

    10. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      That’s not an alternative. That’s literally what the article says, except the recall of MPs.

    11. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      ““Various authors” does not necessarily mean Stu. It is a collective.”

      I had no part in the writing of this article. Its authors are those named at the end of the preamble.

    12. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “This is far too long, muddled and difficult to interpret. What (if anything) are you actually advocating?”

      What they’re advocating is an election conducted on the explicit assertion of the Scottish Government’s right to act as the representatives of the sovereign people of Scotland, the result of that election to stand as their mandate – backed as legally valid by the International Court of Justice – and the subsequent holding of a referendum on said basis.

      This is entirely different to the current Scottish Government stance, which is to acknowledge Westminster sovereignty and beg its indulgence. It’s not very hard to follow really.

    13. Breeks says:

      Plan A. Lob a Scottish Constitutional Backstop into Brexit, and deliver to Westminster a Constitutional ultimatum….

      Brexit goes ahead and is finalised, Scotland is subjugated and democracy overturned, and thus, the Union will be deemed breached & Dead.

      Or…

      Brexit is halted or suspended, Westminster is obliged to recognise a Scottish mandate is sovereign, and thus Scotland has a sovereign veto inside the UK, which Westminster could not agree to. Union is dead.

      Brexit is thus UK’s prerogative, but the constitutional ramifications are terminal for the Union.

      Scotland can have a referendum / plebiscite whenever it chooses, hopefully a ratification plebiscite which elects to rejoin Europe as an Independent Scotland.

      The International Community is standing up to defend the International Agreement of the Good Friday Agreement.

      Scotland should be lobbying for their support to defend the International Treaty of Union, and thereby recognise Scotland’s Brexit is an act of colonial aggression contrary to International Law.

      Northern Ireland is strong because it has a backstop.
      Scotland is weak because we don’t.

    14. Andy Ellis says:

      @Stu

      Fair enough, I just think it’s far too long and not that clearly expressed. Why not lead the piece with a pithy statement along the lines of your précis to get people’s attention? A lot of folk will have given up before they figure out what the collective are actually advocating.

      I sympathise with the aim, but still don’t see how doing it is feasible without changing the minds of the SNP leadership and activist base, and we all saw how enthusiastically they booed the very prospect of even discussing Plan B.

    15. Peter A Bell says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      14 September, 2020 at 12:13 pm
      “That’s not an alternative. That’s literally what the article says, except the recall of MPs.”

      It’s five bullet points which state all that need be stated as an alternative to 2000 words most of which are written to impress rather than express.

      KISS. Keep it simply Stu.

    16. Effijy says:

      Our constitution remains that Scotland is a sovereign nation
      and it’s people as wearable to no Parliament or Crown.

      It was agreed to honour the deduction of Indy Ref 1 even though the
      Media totally corrupted it, as did Dark Money, false statements by
      Baronmess Davidson, who also seen ballot papers before the count
      Started, Unless there was a major change in circumstances.

      As the Rev points out Brexit is as major a change as could possibly happen.

      As the Tory case for Brexit was a need to stop other nations influencing their laws and economic strategy let’s agree that Scotland too wants the foreign nation to the South to stop interfering to our detriment in all aspects of life.

      The latest Tory gem after 3 years of negotiation and being heralded as a great Oven Ready Brexit deal that followed Mrs Mays Good/Best deal you could get they announce it’s fine to break laws and
      agreement if you feel it secured your sovereignty.
      Let’s agree with them for the moment to proceed with our own declaration and set a date for Indy Ref 2 and Freedom to be European and control our own future ever more.

    17. Andy Ellis says:

      If we’re really talking about the KISS principle we don’t need 5 steps:

      1) Demand Westminster confirm it will accept the Edinburgh Agreement precedent that any Holyrood government with a mandate will be given a S30 order on the same terms by “X” date.

      2) make it clear that if 1 doesn’t happen every subsequent general election becomes a plebiscite with 50% + 1 votes for pro indy parties being de facto independence.

      Happy to help!

    18. Big Jock says:

      Peter. Yes I agree. People lose interest when writers don’t get to the point.

      I stopped reading the article after the preamble. All the arguments have been done to death.

      A simple plan is needed not more talking and court cases.

    19. Peter A Bell says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      Demand Westminster confirm it will accept the Edinburgh Agreement precedent that any Holyrood government with a mandate will be given a S30 order on the same terms by “X” date.

      You clearly don’t understand what the Section 30 process is. Or even the fact that the Union means Scotland has no power to demand anything of the British government. Or the difference between an election and a referendum.

      All in all, not very helpful at all.

      Start with this –

      https://ihavequestions.scot/2019/07/30/section-30-is-not-scotlands-salvation/

    20. Breeks says:

      Brexit HAS gone ahead.

      Scotland is not in the EU.

      We are outside the EU, enjoying one years grace of EU Rules continuance in order to affect a smooth transition to life outside the European umbrella.

      Stopping now, does not leave us in Europe, Scotland would need to rejoin.

      BUT, the Transition Period which expires in December is the straw we might grasp as a drowning man, IF we can make a credible case to the UN and Council of Europe that Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty has been violated, because colonial subjugation is contrary to International Law.

      It is inexcusable that Sturgeon capitulated to Scotland’s subjugation back in January, and our Constitutional argument was massively damaged when she did, but we can, and must, muster for a Constitutional Challenge to Brexit before we lose the EU umbrella, and find ourselves fighting UK deregulation and asset stripping, the emasculation of Holyrood, (would we notice a difference?) and our subjugation becoming something intractable.

      Everything and anything 2021 and beyond? Too little, too late.

      Vote SNP in 2021? Make me. I mean it. Give me a reason to. The SNP turned, looked away, and did nothing, as Westminster subjugated our Nation, our Sovereignty and our Democracy as readily as if they’d driven tanks right over us and invaded. The SNP let them do it, like the Home Guard in Warmington-on-sea.

    21. Andy Ellis says:

      @Peter Bell

      With all due respect, I understand the process quite well.

      Your cunning five point plan won’t work. We’ve already got the precedent of #indyref1, it’s simply a matter of giving them an ultimatum to confirm it will be repeated. The SG could do it tomorrow and have a reply in days. When a negative response is (inevitably) received, point 2 kicks in and we get our vote next May. Sorted.

      Your points however are unicorns and money tree territory, which is odd because you never tire of bloviating about how cunning plans won’t work in relation to list parties and not voting SNP 1&2.

      One might almost think you had no idea what you’re talking about.

    22. Bob Costello says:

      This makes perfect sense, which is why the SNP will in all probability, have nothing to do with it

    23. I am in agreement with Peter Bell,a sensible well laid out format is more than enough.No other country including those that were taken over by Westminster had to clear these hurdles,so why Scotland??? Asking twice or begging to disband that which is ONLY A TREATY.Disregarding Scotland,s laws ends the matter.In all this Westminster Tory government is illegal,the use of foreign money to buy a result(FROM RUSSIA FOR SOMETHING?)How much training in Russia for Demonic Dominic,for the LONDON LAUNDROMAT.What with Covid and Brexit,The SQUATTERS HUB in Edinburgh to bring chaos up North.It needs a team to help Nicola to implement movement and positive movement,A.S.A.P.One big problem people not interested in Politics,and only wake up when all is too late,and they won,t like the outcome.

    24. iain mhor says:

      That’s laudable and it was laudable a year ago, when such a paper was put forward by the Scottish Government (linked in the article) and a Bill was proposed (as outlined in Annex B) it then gained Assent and the Scotland Act was amended accordingly.
      Or (my memory isn’t what it used to be) it was by Order in Council and not a Bill which amended the Scotland Act…
      Hang on, this just in – it was neither.

      “I can conjure Bills from the vasty deep”
      Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they be assented to when you do conjure them?

      Aye… there’s the rub and Plan B is addressing the rub.

      I’m not entirely sure where this ‘Paper’ exists, of which the article speaks; but the article seems to be an exerpt from a piece by the (independent?) ‘Deliverance Policy Group’ within the Scottish Government – which continues :

      https://bit.ly/2E1UhrC

      “For action to be taken in this regard the Scottish Government must first establish its position as the ruling Government with a mandate which endorses its authority and the action it proposes to take. The looming Scottish Parliamentary elections provide this opportunity. With an eye to a possible eventual challenge in the Courts from the UK Government all the actions which follow– SNP Manifesto, implementation of the Referendum Act, the question posed in the Referendum itself must be explicit that the mandate sought is based on the Scottish Government’s powers as the successor to the signatories of the Treaty”

      *There was some pre-amble to the above about Treaties and yada yada stuff we know.

      So all I’m getting (and had to dig for it as it’s nowhere in the article here) is that a group within the Scottish government has a Plan B whereby:

      The Scottish Government first challenges the UK Government that it is indeed an Independent Government (based on something or other I’m not quite clear on)
      Then after that swift (ha!) success, nodded through by either the Supreme Court (or some other international body) The Scottish Government can legislate for a referendum as it pleases, without recourse to a Section 30 – indeed may amend sections of the Scotland Act as it pleases (or in consultation with the UK Government – I have no idea)

      Much as I appreciate the effort – can we have real article by this group, or perhaps a direct link to the ‘Paper’ (if there is one) or somesuch, thus is a bit vague to put it mildly.

    25. leither says:

      holding indyref2 with no s30,

      im not against this in principle, however, regardless of legal sanctioning by the ECHR’s or other legal sanction, the unionists wont support it and more importantly, the unionist voters wont participate.

      but before we get to this position, there will be a holyrood election. the snp manifesto will focus on independence and probably indyref2. to what extent remains to be seen but regardless, everyone else will view the result as a vote on independence. ie a plebicite.

      if westminster refuses to recognise a 50%+ result and/or continue to refuse s30. then i believe the democratic route to indy would be over and the grass roots orginisation should consider other options, eg, peter bell, craig murray, ian bhood etc and discuss moves to a campaign of civil disobedience.

      that isnt to say that politicians and lawyers should just give up, by all means they can pursue whatever legal and civil actions they see fit, i can see how it can do any harm. although i remain sceptical to how useful such endevours will be for a variety of reason.

    26. BLMac says:

      Stop faffing about.

      Look at how the Iron Curtain countries legally achieved independence, and do just that.

      Did they ask the USSR for permission?

      (I don’t know, but I doubt it.)

      Follow their path. It is an international political precedent.

    27. Dave Llewellyn says:

      Beware Peter Bell blowing kisses. ?

    28. Bob Mack says:

      @Leither,

      Just how long would you give to have your Democratic route to come to fruition.? How long after the May elections?.

    29. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Ian Mhor

      I *think* having reread it the meat of the TL:DR version is actually in the final 5 paragraphs. I *think* (because that’s as clear as mud too) the Paper is actually the many, many paragraphs under the dotted line.

      As Stu’s précis above notes, Lois like they’re essentially advocating using a mandate gained at Holyrood 2021 as a “claim of right to hold a referendum”, so we can expect more years of negotiations and court action which would probably suit the gradualist wet nats just fine.

      Roll on #indyref2039 at this rate!

    30. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Dave 1.11pm

      There is not enough brain bleach in the world…..

    31. Linda McFarlane says:

      I think the rationale in the article makes sense. I want to know how we get the Scottish Government to do it. I can’t see the SNP putting it a manifesto, (not with the current leadership,) So show me how I can effect such a change.

    32. Habib Steele says:

      I think Peter A Bell’s Manifesto For Independence is the way to go. I think it needs to be done before December 31st.

    33. Peter A Bell says:

      Linda McFarlane says:
      14 September, 2020 at 1:21 pm
      I think the rationale in the article makes sense. I want to know how we get the Scottish Government to do it. I can’t see the SNP putting it a manifesto, (not with the current leadership,) So show me how I can effect such a change.

      There will shortly be a group specifically to bring together SNP members for the purpose of demanding a change of approach by the Scottish Government / SNP.

      The change being demanded MUST be easily comprehensible if it is to attract significant support. And it MUST begin by totally renouncing the Section 30 process. Anything that so much as mentions the Section 30 process other than to renounce it is doomed to fail.

      Any process which relies so completely on the honest participation and genuine goodwill of the British political elite cannot possibly succeed. Something naive children like Andy Ellis have yet to learn. We cannot have them learning that lesson at Scotland’s expense.

    34. jfngw says:

      @Peter A Bell

      I think we would also need to declare broadcasting regulation as now under the control of the Scottish Government until the referendum takes place. If not then it will just be a bombardment of how illegal this is, with the intent to reduce the turnout.

      What I want to see is only politicians from Scotland on our media during any referendum debates, no more processions from the London or an old has-been making promises they have no control over.

      No more vows, the choice is even simpler this time independence or the effective extinction of Scotland.

    35. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Linda 1.21pm

      Well said. I fear your concern is what consigns #indyref2 in to the next decade. Absent some palace coup within the SNP there is no way any plan, whether the one in the Collective’s Paper, Peter Bell’s very cunning 5 point plan, or my preferred option will ever be enacted.

      The Yes movement hitched its wagon to the great SNP panjandrum long since. I fear there will be no progress until and unless the SNP is either changed from within or faces a new entrant that can actually threaten to topple it from its leadership role in the movement.

    36. Beaker says:

      The article as it is presented could never be put forward to the electorate. It needs to be simplified.

      From what I understand (thanks to some helpful hints above) is that the main proposal be that the SNP stand on a single manifesto commitment to declare independence if they win.

      It’s a double or nothing option carrying substantial risk. True, it could succeed, but what happens next? Where is the master plan for transition? Those questions would need to be answered BEFORE the election, and answered convincingly backed up with evidence.

      If it fails, it could cost the SNP a lot of seats, and for that reason alone I believe they will not consider such an option. At least, not with the present leadership.

      One other point – there is a lot of detail in the article referring to legal actions. Am I right to assume that the legal fees will not be paid by the taxpayer? Governments are very good at spending other peoples money.

    37. leither says:

      Bob Mack
      if we get 50%+ in next holyrood election and bojo still says no to indy or indyref2, then the democratic route is at an end

      others, politicians, lawyers etc, will surely pursue legal options, cant hurt etc,

      but for me and the rest of the footsoldiers of the yes movement, the time for online petitions and leafleting will be over

    38. leither says:

      jfngw says:
      I think we would also need to declare broadcasting regulation as now under the control of the Scottish Government until the referendum takes place.

      great idea, what we need is a huge poster and an online petition, ….. cant fail

    39. Andy Ellis says:

      @Peter Bell

      This naive child advocates “relying” on the British state for precisely the time it takes frothing British nationalists to say “now is not the time”. Either they will replicate the Edinburgh Agreement or they won’t. If they will, #indyref2 is on and your party will have no place to hide anymore for not calling one, or they won’t so we abandon the referendum route & make Holyrood 2021 plebiscitary in 8 months.

      What’s the timescale for your fanciful 5 point cunning plan Pete? Even assuming you and these other SNP folk succeed in convincing the party to chance course. In passing, remind us how successful the rank and file membership have been forcing change on the party leadership recently?

      Perhaps you can ask Angus and Chris how they felt it went when the proposed Plan B to conference?

    40. robertknight says:

      Bravo Iain Lawson et al.

      Is that the sound of a ball beginning to roll?

      ?

    41. Peter A Bell says:

      Habib Steele says:
      14 September, 2020 at 1:28 pm
      I think Peter A Bell’s Manifesto For Independence is the way to go. I think it needs to be done before December 31st.

      Actually, Habib, it needs to be done before the end of this month. Mid-October at the latest. The SNP adopting the Manifesto for Independence is a game-changer. But time is needed for it to have some impact. It certainly can’t be left to the last minute. It has already been left to the eleventh hour.

      There’s little point in going over it, but there might have been other options had the SNP not squandered five years or more. What is certain is that there will be no options if we leave it any longer. If anybody doubted the British state’s malign intentions for Scotland before they’d have to be magnificently stupid to do so now. Knowing they have malign intentions, the sensible course of action is to cut them out of the process rather than afford them influence over the process to which they are not entitled.

      One of the great successes of British propaganda, and one of the signifiers of a colonised mind, is the notion that the British state is actually entitled to a role in the Exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination. It is not! In terms of international laws and conventions, the British state is an external power and thus PROHIBITED from interfering in the process by which our right of self-determination is exercised.

      The insanity of requesting (or “demanding”) a Section 30 order is that this INVITES an external power to interfere. It gives the British state a degree of control over the process which it will undoubtedly use to sabotage that process. By, for example, demanding things that the Scottish Government cannot possibly agree to. Like the Westminster elections franchise or a qualified majority.

      Be very wary of anybody trying to sell you the Section 30 process. It is the “gold standard”. It is the British state’s “gold standard”!

    42. Lorna Campbell says:

      Still leaves it all in the hands of the SNP SG – and another convention for which there is no real appetite? There is not the slightest sign that the SG is willing to do anything that deviates from the established S30 route.

      Is it not odd that the SG is perfectly willing to break the law on the age of consent on the sex education curriculum to underage children on the say-so of Stonewall and the Scottish Trans Alliance, etc., to break the 2010 Equality Act and sundry others, that protect women’s sex-based rights and spaces, to break the law on long-established civil rights and freedom of speech with a catch-all new ‘hate crime’ bill designed to ensure that the trans lobby’s dubious and often downright illegal brearking of the law on the right to assembly, etc. are sacrosanct?

      This is not any failure of the law or failure of the political system or a failure of the grass-roots: it is a total failure of the SG to actually do anything whatsoever in the six years since 2014 to do anything at all to advance independence strategically or tactically.

      So, we must assume that it is willing to break the law when it suits but refuse to deviate from what is not the law – which law states that a S30 Order is necessary or that a pre independence referendum is necessary? None.

      If you have a government that refuses utterly to engage with the electorate it knows is desperate for some forward motion, that demands its vote every election, while doing nothing with it, that spends all its resources and energies on legislation which is illegal in domestic law (Scots Law) and which few actually want, nothing but a massive grass-roots level, or internal party, rebellion is going to make it move.

      The only other government in my experience that has come close to this level of intransigent pig-headedness and pointless destructiveness was the Thatcher one, and the present Johnson one. Both those were/are driven by ideology at the expense of all else. This SG is sailing close to the wind now.

    43. Peter A Bell says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      Perhaps you can ask Angus and Chris how they felt it went when the proposed Plan B to conference?

      Why would I have to, fool. I was there! If you had been there you might be aware of what happened immediately before Chris McEleny was treated so appallingly. Let’s just say he wasn’t the first to be treated thus that day.

      Henceforth, I shall simply ignore your childishly naive and woefully informed drivel.

    44. jfngw says:

      @leither

      What does posters and petitions have to do with regulating broadcasting during a referendum campaign.

      If you are doing sarcasm at least make it relevant, it doesn’t need to be good.

    45. leither says:

      @jwgw

      im pointing out what are actual option are. not wishful thinking. we will have the bbc breathing down our necks until we are independent. nothing will change that.

      the question here today is what we can actually do

    46. mr thms says:

      The Winter of Discontent in 1978/79 was followed by the first Scottish referendum on devolution on the 1st March 1979 and the General Election on the 3rd May 1979.

      Covid 19 and leaving the EU without any deal will result in the second Winter of Discontent which could lead to the second referendum on independence.

      The first Thursday in March 2021 is the 4th March (I like the memorable number sequence 4/3/21), As in 1979 the referendum is followed by elections. The elections for the Scottish Parliament follow on 6th May 2021.

      It would be for the new Scottish Government to deal with the dissolution of the United Kingdom.

    47. Mac says:

      I dont know how anyone who has followed the Alex Salmond accusations from its inception through to the judicial review through to the police charges and full acquittal and now into this inquiry can not conclude that NS is a wrong’un. I reached the tipping point a while ago and now I am convinced of it. Hard to get excited about any path if you believe this to be the case.

      I don’t want NS or that whole team around her anywhere near indyref2 if it ever happens. I do believe if NS is granted it, it will be to lose it. I think what she has been doing since taking power has been very methodical. NS (and her husband) has slowly transformed (in more ways than one) the party and utterly blunted it. At the same time consolidating her power.

      All the political energy that was flowing in 2014 has been squandered and dissipated. Events beyond NS’ control are the only reason we have a marginal uptick in support for YES. She must be fuming at her bad luck.

      The SNP are hardly making the case for independence. Tokenism only. I am not even sure they know how anymore. The only thing moving the needle is BREXIT and Covid. So why would you want this team of boring bland woke idiots in charge of indyref2.

      There really is no point in doing anything else until we sort of the boak inducing stench coming from HQ.

    48. Stuart MacKay says:

      Jesus Peter, you take one firm, step forward then in the next breath take two giant leaps backwards.

      Here we have a (rather wordy) outline of a plan. You know, the bones of an actual plan, to actually do something and yet a good portion of the comments are tripping over the details and petty point scoring.

    49. Big Jock says:

      Can someone clarify.

      Are the SNP actually doing something to advance the independence cause. I am not up to speed with their latest updates. I just hear a lot of Blackford hot air and sigh!

      I know Jo Cherry is working away in the background as usual. Doing Nicola’s heavy lifting for her. What is Blackford doing?

    50. Daisy Walker says:

      Current SNP Leadership will not do this.

      We need to lever 2 organisations – WM and NS lead SNP.

      The above described Mandate is good, but will also require Independent Indy candidates to adopt it too. Which I don’t see as a problem. It should also have a time described promise on when it is going to deliver the Ref – hopefully within 6 months. This would strengthen Holyrood’s arm to negotiate with the EU and garner support.

      Now, assume the above mandate is adopted at SNP level (we can hope) or another route becomes necessary.

      First call of action for either, is to get support for Indy over 60% – and the only people who can do it are the YES movement, and we are running out of time.

      Over 60% support puts pressure on the leadership and membership of the SNP – ‘now is not the time’ becomes out of date data, and they have the ‘power to their elbow’ to change tactics.

      Getting Indy support over 60% enables local heroes to be identified for putting up as candidates for HE – if the SNP don’t grow a pair. Leverage.

      Getting support over 60% covers the ground that needs covering, until the talking shop becomes a clear plan of action.

    51. Willie Hogg says:

      This is in all probability a cul de sac to heard dissatisfied SNP members down and keep them busy. The document is incomprehensible as it mixes up Act and Treaty. For the avoidance of doubt there is one treaty and two acts of Union. The Scottish Parliament passed an Act to adopt the Treaty into Scots Law and the English likewise. The Treaty guarantees the continuation of Scots Law and says nothing about Constitutional Law. As Lord Cooper said in 1953 parliamentary sovereignty is entirely an English concept. Popular sovereignty is an ancient principle of Scottish constitutional Law still observed today.

    52. Polly says:

      @ Peter A Bell @ 12.32

      I agree with you. I agree with what they’re advocating and agree with others who say it’s not that clearly, certainly not forcefully, outlined here. Bullet points are better and force home the message. Unfortunately I also agree with some that getting SNP conference to agree this before a vote, or SNP party to implement it after winning next election is much more problematic. It still leaves too much in the hands of the party which has been woeful as far as fighting spirit goes and I don’t see any way in which we can take it out of their hands or much we can do to force them onto the front foot.

    53. Andy Ellis says:

      Mr Bell’s responses and his inability to articulate an argument without resorting to playground abuse will be no great surprise to anyone who knows his MO and has had the misfortune to cross his path here or elsewhere on line before now. It is however symptomatic of all too many in the party that they simply can’t deal with a plurality of views without othering those with the temerity to disagree with them.

      Peter of course contrives to walk the difficult tightrope of presenting himself as dissatisfied with the party’s policy on his hobby horse cunning plan, whilst simultaneously demanding loyalty and voting SNP 1&2 from those advocating Plan B or voting for list only parties which he insists in spite of all the evidence is utter folly.

      He knows quite well of course that there’s as much chance of the SNP changing course as there is of Trump attending a Black Lives Matter rally, but he’ll carry on tilting at his 5 Point Plan windmill from now until 2039.

    54. Daisy Walker says:

      either says:
      14 September, 2020 at 2:06 pm
      ‘the question here today is what we can actually do’

      We get Support for Indy over 60% by years end.

    55. Andy Ellis says:

      @Stuart

      Because the plan is incoherent, badly worded and badly presented. If a bloviating abusive no mark like Pete Bell can see it it must be true.

      2000 words to say something that needed to be easily understood, easily disseminated, clear, concise and saleable on the doorstep.

      As others have already discerned these plans have far too many hostages to fortune in that they presuppose SNP buy in, which just isn’t going to happen. I’d like to think the party is for turning but the evidence of the last 5 years suggests otherwise.

    56. leither says:

      Daisy Walker says:

      We get Support for Indy over 60% by years end.

      50%+ is a prerequisite for what ever action is pursued. i would argue the 1st priority is to translate the current opinion polls into an actual plebiscite.

      what happens after that depends on many other factors outwith our control, eg what will others do then? the eu, bojo etc, also, indy support in wales is currently at 32%, PC will do well in the next elections too, as will SF in ni,

      these are only ponderables but they will influence what we can and will do after a 50%+ vote in may2021

    57. Alan Crocket says:

      This paper hobbles itself by dealing only with the elusive search for a referendum.
      It is universally and explicitly accepted that the UK is a voluntary union and that Scotland has the right to independence if its people so choose. That acceptance has been expressed by Holyrood, by Westminster, and by UK governments in whatever rare statements they have made on the subject.
      The union being a union of parliaments, the classic method of effecting independence is for the Scottish MPs, by majority, to leave Westminster and constitute themselves as the parliament of an independent Scotland.
      London’s refusal to countenance a Holyrood referendum on independence is no more than the refusal of a method. It is not a denial of Scotland’s ability to secede.
      Accordingly, at the minimum only two steps are required to bring about Scottish independence, namely a) a democratic vote of the people, and b) secession by their supreme representatives, their MPs.
      There are three ways by which a fully democratic, legal, constitutional and peaceful vote might be taken. One is a referendum. The others are a Scottish general election or a UK general election, under a manifesto requiring both a majority of seats and a majority of votes in order to proceed to independence. Only the referendum can be blocked by London (unless the current court action says different), and so Scotland remains free to go independent by means of an election.
      The only entity in the UK which casts doubt on this is my party, the SNP, in promulgating the notion that the only possible method is a referendum with London’s consent. Not only is that a false and servile doctrine, but it contradicts their traditional stance and gives London a veto on independence which it does not claim. It also gravely debilitates the independence movement, whose imposed inactivity has created the space for lesser squabbles.
      The SNP should openly accept that there are electoral alternatives. If the leadership prefers to try for the referendum route as a tactic, or simply to bide its time, it should make its case with integrity, without silencing the other view. Into the bargain, any request for a referendum will stand a better chance if backed with the electoral threat.

    58. CameronB Brodie says:

      Are we not perhaps making things a little complicated. Brexit is not compatible with the British constitution, or international law, so Westminster and British constitutional law no longer holds (moral) legal force over Scotland. Westminster has already accepted the principle that national law can’t subvert self-determination (see Kosovo). So why don’t we approach our dilemma from the perspective of international constitutional law, rather than British constitutional convention?

    59. Clapper57 says:

      The opponents are on the ropes…..

      I know….Let’s give them time to regroup …says nobody who wants independence apart from those who prefer to talk the talk as opposed to walking the walk….or something….

      Meanwhile…..Boris Johnson’s Rule Of 6 has a controversial exemption – for grouse shooting and similar field sports.

      Upto 30 people can gather to hunt with guns cos classed as a licensed outdoor sport.

      Cabinet Office drafted special meeting on exemption….chaired by Micheal Gove….Boris Johnson’s boss and the real driving force behind the mucho sheeite that seems to hit the fan …..like constantly……and they are doing it deliberately too…..send for Foulkes…..

    60. Colin Alexander says:

      Any pretend indy-plan plan that involves a first step of:

      First re-elect the SNP to administer woke British colonialism at Holyrood is a plan that involves one step too many.

      “Pro-indy” parties / candidates either seek a direct electoral mandate to resile the Treaty of Union or they can “get tae…”, as far as I am concerned.

      I won’t be voting SNP or any other so-called indy party on “Jam the morra” indyref policies. Been there, done it. I’ve had enough. I’d rather spoil my ballot papers.

    61. leither says:

      why don’t we approach our dilemma from the perspective of international constitutional law, rather than British constitutional convention?

      yes, lets,

    62. G H Graham says:

      Bernard of Kilwinning surely set the precedent for international recognition of sovereign states back in 1320 when he wrote the Declaration of Arbroath & had it signed by those authority in Scotland.

      You can argue over the legitimacy of medieval overlords or indeed the Pope actually having any foreign jurisdiction but that was then & that’s how Scotland was gifted if you will, its recognition as a separate kingdom that rejected England’s desire to consume it into a single English kingdom.

      Thus, nationhood is truly only achievable when recognized, not by another’s territorial claim but surely by the international collective consciousness & agreement represented by the UN.

      The SNP’s dependency on London’s gift is a huge sign of weakness & a terrible strategy. It’s a dead end and only serves to provide the troughers in Westminster & Holyrood with a seat to keep warm while they gorge on handsome salaries & seemingly unlimited expense accounts. This does absolutely nothing towards achieving independence.

      Instead, it is the international community that the Scottish Government should be lobbying, not Boris Johnson when he isn’t too busy rubbing Savlon on his carpet burned kneecaps.

    63. Bob says:

      @ Beaker 1:46pm

      “The article as it is presented could never be put forward to the electorate. It needs to be simplified.”
      Says who?

      “From what I understand (thanks to some helpful hints above)”
      Don’t try and tell me what you think I just read. I read it and understood it perfectly well.

      “It’s a double or nothing option carrying substantial risk.”
      No it’s not. It is exactly as it was written.

      “If it fails,”
      So, in no more than 10 words, would it therefore succeed in your simplified form.

      “there is a lot of detail in the article referring to legal actions. Am I right to assume…”
      Never assume anything. Always read the details. You would then have noticed this post on WoS is in fact a paper prepared by:
      IAIN LAWSON
      KENNY MACASKILL MP
      PROFESSOR ALLAN MACINNES
      COUNCILLOR CHRIS MCELENY
      DOT JESSIMAN

      and starts with the words “The purpose of the paper below”.

      One thing you have highlighted is the paper refers to legal actions, something that tells you need to pay attention to the details. A simple list of bullet points will get you nowhere.

      I would also agree as mentioned above that the media role during the process of a legal decision on Scottish independence is clarified by Holyrood and any gaps in Devolved powers to achieve a balance is taken up by a new entrant to the 4th estate.

    64. Bob Mack says:

      Hearing there might be a “complete” lockdown imminently.

      Oh well.

    65. John Digsby says:

      @leither

      You have mentioned doing more once the democratic route (in your view) is at an end. I’m rather worried by what you might be suggesting?

    66. Oneliner says:

      The possibility of a challenge in the Supreme Court raises the question of whether the Scottish Government would consider it an appropriate body to rule on a matter of its status in respect of a Treaty. In which case it might argue for a reference to the International Court of Justice to obtain a ruling on its right to proceed under that Treaty, albeit one some 300 years old.

      My knowledge of the law is limited. If the Supreme Court represents an apparatus constructed by your opponent, then you should expect delay and obfuscation. There are topical examples of this.

      If it is possible to avoid the Supreme Court, then it should be avoided.

      Thank you signatories, your work is very much appreciated and, as a by-product of you deliberations, you have raised the gravitas level and given the trolls something to take to their masters.

      Indeed, a Billy Goat Gruff moment.

    67. CameronB Brodie says:

      I appreciate that links, and apparently only my links, cause extreme distress to some, but the truth needs to be free.

      International Law and Self-Determination
      https://www.diakonia.se/en/IHL/The-Law/International-Law1/IL–Self-Determination/

    68. Clapper57 says:

      True story :

      A friend , in Edinburgh, was outside polling station on day of Indy ref….

      Young guy came up to him and said ” Not sure what to vote”…then said ” I think I’ll phone my dad and ask him”

      So he phoned his Dad….and he too was undecided what to vote for ‘Yes’ or ‘No’…..

      So then the young guy saw a dog and said….and this is 100% true…” If that dog barks I will vote Yes”…..

      Moral of this story ?….you decide…

      No really…moral of this story YOU decide….never base a decision on a canine reaction….it’s a dog’s life indeed. when the future of your country depends on you being barking mad.

    69. kapelmeister says:

      There are only 2 Scottish judges out of 12 members of the UK Supreme Court. So that institution is not an appropriate body to give a ruling between the two equal partners to the Treaty of Union. The ICJ it has to be.

    70. leither says:

      the issue of indy verses indyref2 on next mandate.

      it reminds me a bit of the discussion about the 2016 holyrood manifesto.

      if we dont put indyref2 into the manifesto and brexit happens we wont have a mandate to hold indyref2.

      If we do put indyref2 into the manifesto and brexit does happen we might be forced to hold indyref2 before we are ready.

      in the end, a compromise was reached which covered both outcomes.

      the same is true of the manifesto of 2021, indy or indyref2, i suspect a compromise will be created to this.

      if bojo cant stop the holyrood election in 2021, (not certain he cant or wont) he could always try and re-ignite the troubles in NI??

    71. MightyS says:

      While I applaud the efforts of the authors I have to say that:

      The Present SNP leadership will not do this.

      That’s it. That’s all you need to know. So, we’d be campaigning for and giving them a lavish majority for HR2021 – so that they can continue doing nothing but the day job.

      Until people accept that the Murrells do not want independence, it doesn’t matter how many cunning plans we produce as a collective, we will not proceed anywhere but down the nearest toilet along with the rest of the UK.

    72. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB

      You are being (entirely unsurprisingly) disingenuous. Folk don’t object to posted links per se, even yours if they were germane or served to link to something that couldn’t readily be précis-ed. What many do object to, as comments on other threads demonstrate is the tsunami of such links you inevitably splatter on every thread in here to the detriment of the flow of the thread, generally accompanied by sniping at those who remonstrate with you that your mania for doing so is diverting and often beside the point.

      If you have such a burning desire to educate, why not do it on your own blog? Better still, use your constantly referenced education and intellectual superiority in your areas of expertise to distill the gist of the huge number of secondary sources you insist on splatter gunning us with and post that instead rather than expecting everyone to click on and read the homework you set.

      It shouldn’t be that hard.

    73. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      What is you problem with me sharing pertinent scientific, ethical, and legal insight?

      —–

      Brexit v Dicey

      ….Ushering in constitutional rights for citizens under the Human Rights Act also gave judges a greater role in policing those rights and brought the judiciary further into the field of forming public policy, an issue that has continued to simmer ever since.

      There had already been grumbles from public law academics that such meddling risked unsettling the UK’s ancient but ad hoc constitutional settlements. Those following the example of celebrated theorists like AV Dicey, who popularised key notions of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, despair at the lack of restraint by modern politicians and policy makers.

      And then the 2016 referendum on membership of the EU happened, pitching the UK into a new order of uncertainty that has already thrown many of the assumed norms of public life and governance right out of the window. This summer saw an election within the Conservative Party of the new prime minister, Boris Johnson, to replace Theresa May, who herself broke convention to bring the same deal on exiting the EU back to Parliament despite repeated rejections.

      Several candidates to replace May openly floated proroguing Parliament to force through an exit this autumn without agreed exit terms, a stance that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

      It is clear that the flurry of modern reforms is about to be stress tested, and constitutional advisers are being asked whether Brexit poses a political or constitutional crisis and, more broadly, if the two can be separated….

      https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/feature/brexit-v-dicey/

    74. Polly says:

      ‘in the end, a compromise was reached which covered both outcomes‘

      And in the end that outcome did bugger all for us yet here you are saying the best outcome is the same will be applied again since it was so very successful last time.

      2021 is merely 2016 redux.

    75. Peter A Bell says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      14 September, 2020 at 2:22 pm
      inability to articulate an argument without resorting to playground abuse

      Hypocritical fuckwit.

    76. leither says:

      John Digsby says:
      You have mentioned doing more once the democratic route is at an end. I’m rather worried by what you might be suggesting?

      well certainly not UDI or armed insurrection John. although where this leads to is anyones guess. No, i would move to a program of civil disobedience, disruption to force wm to comply with the democratic majority in scotland. marches, rallys, demonstrations and anything which disrupts wm ability to govern.

      none of these actions are necessarily illegal. (that doesnt rule out wm cracking down on such activities and making them so)

      where I do agree with pete Bell is that todays Priority is the manifesto. indy and/or indyref2.

      this article tries to lay out the best legal route to an indyref2 without a s30 after the election. It ends up being overly verbose without explaining why bojo will accept a ruling from anyone. eg the ECHR(which bojo this weeks has said he will ditch anyway)or similar International court. all it does is rehash the same problem of bojo saying no.

      the best manifesto commitment would be that if elected the snp

      “will do everything in its power to bring about scotlands independence” or words to that effect,

      it covers all bases, eg, whatever the best legal route is decided by lawyers. this also wouldnt rule out indyref2 with or without a s30!

    77. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB

      The same as my problem with you being unable to read or to give it a rest with your wall to wall spamming. I and many others have explained why we find it irritating, but to no avail. Why you think it is appropriate is beyond me.

      I, like many, indeed I’d venture probably most, others on here are quite capable of doing our own homework and google mining for sources if we felt the need to do so.

    78. Stuart MacKay says:

      Cameron,

      What is you problem with me sharing pertinent scientific, ethical, and legal insight?

      Ha, ha, ha. You’ll need to do better than that. You are singularly failing in you’re objective to educate. With your inability to appreciate that there can only be one purpose of the large number of posts you make – to disrupt the conversation.

      Want to make a difference? Then post a smaller number of links as background material to a detailed comment.

      Simply spamming the thread is rather counter-productive.

    79. Peter A Bell says:

      MightyS says:
      14 September, 2020 at 3:27 pm
      While I applaud the efforts of the authors I have to say that:

      The Present SNP leadership will not do this.,/i>

      Stop fucking sulking in the corner long enough to realise that there is nobody else! What the fuck is wrong with you people who can’t discuss the constitutional issue without totally discarding the concept of time? Or is it that you are deluded enough to suppose that time is not a factor.

      Listen the fuck up! Legislation going through the British parliament NOW will substantially achieve the British Nationalists’ aims. And substantially fuck Scotland. Who but a total fucking bollard would imagine we have time to go through a leadership contest or even to set uyp a new party to replace the SNP (truly and insane idea!). Neither of which would even be guaranteed to take us any further forward even if the British didn’t use the time (look it up!) you want to give them the complete the process of fucking Scotland.

      TIME! You know! Tick! Tock! Clock! Calendar! TIME! FFS!

    80. Andy Ellis says:

      Remember readers: it’s all your fault for (consults Peter Bell’s latest sweary brain fart) not working hard or fast enough to force the SNP to adopt a new direction. After all, you know how open and honest the party is to self examination and taking on board the legitimate concerns of voters and members.

      I mean, just ask Gareth Waddell, Neale Harvey, Denise Findlay, Michelle Thomson, Joan McAlpine, Joanne Cherry, and of course Alex Salmond. It’s not as if any of them have had any difficulties making their cases and having the party change its mind, right?

      Oh…..no…..the other thing…..

    81. MightyS says:

      Peter Bell…

      The present SNP leadership will not do this.

      Doesn’t matter that you consider them the only gig in town.
      Doesn’t matter that we’re running out of time (again, thanks to the SNP)

      THE
      MURRELLS
      WILL
      NOT
      PROCEED
      TO
      INDEPENDENCE

      And grow up, eh. Think of your blood pressure at least.

    82. jfngw says:

      @leither

      No matter whether you think it is wishful thinking or not, the BBC and the rest of the broadcast media will not be breathing down our necks if the UK government declare it illegal, they will simply ignore it and report only the negatives and the latest UK government statements. It will be like NI in the eighties but without even the voice-over.

      So if we go down a route that confronts Westminster you need a plan for broadcasting or how will many even know when it is happening and what the debate is (many can’t even cope understanding the Covid instructions for Scotland because of the BBC news reporting).

    83. HandandShrimp says:

      Ignoring Westminster in a limited and specific way would seem feasible under the current zeitgeist.

    84. leither says:

      Polly says:
      ‘in the end, a compromise was reached which covered both outcomes‘
      And in the end that outcome did bugger all for us

      actually, it did do something for us, the 2016 manifesto commitment, “in the event of being pulled out of the eu against our will etc” enabled us to claim a mandate for our actions regardless of the result of the euref.

      this is what we now face in 2021

      if we make the holyrood election purely about independence ie an indy plebiscite and we only get 45%……. we DONT have a mandate for our independence. also, if we dont mention indyref2 in the manifesto, we WONT have a mandate for indyref2 either.

      if we make the holyrood election purely about indyref2, and get 55%, we WILL have another mandate for indyref2, (which bojo might refuse a s30 for again) but we WONT have a mandate for independence

      I prefer the plebiscite route as the unionists will participate, no legal authority anywhere can force the unionists to vote in indyref2

      that is why the manifesto should read

      “vote snp for an independent scotland and we will do everything in our power to ensure that this happens”

      It is a compromise which covers all eventualities. eg, if the snp got 45%, they wouldnt have a mandate for indy but they would still have a mandate for indyref2.

    85. leither says:

      So if we go down a route that confronts Westminster you need a plan for broadcasting

      we do what we have always done, we get our message out as best we can. the bbc will not change between now and holyrood 2021.

    86. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      Listen dude, I’ve hurt your ego and I apologies for that. But I’m amost certainly better informed than yourslef re. international relations and the rule of law. So just give it a rest, eh?

    87. Robert Graham says:

      A bit o/t

      Sorry to intrude on the fighting chaps

      Ruthless the Barroness from Hell had a hour long stuff The Jocks political broadcast on LBC last night it appears it’s a weekly spot , as far as I know Tony WMD maggies pal was the first one up anyone listened to it just a thought before I phone into next weeks episode that’s if it’s still on Air , a prime guest would be Foulkes , I mean all pals together eh maybe include George the one who wouldn’t be seen dead with a Union flag or joining up with bitter Together Galloway

    88. CameronB Brodie says:

      Stuart MacKay
      Are you Andy Ellis?

    89. leither says:

      MightyS

      it isnt nicola that decides whats in the manifesto, the members do.

    90. Effijy says:

      Irish Times proposes EU keeps its cool and lets Boris
      Destroy the UK before picking up the pieces.

      Can we get our money back when it happens and imprison the Tories?

      https://www.facebook.com/1420752397985655/posts/3440822882645253/?sfnsn=scwspwa&extid=cOyKVzYgiYnE9qUA

    91. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB

      Your pretentions to adequacy are as questionable as there value of your contributions here Cameron. You’re just some guy on the internet with a mania for hi-jacking a well known blog to stroke your own fragile ego.

      The assertion that you are better informed than me about international relations, or indeed anything else, whilst an interesting example of your intellectual presumption is as questionable as your inflated sense of self regard and apparently inadequately medicated mania.

    92. Ottomanboi says:

      More legalism, more fat fees for lawyers, more talk, more delays.
      The national movement, assuming there is one that is not a front for the snails pace, gradualist tendency, needs to be take well away from politicians, functionaries, bureaucrats and lawyers and become the property of the demos, the people, who will have to get down and dirty with the whole, messy, nasty business for escaping England’s clutches will be exactly that, dirty, nasty and messy.
      Helps to have ‘leaders’ prepared to do that.
      British Empire history refer.

    93. Mark Scotland says:

      @Andy Ellis,

      Let me say what you wont.. Bell is a pompous, snide and cheeky c**t.

      Away and crawl into another bottle you inebriated auld fud.

    94. Big Jock says:

      Here is the dilemma.

      The SNP are sitting at 53% plus in the voting intentions. The yes vote is sitting at 55% and consistently ahead. We have the worst WM government in history. We have the disaster of Brexit looming.

      Everything is in place for a successful yes vote. Except for one thing. Our leadership don’t have the balls or the will to take it.

      So what to do? If we get rid of Sturgeon the SNP vote may go down. If there is no SNP majority at Holyrood 2021 , then the games a bogey. We all understand that, I hope.

      If we have a leadership contest it might cause a fracture in the yes vote , when we are already ahead. But if we don’t challenge Murrel and Sturgeon. They might lose independence forever by not ever using the mandate.

      There is not the time for an angry leadership contest. This would waste months and we would be doomed to failure just by a sheer factor of time running out.

      So the only way to get to independence for me, is to force the SNP to change their tactics. The mechanism for doing this needs to be weight of numbers in the party and the movement.

      However it’s something that needs to be concluded before December. We don’t have time for talking shops and conventions. That is the most depressing thing anyone could suggest. We have talked to death. It’s action we need.

      The people are already with us. We just need the SNP leaders to catch up with the people.

    95. John H. says:

      We can’t allow the British Government to get involved in the process of trying for our independence. They will simply cheat as they always do when dealing with anyone they regard as their inferiors. i.e. everyone.

      As Peter Bell says, they are the ones we are trying to escape from, they are hardly likely to help us to achieve our goal. Especially this government of madmen. If our leaders are so naive as to believe Westminster then we need new leaders, and soon.

    96. leither says:

      As Peter Bell says, they are the ones we are trying to escape from, they are hardly likely to help us to achieve our goal.

      i’m not so sure john, the recent actions of this gov re the eu shows a great deal of delusion, is it possible that bojo actually believes the subsidy junkie myth?

    97. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      “Your pretentions to adequacy are as questionable as there value of your contributions here Cameron”

      You’re arrogance is truly impressive dude. It’s a shame I can’t say the same for your commentary.

      American Society of International Law
      THE VISIBLE COLLEGE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:
      “TOWARDS THE RULE OF LAW
      IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS”

      https://legal.un.org/ola/website/media/info_from_lc/asil_6apr01_final.pdf

    98. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Stuart MacKay

      Don’t know about you bud, but I generally assume folk like Spam-master Cameron who immediately assume two people posting similar things are in fact the same person have a wee want about them?

      It always smacks a little of desperation and a sign they are losing their shit. So…..bang to rights in his case! 🙂

    99. Polly says:

      We are already out of Europe. What has the SNP done about it so far? So how come some staunch SNP supporters didn’t notice that last January when Sturgeon gave her let down speech. And 2016 created a mandate for being taken out of EU which she has banged on about ever since to the exclusion of our right to chose independence in any and every circumstance. That will be used against us should UK cut some kind of last minute deal. She narrowed it to that EU condition, but then other than a lot of hot air they have done nothing to stop it. And for 2021…

      “vote snp for an independent scotland and we will do everything in our power to ensure that this happens”

      You complain the article above is ‘a lot of words to say very little’ so it is exactly the same as your proposed statement there from the SNP. You’re full of hot air laddie.

      A statement like that could mean anything or nothing, and going on past experience it will mean nothing. And ‘everything in their power’? they have no bloody power, they’ve shown that enough. ‘We will not let Scotland be taken out of the EU’ well they have, we are. She wants it done with Westminster consent. Sturgeon wants a lot of things as do you. More than likely you’re not getting it from them, so stop wasting your breath. If they ever make a statement and don’t renage on it I might believe they’re serious.

    100. holymacmoses says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:
      14 September, 2020 at 12:31 pm
      Scottish Can-Kicking Champion 2020, Leslie Evans, doing more of what she does best:

      Ian, The ‘Route Map’ baffles me.

      What is ANY company or employer doing investigating the behaviour of a PREVIOUS employee (over whom they have no jurisdiction or power) on behalf of a sexual harassment complainant? This is a legal matter and the complainant should be advised to report the matter to the police. There is NO ROLE in any investigation for a previous employer except in answering questions put to them by a police investigation. Surely it CANNOT be in their remit or right to investigate on behalf of a complainant in a legal matter and then decide whether the police should be contacted? This is taking the law into their own hands. in fact I would imagine that it would nullify any police investigation and negate the possibility of potential charges.

    101. Republicofscotland says:

      Thank you Various Authors for producing this article, I’m glad there are folk out there, contemplating new a various ideas on how to exit this terrible union.

      “if examination shows it to be a potentially viable course to follow, it is for the resources of Government to turn it from a theory for discussion into a practical proposition capable of withstanding formidable opposition.”

      As for the above paragraph, there in lies the crux of the matter, we need positive movement from the Scottish government sooner that later.

    102. Ian says:

      Something I read a long time ago about a particular major political event has stayed with me. To paraphrase – Trying to work out how to do something before you have established if that is what the control group wants to do, is a waste of time. Only once an objective has been established within the key group, can the focus then be turned to working out how to achieve it.

      So as an example, if the matter in question was whether Scotland should be independent, then currently the SNP doesn’t convincingly and categorically appear to pass this question and instead is making vague and uncommitted attempts at dealing with the ‘how to’.

      It also appears quite clear that the majority of voters in Scotland do collectively want independence.

      The question then is does the current SNP leadership reflect the overall SNP Party & membership with respect to independence. If it doesn’t, then the current SNP leadership is the key group that is currently an anomaly within the matter of independence. Until that position is clarified one way or another, the move towards independence will be hamstrung by this situation.

      This state of affairs also reminds me of a book on another matter called ‘The best way to rob a bank is to own it’.

    103. ScottieDog says:

      “ Manifesto for Independence

      Renounce Section 30 process

      Assert competence of Scottish Parliament in constitutional matters

      Recall MPs to join with MSPs in a National Convention

      Propose dissolution of Union subject to referendum

      Call referendum entirely made and managed in Scotland

      #NoSection30 #ScottishUDI #UnionNoMore”

      Yep, simply put.
      Asserting the competence of holyrood is the key

    104. ScottieDog says:

      There is and never will be the perfect time or set of circumstances for Scotland to gain independence. Right now is an opportunity. Waiting for fair winds and clear skies is a recipe for failure. The Etonian blitzkrieg will have a field day.

    105. Ronald Fraser says:

      Johnson speaking at Westminster now, reminds me of the way Trump tries to whip up support from his white racist supporters in America.

      Johnson trying the same tactic of whipping up support from his white racist little englanders.

      The Tories are now a racist English Nationalist Party.

      They are correct and morally right in everything they do,,,and the rest of the World is wrong.

    106. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @holymacmoses (4.51) –

      Aye, baffling indeed.

      Can’t remember who used the phrase ‘plausible deniability’ in relation to this stuff (was it you Breeks?) but as if that isn’t strange enough it looks as if they’ve been trying to construct a framework whereby it can be claimed retrospectively.

      On top of which – perhaps strangest of all – Nicola Sturgeon, no stranger to accusations of control freakery, handed a crucial function of her own office over to a civil servant?

      Huh?

      Where do we start?

    107. Polly says:

      @ Peter A Bell

      We know time is limited so no need to shout about it to folk worried about what will happen after Brexit truly hits and Westminster comes calling. SNP’s own policies and lackadaisical attitude over these years have caused everyone to be at the nail biting stage, so let the party shoulder some of that blame.

    108. Lorna Campbell says:

      Peter:I understand your frustration because I share it – as do most others on here. You must concede, surely, that, if the SG does nothing, we are screwed? The SG is doing nothing. Yes, I agree that we need the SNP to bring independence about right now. So, how do we force them into doing that? The only way that I can see is to threaten their very existence, or, at least, the existence of the leadership itself.

      Come 2021, we will grant the SNP yet another mandate, and what are the chances that, after a big win, it will be independence at the forefront of the party’s endeavours? No way. They will push through GRA reform and the ‘hate crime’ bill, claiming that this is what we voted for or they will expend their energies in slipping it under the radar.

      A number of the candidates that appear to have made the cut or hope to make the cut are either deeply ‘woke’ or represent the trans lobby. Women are now cited as being more in favour of independence than men, yet few women and even fewer men have taken on board that the SG is deliberately pushing its female supporters to the very edge of resistance. If we want independence, we need the women’s vote, and I mean the natal women’s vote.

      As far as the UKG is concerned, we are on the cusp of a fascist/totalitarian state. In fact, if it were not more perception than fact that history does repeat itself, we are on a very similar trajectory as the one on which the German people found themselves in the 1930s. Johnson is not a buffoon. He has chosen people to place in positions of power who are ruthless and totally obvious to social and political mores, just as the wee chap with the silly moustache did.

      Why the SG would choose to support lobbying groups that are showing the same totalitarian/fascist tendencies rather than fight for our independence, is the question that needs to be answered because no one has even dared to ask why the FM and her coterie are behaving in this way?

      Is it caution? Is it insider knowledge that they don’t believe we should have? Or is it that we are little different from the rest of Europe and elsewhere, where right-wing elements are being eased into positions from which they will be extremely difficult to oust?

      I am totally at a loss to explain why the FM is behaving as a facilitator for fascist/totalitarian elements both in Scotland, on the lobbying issue, and in the UK, at governmental level by not exploring every possible way to extricate us from the Union? What has happened to the SNP?

    109. kapelmeister says:

      Lorna Campbell @5:02 pm

      “What has happened to the SNP?”

      It made the big time.

    110. CameronB Brodie says:

      “It always smacks a little of desperation and a sign they are losing their shit. So…..bang to rights in his case! ?”

      You really are a bit lame, and certainly don’t appear to have any training as an educator.

      Challenging Neoliberalism’s
      New World Order: The Promise
      of Critical Pedagogy

      http://www.lib.csu.ru/ER/ER_Philosophy/All_Schreiber/Shreiber3/the%20promice%20of%20critical%20pedagogy.pdf

    111. leither says:

      meh…….

      love yer links cam

    112. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB

      I’ve never claimed to be an educator tho’ Spam Boy. Unlike many people I have had experience of teaching at tertiary level, but it was many moons ago.

      You however have no talent for imparting knowledge, but advanced skills at pissing contributors to this site off. So….we’ll done you.

    113. MightyS says:

      Leither (4.27pm):

      I don’t see your point.

      Let’s imagine in October the members put through a motion for the manifesto, with every point ending with ‘…we will regain Scotland’s independence within this term of government using any mechanism available.’ Still doesn’t mean it’ll happen. As others have mentioned, the last manifesto seemed pretty damn clear – and yet, here we are out of the EU and STILL in the UK Union.
      There is no prep. There are no plans.
      And woe betide any activist who initiates something off their own backs (Martin Keatings or the Yes Protest at the Border for instance).
      I’m not the only one to notice that we can’t proceed if our political leaders are unwilling.
      And they are unwilling.

    114. Graeme Hampton says:

      I read it and sort of got it but it was made much clearer by Stu’s comments. It certainly seems doable and practical but it will require a strong, committed political personality to carry it out using simple distilled message (Like Stu’s comments).

      Problem 1 – The committed political personality would have to be in close orbit of the SNP leader and I don’t think that’s the case at the moment.

      Problem 2 – The International Court may rule against us and/or the UK GOV may choose to ignore the result (they are not good with treaties at the moment). Not a big point but it would be good to have an answer ready for the possible eventuality.

      Gets my vote – unless a better idea comes along.

    115. Gavin Alexander says:

      This makes sense to me (though a little rambling). Basically, the aim is to establish in international law that the Scottish Parliament is the legal representative of the Scottish nation (which has always existed) within the UK, an entity which the UK itself doesn’t cater for. Once that’s done, the Scottish Parliament are recognised as having the power to hold referenda on matters pertaining to membership of the UK, independently of the UK itself (because this is not an internal UK matter).

      This answers a question I’ve always been asking: who represents Scotland, as a nation, in the UK? It seems ridiculous (but in the UK’s interests) that this has never been defined.

    116. Elmac says:

      Re Big Jock @ 4.35pm

      “Everything is in place for a successful yes vote. Except for one thing. Our leadership don’t have the balls or the will to take it.”

      Sorry to say it is worse than that. The current SNP leadership have no intention whatsoever in pushing for independence. All evidence over recent years suggests that they want to maintain the status quo. Whether that be to keep their cushy lifestyle or because they have been nobbled I do not know. But independence is clearly anathema to Sturgeon, Murrell and their stooges. I agree that a change of leadership, or even a leadership challenge, is likely to hit the pro indy numbers, but what is the alternative? Believe me there will be NO independence with Sturgeon in control. Better a delay than a total failure.

      She must be ditched and again I would urge all on here to stop funding the SNP until the penny drops for those in the leadership that genuinely support independence that the only way forward is to clear out a very filthy stable. Cut up your membership cards, stop the direct debits, and, make sure you tell them why you are doing it!

      No cash = no Sturgeon.

    117. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      Look dude, I am trained as an educator and I’m following critical educational practice as best I can. Just get over yourself eh.

      Teaching Against the Grain: A Conversation
      between the Editors of the Griffith Journal of Law
      & Human Dignity and Peter McLaren on the
      Importance of Critical Pedagogy in Law School

      https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=education_articles

    118. Nell G says:

      My money is on Nicola walking soon after Brexit knowing we are screwed. All that Covid fighting will have taken it’s toll, not the inevitable backlash.

    119. Clapper57 says:

      “James O’Brien says Remainers were “100 per cent correct” on many Brexit issues, but attempts to stay in the EU are “over, that ship has sailed”.

      That’s it folks James has concurred with Keir …..the ship has sailed …..so let’s be having none of this getting back into the EU nonsense…a prominent ‘liberal’ minded Remainer has spoken on behalf of us ALL…..and I mean spoken on behalf of us ALL….or do I…..has he not spoken merely on behalf of HIS country but failed to indicate this…..an oversight I am sure…not another one !!!

      Apparently if they close their eyes and ears then they cannot see or hear Scotland……and if they close their mouths would Scotland be the better for not hearing them……is this the Wolves at the door then ?

      Meanwhile …..in the metropolis things begin to stir….no not THAT metropolis…the other one…the one James fights for….the one James concedes is totally corrupt but lies down or kneels…you decide…to their ‘aving it….Brexit…they wants it…they gets it….one of the prominent ‘liberal’ minded remainers have ordained IT IS OVER for US ALL…..the Brexiteers have won….well won in James’s country according to James even though he fails to distinguish that….all for one and one for all is James’s motto in his UKnotOK….one OUT all OUT.

      Talking of ships…does James know we in Scotland have lifeboats….we are just waiting on the captain and his crew deploying them….unfortunately the Captain and his crew fear this uncharted territory and thus are reluctant to give the signal….currently they have dropped the anchor…so we are stuck…..static…..like a ship waiting to be wrecked then plundered …but James says Avast me Hearties and shiver me timbers you Jocks….you’re sunk and there is nothing to salvage….so avast avast we need your booty to use as looty as and when the EU we are ALL ooty…..

      And there endeth the lesson….prominent ‘liberal’ minded remainers will never come to our aid in the form of support….as they are far too busy with their OWN country and the problems it has brought upon themselves and indeed wantonly inflicted upon others to even consider or take heed of justified considerations or concerns of OTHERS…..the PLMR’s need to try and save themselves….us Jocks just need to get with the program….OK Ja….

      It seems as if an eternity when Nicola, Ian B and Joanna Cherry stood on a platform in London to support people like James and others within James’s UKnotOK…..misspent time trying to save the UKnotOK to vainly try to realise the impossible of staying in the EU via the infamous second People’s vote…..we could have told her and her colleagues then that when the chips were down for Scotland ..again… that they , the PLMR’s servants of the UKnotOK, would never ever reciprocate for her and her country Scotland….I mean has James not just declared that in his statement today…

      A Fool’s errand indeed…was it not…perhaps Now is the Time to focus not on the UK but Scotland only me thinks….or are we still adopting a UKnotOK approach…..somebody please tell her she has been marked as a villain and not a heroine as far as James and his ‘liberal’ minded partners are concerned …..past deeds on behalf on the UKnotOK Remainer faction have now been consigned to history as far as peeps like James is concerned….and he’s doing it deliberately too……

      If you made it to the end of this rant then you can make it to the end when Scotland finally becomes Independent…with or without concerned parties…not all political too.

    120. Grey Gull says:

      Holymacmoses 4.51 and Ian B 4.58

      Is there any other organisation/company that has such a policy for a previous employee? It would be interesting to find out if there is some sort of precedent. However, I am of no doubt the whole thing is a fit up and it stinks to high heaven.

    121. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB

      If your output is an example of what trained educators come out with it explains a whole lot about the state of public discourse. I seem to recall your area is town planning. No wonder our cities are in the state they’re in. 🙂

      I wouldn’t trust you to be able to follow the progression of the sun across the sky.

    122. leither says:

      MightyS says:

      I don’t see your point.

      my point was about the snp manifesto, i only see 2 options, indyref2 or a plebiscite holyrood election. my comment was merely about the wording of the manifesto so cover all bases. and not to trump either option.

      what will we do if bojo says no?

      i did answer this and suggested a move to Civil Disobedience. you are aware that he can say no to any proposal, including the one suggested in this article.

      what do you suggest we do?

      as for martin keatings, i gave to his crowd fund, the worry suggested by lallans peatworrier was that after the money is spent, the judge may well state it isnt her job to pass judgment on a political matter. Will he refund us if the case is found to be a waste of money?

    123. Beaker says:

      @Bob says:
      14 September, 2020 at 2:49 pm
      @ Beaker 1:46pm
      “The article as it is presented could never be put forward to the electorate. It needs to be simplified.”
      Says who?
      Never assume anything. Always read the details. You would then have noticed this post on WoS is in fact a paper prepared by:
      IAIN LAWSON
      KENNY MACASKILL MP
      PROFESSOR ALLAN MACINNES
      COUNCILLOR CHRIS MCELENY
      DOT JESSIMAN”

      You, like a few others, a missing a crucial point. The people that need to be on board are the electorate. Anything other than a democratic vote carries risk.

      I don’t give a damn who has prepared the document. What I would like to know is if Kenny Macaskill is so concerned, then why does he not challenge Sturgeon directly for the leadership? That just might be the catalyst to get things moving.

      As to simplicity, I’m not assuming. It is an opinion based on professional experience in communicating complex information. I know what I’m talking about.

    124. CameronB Brodie says:

      I think I’ve outgrown these environs, as I’ve just tried to respond to Andy with some international relations and international law, but I think the Rev. has had enough. I’m tempted to say fair well and thanks for all the fish, but that would simply be capitulation. So I’ll just have to think about how to circumvent the sniping against me, as I’ve got a lot more practical insight to share.

    125. kapelmeister says:

      Why are some people on here assuming that a change of SNP leader would make Yes support drop? Surely it’s robust enough, and any new leader arouses interest.

      Even if there was an initial decrease in Yes in opinion polls, a dynamic pro-indy leader would make it soar before long. Not to mention putting a spring in the step of Yes campaigners. Positivity begets positivity and spreads from activists to the people.

      Stop this negativity. Sturgeon is simply no good. She’s not indispensable for a pro-indy majority at Holyrood. Every day she’s still at Bute House is a wasted day. Get her out!

    126. Effijy says:

      I see the figures below are the same as presented to World Meters as representing the 4 parts of the UK?

      Either there are no new cases or deaths outside England or they admit England is the UK with Colonies.

      Public Health England
      (@PHE_uk)
      Due to an issue with Microsoft Azure we are unable to update the dashboard currently.

      We can confirm that:

      2,621 new positive cases have been recorded on Monday 14 September, a total of 371,125.

      9 new deaths have been reported, a total of 41,637 https://t.co/wswwEKHxqu

      September 14, 2020

    127. MightyS says:

      Leither 5.48pm:

      Yes, I agree. Civil Disobedience all day long.

      As to your last question: I don’t think the constitution is political, but even if the court rules that it is, I would not regret the money donated to the case.
      It’s done more than just get us a court hearing and well done to Mr Keatings. He is doing what NS should have done way back in 2017 and him a mere citizen too, begod!

    128. kapelmeister says:

      Cameron B Brodie

      Less is more Cameron. Less is more.

    129. Ian McCubbin says:

      Oh dear we are all caught up in rules of quasi laws, a S30 being such.
      It has no actual meaning other than requesting a so called transfer of powers to request referendum to secede.
      We are a nation and a parliament with majority party for Independence can decide due to breach in UK laws connected to devolutionhow to proceed to Independence.
      This is covered in Allen Buchanan’s book Justice Legitimacy, and Self Determination

    130. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB & kapellmeister

      From kapelmeister’s lips to God’s ears.

      And Cameron, just imagine…if less is more, imagine the impact zero on your part will have! That has to be worth chucking you a few herring fillets any day you clapping seal!

      Buh bye now! :-bd

    131. twathater says:

      STOP GUYS AND GALS calm down , I like others on here have been ADVOCATING and PLEADING for someone/anyone to DO SOMETHING to get us out of this MESS

      NOW we have PEOPLE ,thank you people STANDING UP AND ARE WILLING TO TAKE ACTION so let’s calm down and look at what they are proposing

      As a collective ,and I would like more names appended and included, they will go forward as the YES movements voice with the accompanying gravitas, so the SNP SG WILL HAVE TO AGREE AND CARRY OUT whatever proposals are put forward, OR the report will come back that they are not focused on indy and the truth and reality will have to be faced with the SNP SG suffering the consequences

      As many of you will be and are aware I am extremely critical of NS and the current SNP, BUT truthfully we are at the unfortunate stage that we NEED to get this done NOW, and again unfortunately the current SNP is the ONLY vehicle available to us at this time, so let’s just focus on the best method to get this moving and a way that is most likely to achieve our aims
      So I ask look at the positivity of these people trying to RALLY the movement

    132. Garrion says:

      I just had what seems at first blush an insane thought. Scotland, if indeed a nation, is ALREADY independent.

      The question is not on whether Scotland is independent, the question is how to achieve formal and legislative withdrawal from a union that is no longer fit for purpose, and has not been for a really long time.

      Why can this not be the basis for moving forward?

    133. Muscleguy says:

      I personally do not feel that further democratic means are required for Holyrood to reassert that it is the heritor of the Scots Parliament which signed the Treaty. Look at the ceremony establishing the parliament, the fact of it being the successor was stated by several participants without censure or rebuttal in the presence of the monarch it should be noted.

      Then there was the Claim of Right accepted without debate with the House of Commons.

      Put together they should constitute ample legal argument that Holyrood is therefore party to the Treaty of Union and thus able to withdraw from it. Citing the manifest ways in which it has been broken by Wetminster over the 300 years. Call it an Unfair British Treaty and the Chinese will perk up and recognise the description. We know problematic Uncle Vlad is in favour of the breakup of the UK, the EU is in favour of iScotland rejoining, the US President’s mother was Scottish which the State dept can remind him of. If we can get the Chinese on board the pressure of Westminster trying to negotiate trade treaties will be immense.

    134. leither says:

      MightyS

      i dont doubt martins intensions, i merely point out i am not qualified to pass comment on legal matters. im not a lawyer. if the scottish government disagrees with martin keatings and vice versa, which side should i support? how the fuck am i meant to decide? I prefered the scottish government’s approach, simply because they do have qualified lawyers to advise however, i contributed and supported martin’s crowd fund as he commited to the case when he only had 20k of the 150k needed!!

      as to our non existent constitution, that it was a political issue and not a legal issue is EXACTLY the reason Peat worrier put forward as to why he believes the judge will fail to make a judgment, bang gangs £150k. I hope he is wrong but since i’m no lawyer, i couldnt comment only report what those qualified who are

      what about you? are you qualified?

    135. CameronB Brodie says:

      Scotland needs clear legal thinking and certainly won’t help itself without recourse to international law. British constitutional practice is antagonistic towards international law though, so the Scottish government will not make recourse to international justice. Such is the inevitability of legal parochialism.

    136. Andy Ellis says:

      @Muscleguy

      Eeeeek! Don’t give the Donald ideas…!

      I’d be all in favour of making a specific exception in his case that he is forever barred from entitlement to Scottish citizenship, banned from ever entering the country and that Holyrood goes on record to apologize to the world in general for Scotland having had a part in siring such a wretch.

    137. CameronB Brodie says:

      That’s not quite right. British constitutional practice has always been antagonistic towards international law and order, by the current Tories have crossed the line towards outright hostility towards the rule-of-law.

    138. leither says:

      Muscleguy says:
      Put together they should constitute ample legal argument that Holyrood is therefore party to the Treaty of Union and thus able to withdraw from it.

      absolutely……..except bojo could just say NO. whats to stop him just saying no?

    139. Denise says:

      I agree with the article and have thought for a long time, but struggled to express, that the act of union only applies as long as we are in the union. The treaty of union was passed by the Scottish Parliament, so this Scottish Parliament can repeal that treaty once the treaty is repealed the Act of Union no longer has force.
      The manifesto for the Holyrood election would affirm that the current Scottish Parliament IS the successor parliament to the Scottish Parliament that passed the treaty of union all those years ago.

      I see the plan is an SNP plan which is a bit disappointing as there is No Chance whatsoever that the SNP will go any route that is slightly confrontational. And it’s preventing them suggest that a second list party which could provide a two thirds majority in the case of a National Assembly.

      My plan would
      do this Plan
      + List party with same commitment in manifesto
      Post indyref Yes vote if WM refuses to accept the result (likely)
      Withdraw MPs
      Hold National Assembly with 2/3rds majority

      We’d rely on international recognition but WM has an issue do they sit it out and hope we don’t get international recognition or do they deal and try to screw us over in the negotiations

      But seriously can anyone see Nicola doing any of this?
      She will never go against WM

    140. Republicofscotland says:

      O/T.

      Westminster trained Saudi dictatorship fighter pilots in UK then allowed them mock bomb UK cities which the MoD point blankly refused to release the videos of.

      Saudi pilots did drop bombs at UK bomb ranges and Cape Wrath on Scotland was intensely bombed.

      Christ knows what Westminster is and the MoD are up to on Scottish soil.

      https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-11-revealed-censored-videos-show-saudi-pilots-bombing-britain/

    141. jockmcx says:

      hehe!
      the pot of 2014 homemade soup is boiling up nicely!

      as ordered by the chef!

    142. leither says:

      Denise

      My plan would
      do this Plan
      + List party with same commitment in manifesto
      Post indyref Yes vote if WM refuses to accept the result (likely)
      Withdraw MPs
      Hold National Assembly with 2/3rds majority

      We’d rely on international recognition but WM has an issue do they sit it out and hope we don’t get international recognition or do they deal and try to screw us over in the negotiations

      —————

      what if bojo just says no and shuts down holyrood?

    143. Andy Ellis says:

      @muscleguy & leither

      The international community is only tangentially interested in “our” issues. It (to the extent we can generalise about there being such a community) knows little and cares even less about Scottish history, the origins of the Union, the Claims of Right, declaration of Arbroath, parliamentary sovereignty versus the Scottish people being sovereign etc, etc.

      They will only take notice when and if Scots have the courage to make it abundantly clear that the majority of us want independence and to end the union. That international recognition and support will be much easier to achieve if it is done through an agreed process such as a referendum or plebiscitary elections. If the former is denied to us, we switch to the latter. it’s hardly rocket science.

      Don’t rely on the UN, ICJ or EU to lift a finger to help us unless and until we have the courage to ensure we win a vote for independence or take it rather than ask for permission. The international community and it’s institutions are not a deus ex machina to drop indy into our laps when we lack the will to assert our own inalienable right to self determination.

      British nationalists can say no to granting a referendum ad infinitum, but they can’t stop General elections without a much higher political price. We don’t need cunning plans, or yet another mandate.

      People, we just need to win a majority at Holyrood in 8 months time on a plebiscitary mandate. All we need to focus on is how to ensure that mandate is available, whether the SNP like it or not.

    144. Republicofscotland says:

      English Health secretary Matt Hancock tried to limit the amount of Coronavirus tests in Scotland so their would be more tests available for England.

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18719596.nicola-sturgeon-says-matt-hancock-tried-limit-scotlands-coronavirus-testing/

      Meanwhile Boris Johnson F’s off out the chamber before Scottish MP’s can question him on the power grabbing Internal Market bill.

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18720436.brexit-boris-johnson-leaves-snp-speak-power-grab-bill/

      Scotland is treated like shit in this horrendous onesided union.

    145. CameronB Brodie says:

      Critical educational theory teaches us to view unsubstantiated “opinion” with due skepticism. Just saying. 😉

      THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION IN
      INTERNATIONAL LAW
      Scrutinizing the colonial aspect of the right to self-determination

      https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16310405.pdf

    146. leither says:

      a 50%+ result in holyrood 2021 is a prerequisite, it is the starting point. without it, the rest is angelology

    147. Denise says:

      @leither

      If Bojo tried to shut down Holyrood by passing a bill in WM.
      The parliament would still meet and carry on governing Scotland
      What could Bojo do?

    148. Republicofscotland says:

      Meanwhile the millionaire Knight of the Realm and leader of the Labour party Sir Keir Starmer, who was also involved in the legalities against Assange and who declared that the policemen who shot Charles de Menezes (an unarmed man) dead had nothing to answer for, says Scotland doesn’t need another independence referendum.

      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18719067.keir-starmer-scotland-doesnt-need-another-independence-referendum/

    149. leither says:

      @denise

      he can park tanks on your lawn, what can we do?

      seriously, bojo can shut down holyrood tomorrow, indeed, he has already built a replacement building and employed 3000 new civil servants.

      i think this is very likely, not an outside chance.

      what will you do then? write a strongly worded comment btl on wings? that should do the trick eh!

    150. Denise says:

      @leither
      I’m not sure what your point is other than reiterating WM power. Of course WM is powerful. Does that mean we give in? Or do we try to regain independence ? If we want independence we will never get it from WM, we have to try alternative plans such as suggested
      What’s your brilliant idea ask Boris (who you’ve suggested would happily send in tanks) to kindly grant a s30 ?

      It’s a con telling people Boris will grant a s30 and any politician – including Nicola Sturgeon – who tells you that he will is LYING

    151. Ron Maclean says:

      An alternative method from Craig Murray;

      ‘The Scottish Parliament should immediately legislate for a new independence referendum. The London Government will attempt to block it. The Scottish Parliament should then convene a National Assembly of all nationally elected Scottish representatives MSPs, MPs and MEPs. That National Assembly should declare independence, appeal to other countries for recognition, reach agreements with the rump UK and organise a confirmatory plebiscite. That is legal, democratic and consistent with normal international practice.’

      He went on to say ‘It is no time for faint hearts or haverers; we must seize the moment.’

      From; ‘The Scottish Parliament Does Have the Right to Withdraw from the Act of Union’
      17 December 2018.
      craigmurray.org.uk

    152. leither says:

      @denise
      Does that mean we give in

      no it means folk stop fuckin whining to every suggestion put forward with the lame answer “but bojo will just say no”

      the only folk on here who have suggested any real course of action are pete bell, craig murray and (sometimes) ian brotherhood

      1. we win the next election with the biggest result possible. we do this whether or not you and stu campbell and others cry that “bojo will just say no” we cross that bridge when we get to it.

      2. if bojo does says no to any democratic course of action towards indy, then the democratic process is over,

      3. we move to CD

      what other option is there?

    153. leither says:

      Ron Maclean

      im not opposed to craig’s idea, i just think we would fair better with a 50%+ peoples vote in our pocket before we take such actions.

      even with such a vote, bojo could still say no and we would be forced to go down such routes. His is an action which could(and will be by wm) be describe as Civil Disobedience. it is only one course of CD, it doesnt preclude others happening concurrently,

    154. Johnny says:

      Think it’s a good document myself.

      People shouting about it “being too long” etc are missing the point imho because:

      I) it isn’t that long actually and not everything needs to treat people like imbeciles and be a three word slogan;

      II) it’s essentially an academic argument, trying to underpin the political argument to be made. You can’t just go “here’s some bullet points now take it on trust”. You need to make your argument fully and this does. Just because some people have no attention span, you can’t skip this requirement;

      III) in any case, this is surely not how anything would be “presented to the electorate”. Most of it would be the argument for outside legal bodies and in the manifesto (were you so minded) you’d lay out the steps more simply (“and if they try to block this, we go to ICJ” etc). The format you are laying something out in matters. If this had just been some bulletpoints, the first comments would have been screaming “AND HOW DO YOU WORK THAT OUT?!1”.

      I think this document is laudable in particular for laying out the argument that we don’t waste any more time/elections pretending we don’t know what steps will need to be taken, i.e. we all know the Supreme Court will cheat, so let’s get the plan for that in the next manifesto not one three elections down the line.

      On a personal level, I’m delighted to see Prof Macinnes involved in this; gives me heart that people such as him are not minded to give in.

    155. Effijy says:

      Great news Knight of the realm Sir Keir is against
      Indy Ref 2!

      He and that dunderheid Dick Leonard will ensure Labour continues its
      slow death here in Scotland.

      It’s again confirmation that he knows England desperately needs Scotland’s money.

    156. ahundredthidiot says:

      Gold hit an all time high late August.

      Q1 just under 10% drop, Q2 just over 20% drop – all figures a few months behind and definitely manipulated down the way…..Q3…..best guess 35% down, but more like 50 to 60% down.

      Biggest recession in human history.

      Get ready for a war.

    157. CameronB Brodie says:

      Remember folk, unsubstantiated “opinion” can’t be considered reliable.

      Critical Discourse Studies, Volume 14, 2017 – Issue 5
      The politics of fear: what right wing populist discourses mean

      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17405904.2017.1325383

    158. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB

      6.01pm posts: “I’m tempted to say fair well and thanks for all the fish, but that would simply be capitulation. So I’ll just have to think about how to circumvent the sniping against me, as I’ve got a lot more practical insight to share.”

      7.43pm posts: Remember folk, unsubstantiated “opinion” can’t be considered reliable.” Prior to yet another pointless link.

      More comebacks than Frank Sinatra, but much less welcome.

    159. Pipinghot says:

      Denise, how long do you think the msp’s are going to work without pay? Not very long is the answer. Maby we should crowd fund them to do it.(boak)

    160. CameronB Brodie says:

      Why is it that Scots find it hard to distinguish between friend and foe?

      Self-Determination, Identity and International Relations
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255172600_Self-Determination_Identity_and_International_Relations

    161. Muscleguy says:

      If we do not claim the things I mention then we will implicitly cede them as merely political theatre which would be a major mistake and weaken our case both internationally and in any court.

    162. James F. McIntosh says:

      Could happen now in a couple of weeks with the EUs ultimatum to westminster.

    163. Daisy Walker says:

      While 50% + 1 wins, its not a great place to start from given what we are up against, and its not a ‘great win’. And since 60% has been the benchmark figure mentioned by NS and its lack used as an excuse ‘Scotland isn’t ready for another Ref’ – then we need to get it over the line before years end.

      It is work we need to do and ground we need to cover in any event, and it strengthens the Indy Cause’s position, and negotiating power.

      With regards the ‘the SNP is the only vehicle in town’. Well it is, and it isn’t. A great deal of effort has been put into making it the only vessel in town (and we have all played our part in that). Now its a gatekeeper.

      The other vessel is the YES Movement in and of itself. They can’t control it, they have extreme difficultly in nobbling it, the way they have subdued it is via NS and ‘the SNP is the only vessel in town’…

      And a Yes movement needs a clear cut road map… which they’ve never quite got round to producing.

      Holyrood election – and I don’t doubt this will be the last one if we fail – is scaring the shit out of the Brit Establishment – because you have 2 votes.

      You can vote SNP 1, and express your annoyance at them with Indy Other on 2.

      But we need to be more ambitious than that now.

      Between now and end of February we campaign for Indy, and in doing so, we establish Independent candidates – electable at local level. They are our SNP back up candidates.

      We fund raise for HE. but ring fence the money so that it only goes to candidates who have plebicite HE vote for Indy as their mandate. The GRA and Hate bill are for another day.

      Now lets play devils advocate.

      For the sake of argument lets pretend that NS has been bought and paid for, totally nobbled. And her job at present it to keep dangling the carrot, and kicking the can down the road, until Brexit is in the bag and Holyrood is all but a talking shop.

      That’s a considerable investment by the Brit Nats and in doing so, they will have compromised themselves also.

      As a reward – in her future – big job with the UN. Could be.

      But facing fact now, she now has a a large ‘sheeple’ vote. And we need it, or indeed a very large part of it. It may well become necessary for some of our movers and shakers to cut her a deal, look the other way, and get her on board with a bigger prize.

      First President of an Indy Scotland. An oil rich, Renewable Energy Rich, Water Rich Indy Scotland.

      If she stops playing ball with the Brit Nats – she will be thrown to the wolves.
      But if she starts playing a more complicated game with them, (doing her best, but just falling short) with the protection of us, the movement, her votes get delivered to the yes cause.

      The thing that might make this do-able is the strong alternative vote for Indy, and getting support for Indy over 60% by years end. This would absolutely have to be the bad boy pushing the agenda and giving NS no room to be wishy washy.

      In some respects (and I’m not advocating their views or their tactics) this is what happened with the tories and UKIP.

      In any event – there are no downsides to getting support for Indy over 60% before years end. And do you know why…. because we can do soooo much better than Boris.

    164. Daisy Walker says:

      If we go back into full lock down, it will not be enough to Clap for the NHS.

      In a clearly safe way, we will have to campaign for it, and tie it completely to the cause for Indy.

    165. CameronB Brodie says:

      Folk might be wondering why a town planner is competent to comment on Scotland’s self-determination. Perhaps it’s because planners need to understand democracy at the bio-neurological level?

      Self-determined, but not non-self-determined, motivation predicts activations in the anterior insular cortex: an fMRI study of personal agency
      https://academic.oup.com/scan/article-pdf/8/5/538/27107994/nss029.pdf

    166. Muscleguy says:

      If we do not have any support from the international community we will end up like the Catalans, shouting into the wind to no avail. We will need recognition and lots of it to persuade rUK the game is a bogie. I reckon the Irish will, our Aul Alliance friends France will and will pressure the EU to do so aa well. The Scandis want us in the Scandi Council so I expect they will also recognise us. The Chinese may well be tricky but calling the Treaty an unfair British Treaty WILL pique their interest. That is a major strand in Chinese history and a major talking point in the Communist Party.

      If the UK goes to China for a trade deal the Chinese will attempt to make it as unfair to the UK as they can in revenge. I will lay money on that.

    167. holymacmoses says:

      I agree with Mr Bell that time is against us. A manifesto might work but frankly, as far as I’m concerned, Westminster has decided that it can break international law when it is in the “best interests of the country”. Scotland has the legal right to hold referendums, it is definitely in the best interests of the country for Scotland to be given a chance to leave the mad house. It seems to me apparent that the way forward is to hold a referendum alongside the elections next year. It will be tight but it can be arranged . I would like to see someone in SNP raise this possibility in Holyrood and see what the reaction is:-)

    168. Elmac says:

      Lots of disquiet on here but no indication of how many are still throwing good money after bad by funding the SNP who are pissing down on us plebs from a great height. Wake up for gods sake. STURGEON DOES NOT WANT INDEPENDENCE but she does want your money.

      The SNP are probably a lost cause. If they do not clean out the corruption in their ranks in the next few weeks then they have to be history. We need Alex, Joanna or their ilk to step up to the plate and either revive the party or start a new one. Stop making excuses for NS, she has been given more than enough rope. Stop living in cloud cuckoo land. Sturgeon wants the status quo. her job, and that of her husband, end of.

      I hope I am preaching to the converted. Should probably cut and paste this on WGD and wait for the backlash.

    169. CameronB Brodie says:

      Muscleguy
      International courts have a pretty well defined framework of legal principles, with regards constitutional adjudication. I’m pretty sure Scotland’s constitutional rights would be sufficient reason for them to find in our favour. Obviously though, there are no guarantee in life, but I don’t think English cultural and legal exceptionalism will curry much favour in the courts of international law.

      Constitutional adjudication in Europe and the United States: Paradoxes and Contrasts
      https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Constitutional_Adjudication_in_Europe_and_the_United_States_paradoxes_and_contrasts_Rosenfeld.pdf

    170. Kenny says:

      I see that the EU is basically giving UK citizens until 30 June 2021 to file an application for permanent residence.

      I may be wrong, but I think Germany is making an exception and potentially offering dual citizenship to UK passport holders.

      All this suggests that, if the Scottish executive were to announce before 31 December 2020, that it planned to hold an independence referendum before 30 June 2021 and, given a Yes vote, it would apply to join the EU the following day, then the door might still be open.

      Of course, what really needed was a referendum before our legislation begins to disalign with the EU.

      But this is what people with contacts in the EU like Craig Murray need to be exploring.

      Personally, I prefer the EFTA and am not a great fan of the EU. But I still think the Scots should have been consulted after the Brexit vote. Or did I blink and democracy was abolished in Scotland in the years from 2016 to 2020?

    171. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry…but I don’t think English cultural authoritarianism and legal exceptionalism will curry much favour in the courts of international law.

    172. callmedave says:

      I see that Scottish figure of 70 new covid-19 has been included in the UK Gov stats.

      https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases

      (click on bottom of the three graphs and use the LHS menus)

      FM said that the ’70’ was too low and the UK testing system had been slow and a backlog problem had occurred ( Hancock ) had reduced the number of test available etc as per news.

      Anyhoo! It’s down as a record now.

      I note that on some graphs no England or Wales data since 10th September.

    173. Robert Louis says:

      This article is what we need at the very least, and it is an utter tragedy that the SNP or even the Scottish Government cannot even be bothered. Nicola Sturgeon is perfectly happy to sit back and let anything and everything be done to Scotland, just so she can be re-elected in May next year. It is the very worst kind of lazy political chicanery imaginable. Her mantra is, ‘do not elect me for what I will do to defend Scotland, but elect me, because all the others are awful.’

      Breeks, above, has consistnely made clear rational arguments as to why brexit should not and MUST not be allowed to be forced on Scotland. It is an entire re-writing of the existing constitutional situation. Westminster does not have absolute sovereignty over Scotland.

      However, the most importan part of all of this is the urgency. I cannot fathom how any serious politician in Scotland cannot see what is hurtling down the tracks from London at high speed. Every damn thing is being prepared for London to steal Scotland’s powers. Make no mistake, come Jan 1 2021, does anybody seriously think Dominic Cummings and his lazy, pig-ignorant, whipping boy, Boris, are going to allow ANY kind of move towards independence or even recognition of Scotland’s sovereignty.

      The treaty of union is the only document giving Westminster any say in Scottish affairs. It is an international treaty between Scotland and England. As Colin Dunn points out, it is a treaty, not a title deed. It does not give ownership of Scotland to England, no matter how much the corrupt Tories in London would like to pretend it does.

      Scotland has shown democratically, and overwhelmingly it has NO desire to leave the EU, and as such, it is up to our Scottish government to uphold Scotland’s democratic rights and decision.

      It is abundantly clear that the English Tory regime is corrupt, incompetent and willing to inflict great economic and social damage upon both Scotland and England.

      The treaty of union does NOT assign English parliamentary unlimited sovereignty upon Scotland. Indeed, the concept of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty does not even exist in Scots law. QED, Scotland should not be saying England MUST not remove Scotland from the EU, instead Scotland should be saying England CANNOT remove Scotland from the EU, and that is self evident as fact from the treaty of union.

      We cannot on the one hand say the treaty of union allows Westminster control of Scottish affairs, yet on the other hand argue that somwhow the very provisions of that treaty which prevent England removing Scotland from the EU (sovereignty of the people in Scotland, unlike in England) somewhow magically do not apply.

      If one part of the treaty of union applies, it ALL applies, it is as simple as that. It is an utter abdication of her duties that Nicola Sturgeon is afraid to state these simple facts. Why will our First Minister not stand up for Scotland? That is the question that MUST be asked, for it IS her duty.

      If we, as Scots, merely allow England and the Tory regime to remove our consitutional rights, then make no mistake, they will take them. Nicola Sturgeon needs to remember, that when the chips are down, when our very country is under real and sustained threat, it is her DUTY to make a stand. This is not optional. If she will not, or cannot, then she needs to step aside, and let somebody who will, take over.

      These last few months of 2021 could easily be Scotland’s last, if our elected politicians do not stand up for our country, as they should. England does NOT own Scotland, and we should do anything and everything to undermine, thwart and block ANY attempt to undermine Scotland by the English Tory regime. This cannot be allowed to just ‘happen’. It simply cannot. Scotland is at perhaps one of the most important points in its history, the time for speeches or ‘objections’ are long gone. We need action by our government, not in May next year, but NOW, today.

    174. Kenny says:

      There is someone who keeps spamming the comments. The result is like listening to Western radio broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. You can follow the gist, but there is more interference than clear text.

    175. Robert Louis says:

      Muscleguy at 624 and 806pm,

      I completely agree. If we merely allow events to pass, then our consitutional rights will NEVER be given back. Indeed outside observers might easily ask, ‘well why did you let them be taken in the first place?’.

    176. holymacmoses says:

      The plan now should be for Scotland to TELL Westminster what it plans to do about Independence and start making the arrangements post-haste – BEFORE Westminster removes any rights that we, as a country, have to free ourselves from the failure of 1605. Lamont and Thompson were busy bundling us into the hold of the Titanic in the debate this evening. Blackford was as awful as ever and Alyn Smith as good as ever – it’s such a pity about his friends.

    177. Robert Louis says:

      Holymacmoses at 0859,

      Totally agree. When Mr. Salmond went to London for the indyref, he did not go there to ask permision, he went ot tell them that Scotland will be having an independence referendum, so let’s talk about it. He didn’t ask permission.

      Of course such action requires leadership, and sadly Nicola Sturgeon has shwon repeatedly that she will not stand up for Scotland. She talk the talk, but cannot (or will not) walk the walk.

      If onlt Alex Salmond were still FM. I reckon we would already be independent.

    178. Legally ending the Treaty of Union,

      `Consent (to signing a treaty) will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party,

      or by the direct or indirect “corruption” of its representative by another party to the treaty.`

      how many of those `Scots` that voted for the Treaty were corrupted by the promise of English gold,land and titles,

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#Ending_treaty_obligations

    179. CameronB Brodie says:

      Kenny
      So who are you?

      The role of public opinion in rights adjudication : the
      examples of the United States supreme court and the
      European Court of Human Rights

      https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01905050/document

    180. MaggieC says:

      I’ve been watching some of the debate from Westminster and if this 2nd reading ? passes tonight our Snp mps should just get up off their seats and walkout of that place and never return .

      It would give you the boak listening to the tories and labour are not much better going on about their precious union LOL .

    181. holymacmoses says:

      Deary me – I see I wrote Ross Thompson for Donald Ross – they’re both Conservative and interested in playing with balls. It gets confusing:-)

    182. Robert Graham says:

      A bit o/t
      This used to be the normal way of alerting readers when a post was off Topic , i.e. Good Manners

      Anyway back to the point , The FM has said she was concerned about a backlog in the testing system , Just listing to a phone in program on LBC because let’s face it our Radio even close to home is bleedn rubbish , anyway a few calls on testing in England the callers made the point that they had to travel to Scotland for a Test and they had no problems accessing the system,

      Now not being the sharpest knife in the box even I can link the two .

      Why in gods name are we processing English Tests if our system in backed up , it ain’t f/n brain surgery , nothing against English folk being tested but maybe we outta adopt their attitude just once look after our own first , because if we don’t we won’t be able to do any testing if the Staff are infected and the testing system is overrun with work from every where else

    183. Iain Donald says:

      How do we get there if all we have to vote for won’t do exactly that? This is the part I don’t understand. Are we talking, new political party? Splitting the from SNP to form something with teeth and a backbone?

      What and how?

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      14 September, 2020 at 12:18 pm
      “This is far too long, muddled and difficult to interpret. What (if anything) are you actually advocating?”

      What they’re advocating is an election conducted on the explicit assertion of the Scottish Government’s right to act as the representatives of the sovereign people of Scotland, the result of that election to stand as their mandate – backed as legally valid by the International Court of Justice – and the subsequent holding of a referendum on said basis.

      This is entirely different to the current Scottish Government stance, which is to acknowledge Westminster sovereignty and beg its indulgence. It’s not very hard to follow really.

    184. Robert Graham says:

      MaggieC @ 9:14
      Couldn’t agree more beats me why they are still there and not causing bloody chaos every time they enter the English Parliament,

      Because we all know it’s the English Parliament

      And the Jocks are only allowed in the place so their MPs can poke fun at them, get to f/k out of the Scabby place , at least be annoying and disrespectful of the medieval bloody rules

    185. Andy Ellis says:

      @Iain 9.46pm

      What alternative is there? Few people who aren’t SNP loyalists believe the SNP will willingly change or that any group from within will displace the gradualists any time soon.

      Hard as it is to hear it means we aren’t likely to see a referendum any time soon, and as the SNP are likely to win a majority at HR2021 barring some political earthquake, those of us who no longer support them need an alternative, don’t we?

      It isn’t the Green party, and I’m not sure it’s the ISP. If it’s going to be the work of years, maybe we need to go back to basics: so……where to start?

    186. Denise says:

      @Leither
      You’re the one whining saying Boris will send in the tanks
      This is how things will play out…

      List parties fade away and Wings / Alex don’t put up
      Snp wins majority in May on weasel words manifesto
      Nicola is FM
      Promises, promises on indyref bill which never appears
      Nicola tells us frequently that she will ‘set out her views’ a few months hence
      Boris strips more and more powers from HR
      Covid and Brexit and WM Tories Scotland’s economy is in the toilet
      Nicola is as supine as she’s been through out the power grab
      2024 GE More weasel words in the manifesto
      Boris wins … 5 more Tory years …

    187. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Andy Ellis at 6:49 pm.

      You typed,
      “People, we just need to win a majority at Holyrood in 8 months time on a plebiscitary mandate. All we need to focus on is how to ensure that mandate is available, whether the SNP like it or not.”

      It was the last phrase that got me thinking. Imagine this scenario…
      Well in advance of the May election, ALL the pro-indy parties – Greens, ISF, Alliance(?), SSP, Solidarity and so on – put in their manifestos that if pro-indy parties have a majority of the votes and seats in the election, then that gives the new government the duty to immediately declare that the people of Scotland have voted for independence and start negotiations with the UK government (as a replacement for the non-existent English parliament) to dissolve the Treaty of Union.

      What would the SNP do for their own manifesto? Would they dare to reject the pro-indy parties’ stance?
      Furthermore, if they were the largest party in the new parliament, would they go with the will of the people or ignore it?

      If the pro-indy parties did that, it could leave certain elements in the SNP between a rock and a jaggy thistle.

    188. Robert Graham says:

      Again o/t

      Gove in the English Parliament as usual every word this Snake says it borderline truth it’s hard to figure out Truth and Fiction with this Article ,

      True to form he always refuses interventions by opposition parties , he does this every time why don’t the opposition parties all stand up so he can’t continue make it impossible for this serial Liar to spout total garbage.

      We now have the Farce of the medieval voting system starting at 10:00 at night what a bloody mess the whole outdated Pantomime is ,

    189. Lord Parkora says:

      MacInnes was one of my Scottish History lecturers/tutors at Glasgow Uni around 1986. He used to lecture in shades and a pale blue leather jacket. In spite of which, he was the most inspiring speaker I ever saw. Top bloke, IMO, and great to see him involved.

    190. MaggieC says:

      Robert Graham @10.10 pm

      Gove is a sleekit wee shit . LOL

    191. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Brian 10.07pm

      “If the pro-indy parties did that, it could leave certain elements in the SNP between a rock and a jaggy thistle.”

      Sadly I’m not sure the gradualist wet-nats have ant sense of shame, even tho’ they have much to be ashamed of. 🙁

    192. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m not sure if this is OT, but getting back to international law and constitutional adjudication. As far as I understand things, such adjudication will take a very dim view of English nationalism being used as a pretext to remove our economic, social, and cultural rights. So it’s just a pity that the Lord Advocate appears ambivalent to Common law jurisprudence, though I’m not surprise, frankly.

      Resource Page on Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR)
      https://www.escr-net.org/resources/resource-page-justiciability-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-escr

    193. Dan says:

      The premise of this article seems similar to what Jim Fairlie Jnr scribed earlier this year.

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

      Excerpt:
      I propose the SNP and others wishing to achieve independence must have in their manifestos for Holyrood 2021 a commitment, at the behest of the sovereign people of Scotland, to resume responsibility for constitutional affairs, which was misappropriated by Westminster in the 1998 Scotland Act. Should Westminster refuse to co-operate or try to place any conditionality on any agreements, then, by direct instruction from the people of Scotland, the Parliament will revisit the terms of the Treaty of Union.

      By our sovereign will of voting for parties who agree to assume constitutional affairs at our instruction, we are demonstrating that we, the people, have exercised our sovereign right to choose. It will then be for the people of Scotland to decide whether to continue with, alter or leave the Union at a time of our choosing. This is entirely within the scope of Holyrood as the sovereign voice of the people, because we are revisiting the Treaty of Union, not the Act of Union.

    194. Effijy says:

      Swinney being brought in to try and cover for others guilt.

      We do need to know John and we will know!

      https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18703637.swinney-not-public-interest-share-files-loss-publics-500k/

    195. Effijy says:

      Boris break the law bill passed by 77 votes.

      340 law breakers as MPs.

    196. Effijy says:

      The EU needs to tell Westminster that they are tainted.
      They have wasted enough years trying to negotiate.
      Piss off and never darken our door again.

    197. leither says:

      Iain Donald says:

      What they’re advocating is an election conducted on the explicit assertion of the Scottish Government’s right to act as the representatives of the sovereign people of Scotland, the result of that election to stand as their mandate – backed as legally valid by the International Court of Justice – and the subsequent holding of a referendum on said basis.

      ——————

      bojo will just say no…. whats the point?

      see what i did there?

    198. Gfaetheblock says:

      I am sure I remember that both Peter a Bell and Cameron B Brodie had both stated that there were stopping posting. They were out, quitting.

      Must have been wishful thinking on my part.

    199. holymacmoses says:

      Effijy says:
      14 September, 2020 at 10:30 pm
      Swinney being brought in to try and cover for others guilt.
      We do need to know John and we will know!

      I hope so feg

      “A parcel of rogues” has swollen into a “container load of liars”

    200. Alan B says:

      The posts in this thread are all about the mechanism.

      The reality is we must win. Opinion polls have moved slowly in the right direction. But we really need closer to 60% by then it becomes inevitable.

      Losing sight of winning and getting more concerned with mechanisms is a mistake.

      The first step is for an independence supporting majority in the Scottish parliament in 2021. Losing sight of that would be highly damaging.

      The next is to allow Boris to make an arse of things, brexit and covid etc. He is doing that.

      Also nothing can happen until Covid subsides.

      As has been pointed out demographics will play its part. The younger generations are strongly pro indy while the older less. That must be allowed to happen. Only fools rush in and all that.

      All this will add up to growing support for indy.

      At some point when Boris thinks it would be good to ditch Scotland for his own power there will be a change in tory policy.

      I half expect Brexit will push NI out the uk sooner rather than later.

      So at the end of the day indy will come when the people support it. And polls have to be around 60%. All talk of mechanisms is irrelevant to a large extent. The Scottish government cannot go into a political war with the uk government until she can be sure Scotland has its back.

    201. CameronB Brodie says:

      In fact, the Lord Advocate does not appear to be capable of supporting democracy, which can’t be separated from the “right to health”, and the rule-of-law. That’s law, not authoritarian legal practice that supports eugenics (see Brexit and genderwoowoo).

    202. CameronB Brodie says:

      Gfaetheblock
      Suck it up dude.

    203. Effijy says:

      The refusal by SNP to produce the Salmond documents is
      Proof of guilt for me.

      Asking supporters not to ask where the Indy Ref 2 fund went and now
      The £500,000 cost of the prosecution is just to be forgotten??

      Don’t think so.

      Do the honest SNP official have a coup to remove the rotten apples,
      Do they break away to a new Independence Party with transparency
      and more considered priorities and a fighting spirit or do we have to
      Put up with them until we are independent and then kick them out.

      We had a hand full of Aces and handed them back to the dealer.

    204. Effijy says:

      Thanks Dan but I’ve no idea what that means.

    205. holymacmoses says:

      I’ve reread the paper and I like it. The problem now is to get the question put before the people in such a way that the SNP HAVE to accept it.
      It would have been much better to have had time to put it to the people before the Holyrood elections because then we could see how Ms Sturgeon reacted to a positive vote on the manifesto.

    206. robertknight says:

      Since being voted through in January, I’ll bet Boris never had any intention of honouring the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement.

      He just wanted to “Get Brexit Done” by 31st January and worry about the consequences later.

      No fan of Ed Miliband, but I certainly enjoyed watching him chew Boris a new one.

    207. Clapper57 says:

      I love how the Internal market has now become the INFERNAL market…

      I guess the DEVIL was in the detail….

      For the Tories it’s become the personification of EVEL…

      Mind you they say the DEVIL looks after his own so GOD willing I think this INFERNAL market bill will pass….says the Scottish Tories…..

      EVEL is as EVEL does…or so they say…..by THEY I of course mean those who revere EVEL…as in the Scottish Tories…

      Guess the Scottish Tories are geared up to do the DEVIL’s work tonight…..after all EVEL comes with a smile on it’s face…just look at Andrew Bowie…..now he’s a perfect example of a smile on a face dying to wiped off in purgaTORY….since he’s sold his soul to the DEVIL then there is a HELL of a chance of that happening….hence his DEVELISH grin…..soon to be replaced with a DEVELISH grim …..God willing and when the DEIL’s awa so that EVEL no longer walks among us…obvs

    208. ClanDonald says:

      I just read this twitter thread from Peter Foster, Public Policy Editor at the Financial Times, who is speculating that blocking indyref2 is part of the tory plan. He says:

      “… one scenario is do a ‘no deal’, assume SNP wins big in May and then simply refuse a Referendum, and use the impotent Scottish nationalist anger to stoke the base of English nationalists and win big in 2024, with Labour killed off in Scotland.”

      Scotland needs to find an alternative to section 30 as a matter of urgency.

      https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1304095553383432192

    209. tarisgal says:

      I could be wrong here, but I believe that the ICJ would not do anything to help us get official ruling re independence until all other DOMESTIC routes have been tried FIRST, which I take to mean going through all our Scottish/English Courts & the UK Supreme Court. This will all take time. which quite frankly I don’t think we have. There’s a couple of other points I think perhaps we’ve forgotten.

      1) What about Martin Keatings’ Court case? The ruling is due sometime round the end of this month, is it not? THAT will put some kitties among the pidgeons if ‘the people’ win. Nicola Sturgeon will not be able to ignore the fact that the win means we do NOT have to wait for a Sec.30. And we will have to insist she call it. I get Peter’s point and I agree with much of what he says – we should NOT be asking for ANYTHING from WM but rather asserting Scottish rights. In calling a Ref, we play to WM’s fiddling. HOWEVER, if Martin’s (the People’s) case wins, we’d be able to hold a Ref as soon as we chose to do so & it could be the quickest route to Indy.

      2) And – What about Craig Murray’s route to independence? He DOES know what he is talking about & he makes much the same points as Peter – you DON’T ask the country you are trying to get away from, for permission to do so! Craig believes, he KNOWS how these things work & he says International law will be on the side of Scotland, and as he remarked – ironically, WM have actually backed up the UN position on Independence and the method of obtaining it. so they can hardly dispute it in ICJ! Why are we not looking at HIS ‘How To Do Independence’ details, given he has experience & knowledge of how other countries have done it & the International laws behind it? Again… surely this is worth looking at, given our time is so limited now before we’re being torn apart by the WM wolves that are hungry for our resources & revenue.

      As for the article above, I can say I am truly glad SOMEONE is trying to get independence moving forward. I’m not sure that I can see their plan going far, given the FM’s stubborn stance, but I’m glad that someone is actually TRYING to get the ball rolling…

    210. LeggyPeggy says:

      Regarding the above post and the link to Chris McEleny and others for a plan B ,

      https://archive.is/N8iK5

      Chris McEleny went various Snp branches last year before the October conference to discuss the plan B and it was recorded by Indy Pram when Chris went to one of the branches , I don’t if everyone has listened to this but it’s definitely worth listening to it .

      https://indylive.radio/podcast/indypram-podcast-17-chris-mceleny-an-independence-plan-b/

      The way Chris was booed and treated at conference was a disgrace by a certain section of delegates , it’s not difficult to guess what group it was .

    211. tarisgal says:

      PS: I did like this article by Iain Lawson:

      https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2020/09/04/so-why-dont-we-do-this-nicola/?like_comment=2390&_wpnonce=fa4de4ffc3

      and I think these are things we really need to be thinking of, and encouraging Scotgov to look at before May. Then we can make it clear that if we don’t see any really constructive plans being made for Indy, we’ll be voting for the top people in the party to move aside & let others get on with these plans.

      I think we really need to make SNP aware that their support base for certain people is going to fall dramatically if things, policies & plans DON’T CHANGE before May.

    212. CameronB Brodie says:

      tarisgal
      “I could be wrong here, but I believe that the ICJ would not do anything to help us get official ruling re independence until all other DOMESTIC routes have been tried FIRST”

      That’s how I understand things but the lack of due legal process in Scotland being removed from the EU, may take precedence in the eyes if the ICJ.

      5.5 Procedural fairness and due process of law
      https://www.icj.org/chapter-5-standards-and-techniques-of-review-in-domestic-adjudication-of-esc-rights-2/5-5-procedural-fairness-and-due-process-of-law/

    213. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Anybody else caught the news that grouse shoots are exempt from the “rule of 6”?

      Reminded me of this…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGxSM5y7Pfs

    214. Ronald Fraser says:

      Cam B

      God loves a trier,,, you have to laugh, or else you’ll cry.

    215. CameronB Brodie says:

      Ronald Fraser
      I’m not sure I get your drift. All I’m trying to do is show folk just how badly they are being let down by their legal officers.

      HUMAN RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ADJUDICATION: LEGAL METHODOLOGY PROBLEMS
      https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/59445/LAW_2018_18.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    216. North chiel says:

      Great post from “ Robert Louis @ 0846 p.m.” . It’s time that our SNP government ACTED and stood up for the SOVEREIGN WISHES of the people of Scotland . Specifically, these wishes were endorsed in 2014 to remain both in the EU and UK . The Sovereign wish of the people to remain in the EU was further mandated in the subsequent 2016 EU referendum. I am sick to the back teeth of hearing that a section 30 Agreement is required for us to hold a second Independence referendum. The Scotland Act 1998 breached the Treaty of Union . Where is the equivalent English Parliament? Elected by PR and responsible for exactly the same “ devolved powers “ as Holyrood . Where is the “ Barnet formula for England? Where is the Gers equivalent for the English Parliament? How on earth can a “ supposed” United Kingdom government “ devolve” a “ subsidiary “ Parliament to an equal treaty partner without devolving an exactly equivalent Parliament to the only other “ equal” partner?
      Notwithstanding , the above prior to Dec 31st our FM must request the section 30 she is insisting upon . She must make clear if this agreement is not forthcoming then the Holyrood election will become the de facto referendum vote..This Tory government MUST BE CONFRONTED over our SOVEREIGNTY and OVERWHELMING sovereign vote to REMAIN in the EU .
      Tonight , I hear now that our FM is seeking urgent discussions with “UK Ministers“ as regards a huge backlog of Covid test results from UK Labs . For goodness sake I thought that we had a DEVOLVED Scottish National Health Service ? Why are we PAYING for Results from the ENGLISH Health service LABS ? ( I assume they are not doing this for nothing ? ) If they cannot provide a satisfactory turnaround time on results then is there ANY OTHER HEALTH SERVICES in EUROPE ( among the 27 member states) that could provide an ACCEPTABLE SERVICE for our SCOTTISH TAXPAYERS? .
      When oh when is our SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT going to throw down the gauntlet to Westminster and STAND UP for the SOVEREIGN WISHES of OUR PEOPLE ?
      The TREATY of UNION is an International agreement that has been BREACHED from DAY 1 . It’s time that this FARCE was called out . I am sick of being “ kicked in the teeth “by this despicable ENGLISH TORY GOVERNMENT who respect neither the other “ Home” countries or any of their 27 EU neighbours . It’s TIME they were “TAKEN TO TASK” NICOLA ! ! If you are seeking “ urgent discussions “ with UK ministers then may I politely suggest that the PRIORITY topic should be Our WITHDRAWAL from the TREATY of UNION and INDEPENDENCE .

    217. leither says:

      love yir links cam

    218. Mist001 says:

      If Scotland gain another independence referendum and lose again, then that is Scottish independence off the table for an entire generation at least and probably longer. Is that a gamble which Scottish independence supporters are willing to take? Risk state interference, black ops, 24/7 media disinformation and all the rest just to wake up on another Friday morning to another and likely final 45% – 55% result?

      Because that’s EXACTLY what is at stake here. Take a risk just because you’ve watched Braveheart for the thousandth time and the AUOB march has got you all fired up?

      Let’s get real here.

      I can give an alternative *strategy* which WILL work but independence supporters have to be able to grasp the fact of the matter. I’m fed up with them dreaming that they’re going to have a referendum and suddenly Scotland will become independent because it’s simply not going to happen. To this end, people MUST understand that Scottish independence is nothing to do with Scotland. Scotland is only incidental in all of this.

      Do people understand that England had an independence referendum too and they voted in favour of independence. It was called Brexit and the people of the UK, not just England but every part of the UK was asked the following question:

      “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

      Many parts of the UK voted for the UK to remain a member of the European Union but again, the hard facts are that England carried the vote as ever and it was the majority of English folk who voted that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.

      This should be a clear signal to supporters of Scottish independence that no matter how many referendums they hold, they will always lose because it’s England that matters.

      In order to gain independence, Scotland MUST follow the Brexit strategy to the letter, however unpleasant it may be.

      Brexit is the blueprint for Scottish independence.

      So, here’s the strategy that I suggest:

      Scotland MUST stoke up feelings of discontent amongst the English. They must rub their noses in it at every opportunity about how much money Scotland takes from England. They must also BRAG about free prescriptions, free university tuition, they must use EVERYTHING to build English resentment to the Scots and they must keep at it and at it and at it. The aim is to develop such a hatred of Scotland by the English that eventually the matter will be raised in government.

      This is the tactic that Nigel Farage, UKIP and all the others used to eventually achieve the Brexit referendum. Scotland HAS to use that as a template. It’s effective and it works.

      Pressure will continually mount on the UK government where it will eventually be forced to hold a UK wide referendum, and the question which will be asked is:

      Should Scotland remain a member of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?

      Just like happened with the European Union, English resentment of the Scots will have reached such a level that they’ll vote in numbers for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom.

      Exactly like Brexit, Scottish independence relies solely on the English vote. Not the Scottish vote, not the Welsh vote, not the NI vote but exclusively, the English vote.

      This is the only way that Scotland will achieve independence and this is the cold, hard fact that independence supporters have to accept. Only the English can deliver independence for Scotland, exactly like Brexit.

      USE THE ENGLISH TO OUR ADVANTAGE and NEVER underestimate the power of English resentment.

    219. iain mhor says:

      Ahh. so it’s not a ‘Paper’ it’s an article – well, saves me looking for the rest of it.

      Fair play, the authors are having a bit of a discussion about it, though I’ve read better BTL and all this has been thrashed out a long time ago.

      So, as everyone appears to get the gist, its about holding a referendum – So Plan A.
      Of course the difference implied is that the Scottish Government would be an Independent Government, with the powers to do so. In fact the powers to do anything it chose to do – in this case, holding a referendum.

      The Plan B, to facilitate Plan A – so far is it goes – is for The Scottish Government to become Independent. It can’t be anything else that falls out of the premises of the ‘article’ other than the Scottish Governent becomes an independent government, no matter how you spin it.

      As I’ve posited myself several times, an Independent Scottish Government does not necessarilly equate to a dissolution of a Union, or instant Independent Nation – it merely places the Union into the state it purports to be – but never was.

      What follows from an independent Scottish Parliament is legion. Many of the ramifications I’ve covered and won’t do again today – suffice to say a referendum will be low on the list of the things Scotland can be getting on with.

      I wouldn’t be rushing to referendum certainly, because an entire constitutional and legislative ‘playground’ would have opened up; which in the interrim would probably negate an immediate need for one, while sleeves were being rolled up and hands spat on.

      Of course it could be, that the authors envisage achieving the independence of the Scottish Parliament and it’s first (and only) order of business is: “Change a few sections of the Scotland Act, to allow us to unilaterally hold referendums any time we choose and err… Yeah that’s about it thanks, here have your Pariamentary Sovereignty back now, ta”

      Well, my fear is the authors are the only ones within the Scottish Government having the discussion at all and are only just now getting up to speed on scenarios thrashed out years ago.

      If so, we’re fucked via the current political route.

    220. CameronB Brodie says:

      leither
      I’ve benefited from a rather expensive education paid for by Scottish tax payers, so I feel kind of duty-bound to give something back? 😉

      Models of Incorporation and
      Justiciability for Economic,
      Social and Cultural Rights

      https://www.scottishhumanrights.com/media/1809/models_of_incorporation_escr_vfinal_nov18.pdf

    221. Famous15 says:

      Mist101 superficially your brexit observation is correct BUT {paraphrasing AS} I would prefer England as a friendly neighbour rather than a resentful one.

      Another examination of your post and your previous posts makes me distrust your honesty.

      Independence is normal and so is democracy and the people will be heard if they are in the majority.

    222. tarisgal says:

      Cameron Brodie says:

      CameronB Brodie says:
      14 September, 2020 at 11:40 pm
      tarisgal
      “I could be wrong here, but I believe that the ICJ would not do anything to help us get official ruling re independence until all other DOMESTIC routes have been tried FIRST”

      That’s how I understand things but the lack of due legal process in Scotland being removed from the EU, may take precedence in the eyes if the ICJ.

      Good point, Cameron. And it may be that we could use that if we are going down the ICJ route, which I hope we will be doing. I’m getting a little tired waiting for Godot…

    223. MaggieC says:

      Just a reminder about tomorrow’s Harassment and Complaints Committee , it starts at 10.15 am and here is the agenda and public papers for the meeting ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/20200915SGHHCPublicPapers.pdf

      And the link to Scottish Parliament TV as some people were asking for the link last week ,

      https://www.scottishparliament.tv/

    224. Benhope says:

      Yes, all alternatives to the S30 must be promoted.

      The way I feel at the moment is totally impotent, frustrated and very angry.

      Stu, please launch a fundraiser as then I could feel that I am doing something positive towards the Indy cause by donating a few pounds and knowing that the true WOS supporters are rallying to the cause.

      I think it would also be a statement of the ongoing support for Wings and the support for independent journalism.

    225. Stan Broadwood says:

      Famous15

      We all know Independence is normal,,,

      but we also know that you are a fanatical Sturgeon apologist.

      Now shuffle on back to the Wee Gingerbread Man.

    226. MaggieC says:

      An excellent short video clip as D Ross lies as he say’s that
      “ The Snp does not speak for Scotland “

      https://mobile.twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1305649365571252231

      Time for the Snp Mps to come home to Scotland and leave England to enjoy it’s Brexit .

    227. Hatuey says:

      Those saying it’s too long-winded and ill-defined are confusing it for a marketing statement. It isn’t intended to be taken to the doorsteps. They aren’t trying to sell washing up liquid.

      Questioning authority is generally good, particularly good today when it comes to the SNP leadership, but shooting everything down in flames isn’t helpful.

      Any attempt to get beyond this self-inflicted impasse must be welcomed.

      That all said, I think the independence movement is in dire need of a leader. So much for that “cometh the hour, cometh the man” stuff…

      The hour has certainly cometh so where the fuck is the man?

      I wish Salmond would stop loitering on the sidelines and get back on the stage. He’s been found completely innocent so what’s he waiting for?

    228. twathater says:

      I would honestly like to know the opinions of the signatories to Breeks assertions and ask if they would be willing to DEMAND a meeting with NS and inform her that acting on behalf of the YES movement, the group has been instructed to get NS as FM to inform PM bozo that we will NOT be leaving the EU with the rest of the UK on Dec 31st in accordance with the Scottish people’s wishes and instructions as voted for in 2016

      There is much being made that NS will NOT do this or the other , WE are the people who elect her and pay her SHE works for us and if she is NOT willing to follow OUR instructions she CAN and WILL be replaced

      As North chiel has pointed out tonight and previously where is england’s devolved parliament, barnet formula, or Gers figures these things alone constitute dissolution of the treaty

    229. David Caledonia says:

      Scotland will be independent, there is nothing that can stop it, you may as well try to stop the ocean rushing to the shore as old king what’s his name tried to do.
      Its time has finally arrived, do you believe it or will you capitulate and take the cowards road to nowhere, I know what road I’m taking,
      if we wait for some jolly day when all the MPs in all the parties are honest and truthful to us then we will have one helluva long wait, the liars down south in whitehall have never let scruples hold them back from doing what needs to be done

    230. twathater says:

      And BTW Denise and others just to let you know leither is really Schrodingers cat posting under a different name all his proposals if you look are about reelecting the SNP next year and then they will do this or that and we will get utopia. Nicola will definately listen to his proposals definately mibbe

    231. David Caledonia says:

      The european political union will die shortly and something more worthy might take its place in the future, did somebody not mention a few decades ago that a common market seems a good idea
      I wonder if its still possible today, a well we can but dream

    232. Oneliner says:

      How long will it take to develop the ‘Paper’ into a (List Party) manifesto?

    233. stuart mctavish says:

      Effijy @10:30pm
      If Mr Swinney thinks it is against public interest to know the legal advice he must have been privy to it and might therefore need calling before the committee for cross examination too.

      One point of particular public interest, given attempted constraints in respect of social media speculation on a ‘live’ case, is whether the government’s contemporaneous legal advice included concern about a judicial inquiry acting in parallel, or in advance of, a related criminal investigation (If so what was it and if not, why not).

    234. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Harassment Committee action later, kicks off at 10.15:

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/111052.aspx

    235. Mist001 says:

      “Famous15 says:
      15 September, 2020 at 12:34 am
      Mist101 superficially your brexit observation is correct BUT {paraphrasing AS} I would prefer England as a friendly neighbour rather than a resentful one.”

      See? This is why Scotland will lose any future referendums, because independence ‘supporters’ simply won’t go the extra mile, they won’t do what it takes to achieve independence.

    236. Robert Louis says:

      Their is only one thing worse than the current abuse of Scotland by the corrupt, unelected, English Tory junta, and that is Nicola Sturgeon’s utter dereliction of duty to protect Scotland.

      May 2021 is too late. Jeezo, SNP, sniff the freaking coffee and wake the f*ck up.

    237. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Anna Brees interviewing Prof Richard Ennos, last Friday.

      The man was also on Radio Scotland last week, being interviewed by John Beattie. I didn’t hear the original broadcast but it seems, from the way he describes it here, that he was treated as some kind of ‘conspiracy theorist’.

      After a pretty lengthy preamble from Brees he gets to state his case and is visibly upset by the time it gets to approx 20mins. This video is pretty unique insofar as it addresses the Scottish situation specifically and (big spoiler for some!) is highly critical of the Scottish government.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuP7xOOXCA&ab_channel=AnnaBrees

    238. Polly says:

      @ Clapper57

      Excellent rant and I was agreeing with it all. Many of us feel the same.

      @ Dan

      I agree about the Jim Fairlie Jnr article. I would also say the two paragraphs you quote state the case far more eloquently than the main article here which seems to me a particularly bad example of collaborative writing.

    239. Robert Louis says:

      Does anybody have a link to the full speech by Ed Miliband last night? I have seen bits, and by god he was on fire, ripped the lying lazy git of a Tory ‘prime minister’ to pieces.

    240. Polly says:

      @ Robert Louis

      Here it is. I always thought he’d have made a decent prime minister. The speech is good, you’re right, just a pity it takes more than that.

      https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-of-ed-milibands-speech-in-the-commons-on-the-uk-internal-market-bill/

    241. Grey gull says:

      Ian B @ 6.46.

      Wonder how often someone will say “Sorry, don’t recall that particular situation”

    242. Ottomanboi says:

      Academia on the oily road to corruption.
      https://www.thenational.scot/news/18720687.leading-philosopher-blasts-move-rename-david-hume-tower/
      S’pose La Sturgeon has given tacit approbation to this culture cancelling.

      “The meeting broke up shortly thereafter with the commissar assuring the scholars that indeed there would be plenty of money for “racially pure science.” A few of the professors had the courage to walk out with their Jewish colleagues, but most kept a safe distance from these who only a few hours earlier had been their close friends. I went out sick unto death—and I knew that I was going to leave Germany within forty-eight hours”.
      Peter Drucker…
      Austrian Economist.

    243. Dan says:

      A wee clip of Joanna Cherry bustin’ oot a fine combination of verbal jabs, uppercuts, and haymakers on the Parly floor.

      https://twitter.com/Scotswillbefree/status/1305634887081308160

      And some within the SNP thought they would try to block a lady of this calibre from standing as an MSP candidate and getting into Holyrood.
      To all those that harbour such thoughts…Get In The Sea ya roasters.

    244. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Ian B 7.13: just watched the Ennos interview with Anna Brees. I thought the man’s humanity shone through and he talked a lot of sense.

      The wee son of a friend of a friend said last week he didn’t want to be five because he didn’t want to wear a mask. “Is the bad virus still out there?” he asked.

      What sort of society are we becoming? Truly, fear is a powerful weapon.

    245. MaggieC says:

      The two witnesses today at the Harassment Committee are Sir Peter Housden now retired ,

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Housden

      This an interview in Holyrood Daily with him from 2011 ,

      https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,mandy-rhodes-interviews-sir-peter-housden_5680.

      And then it is Barbara Allison who is a civil servant in the Scottish Government ,

      https://www.gov.scot/about/how-government-is-run/directorates/communications-ministerial-support-and-facilities/barbara-allison/

    246. Polly says:

      @ Ottomanboi

      You’re probably correct that in the renaming of the Hume Tower Sturgeon would agree with the Principal and Vice Chancellor Peter Mathieson who has allowed this to happen on the say so of temporary students, many of whom are neither Scottish not likely to be permanent residents of this country.

      Mathieson came from the University of Hong Kong, leaving there before the end of his contract because of various disagreements about methods and leadership at the time. He was there during the start of the student occupy umbrella movement and there was controversy over an appointment he tried to push through. When he came to Edinburgh he caused further controversy by his pay package which was the highest on record here if I remember, though less than he received in HK. I’m sure this is all of a piece for him personally, perhaps also for the times we live in. We might see further protests – his attitude then was HK didn’t have finance to be independent but he supported the students rights to protest if they so wished.

    247. kapelmeister says:

      Labour leader Sir Keir Hardly and his Scottish branch manager Rickety Landau may no like each other much, but at least they can find common ground over their mutual enthusiasm for Scotland to be a colonial possession without rights.

    248. Breeks says:

      Ian Brotherhood says:
      15 September, 2020 at 7:13 am

      ….After a pretty lengthy preamble from Brees he gets to state his case and is visibly upset by the time it gets to approx 20mins. This video is pretty unique insofar as it addresses the Scottish situation specifically and (big spoiler for some!) is highly critical of the Scottish government….

      It’s not a comfortable place to be, but I’m sitting on the fence.

      Do I trust the Government, either in Scotland or London? No, I absolutely don’t.
      Do I think the Governments are exploiting COVID? Yes I do… absolutely.
      Is the media complicit? Without doubt.
      Does the evidence suggest COVID should be downgraded as a threat? Superficially, yes.

      So why am I on the fence?

      Because of the precedent of Spanish Flu in 1918. The First Wave of Spanish Flu in early 1918 was significant, like now, but mortality rates were described as “not appreciably above normal”. There were no quarantines, and no hysteria about global pandemics.

      But the second wave when it came, proved to be much more lethal. The virus was already highly contagious and communicable, but it mutated into a much more deadly strain. The first wave is estimated to have killed between 3-5 million people, but the second wave is estimated to have killed 20-50 million people.

      Now irrespective of the Science, there remains a risk of a highly contagious virus which mutates all the time, mutating into something more deadly. It’s like a two part epoxy resin, for a pandemic, you need Part 1, the high contagion, and Part 2, the virulent mortality.

      If we are lucky, if our countermeasures and lockdowns work, we can cope with a virus that is extremely contagious but as yet, not that lethal. I think that’s currently where we are.

      But the risk now is where in places like America and Brazil, you have large numbers of people with COVID, it’s a simple probability formula, the odds of mutation are higher, and the more mutation which occurs, the more chance there is of a more deadly mutation…. The type of more deadly mutation that would easily fill up the Louisa Jordan’s beds.

      It feels to me that the world has been prepping itself for this second wave of mortality, and so far, it hasn’t proved necessary. We should be glad of that, not resentful.

      People grow in confidence because we’re not dying in our thousands every day, and the measures in place are irksome and disruptive. That’s understandable. It’s irksome and disruptive wearing a bullet proof vest every day, …that is until you get shot.

      So, I don’t know, and I suspect that’s true for a lot more people. We don’t know what the virus is going to do. We comfort ourselves that people are not dying in numbers once feared, but we’re still having patchy success containing the spread of the Part 1 epoxy. … If the Part 2 epoxy turns up, the much higher mortality mutation, COVID might yet get much, much, worse.

      So I don’t know the statistics and probabilities at work here, but you know what? Even if we dodge a bullet this time and COVID isn’t an extinction level event, then we should use the experience as a vehicle to develop Civil preparedness and readiness for the next Global Pandemic.

      In Scotland’s case, once we are Independent and coining it in from our Oil and Renewable Energy Capital funds, maybe we stick a % away every month into a furloughed wages contingency fund… Just one example…

    249. Rm says:

      We need Joanna Cherry to head up a group to go all out and go for Independence the real legal way we’re not being told about, and instead of having one first minister we could have a group of like minded entrepreneurs to run Scotland, people who are nae scared to have a go, people who’ll tell the larger member of the union where to go when they start their – – – – -, people who’ll start building Scotland’s economic Industry again, we’ve been held down for to long let’s get cracking.

    250. john rose says:

      Unfortunately, the scottish government is not and never will be the ruling government of Scotland under the devolution settlement. Why? Because the power it has is all devolved, and as we all know, power devolved is power retained. The only body that could ever have claimed to be a descendent of the original scottish parliament is the scottish grand Committee. Unfortunately that was disbanded with devolution. The scottish people have accepted the sovereignty of westminster too many times for it not to have become de facto. There is no route to circumvent westminster rule through the courts on the grounds of sovereignty.
      The only route in my opinion is the one that we always had, and that is the popular mandate at a general election. Reinstate “a majority vote for the snp in Scotland is a mandate to start the process of becoming independent” into the manifesto. Publish that process in the manifesto, including if desirable a ratifying plebiscite. Only under this process could a challenge citing the will of the scottish people be successful, as the only expression of will that has any force (excluding a referendum) is the expression of will at a general election.

    251. Big Jock says:

      Did Blackford say last night:”Scotland will not stand for this”. Just wondering………….

    252. John H. says:

      john rose

      Totally agree. A simple and straightforward process which everyone can understand, and hopefully less easy for Westminster to interfere with than a referendum.

    253. Polly says:

      @ john rose

      Re Scottish Grand Committee, no i don’t think it has ever been officially disbanded entirely, just no longer used. It was still extant with members in 2003 which is obviously after Holyrood started work again. Not sure after that, but as you say on the principle of long usage (or sufferage) creating a rule, it might no longer be viable now. But why it hasn’t been tried by the SNP, like a lot of other things left untried is the wonder. Absolutely everything must be tried in my opinion.

      https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/scotg/cmscot.htm

    254. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Breeks (9.26) –

      Thanks for that considered response.

      Unfortunately, the majority rely exclusively on msm outlets for information and are seldom exposed to alternatives, unless being provided with figures (i.e. people) to mock.

    255. jfngw says:

      I see Ed Miliband got huge plaudits for his speech yesterday, still lost the vote though. These speeches in parliament are meaningless, in the sense they never change how MP’s are going to vote. After six hours of oratory the vote would almost certainly have been the same if it had happened without any of them.

      The best that can happen is the reputation of the PM can be damaged, that boat sailed years ago, how can you damage the reputation of someone without one. Even as he was being slaughtered by Miliband he couldn’t have cared less, at times he was even texting on his phone as it happened.

      The trouble with having a lawyer as your leader is they have too much respect for another countries laws, when we are confronting a charlatan that doesn’t even have any respect for the laws and treaties he signed himself.

    256. Republicofscotland says:

      BBC in Scotland to show sturgeon’s Covid-19 briefings all this week.

      Meanwhile Michael Gove has made the gathering of 30 people who want to shoot Grouse on estates exempt from the gathering of six or more folk. The privileged chinless wonders can continue to blast small birds out of the sky en masse.

    257. Big Jock says:

      I don’t think Boris is bothered about reputation. Look at his personal life!

      Gove is going to take over in Janaury , so Boris is just like a man made redundant working his 3 months notice, and in charge of a wrecking ball.

    258. Davie Oga says:

      Big Jock says:
      15 September, 2020 at 9:49 am
      Did Blackford say last night:”Scotland will not stand for this”. Just wondering………….

      No. He did make an excellent contribution edifying his country, Britain/England, with the usual praise for Magna Carta etc.

      Anyone actually think these are the words of a man who is going to lead Scotland to freedom? His country is Britain/England

      “I want to address three questions at the heart of the matter. Is it right to threaten to break the law in the way the Government propose? Is it necessary to do so? Will it help our country? The answer to each question is no. Let us remember the context and the principle. If there is one thing that we are known for around the world, it is the rule of law. This is the country of Magna Carta; the country that is known for being the mother of all Parliaments; and the country that, out of the darkness of the second world war, helped found the United Nations. Our global reputation for rule making, not rule breaking, is one of the reasons that we are so respected around the world. When people think of Britain, they think of the rule of law.”

    259. Grey gull says:

      Breeks. I hear what you’re saying and I agree with being stuck in the middle on this one. I found this website which has lots of interesting articles. It’s always good to get another side to the argument. We don’t seem to be getting much of that on the MSM at the moment.
      https://lockdownsceptics.org/radical-uncertainty-and-government-innumeracy/

    260. J Galt says:

      Watching Milliband was almost as embarrassing as watching Blackford.

      That his slightly girly, hysterical play-acting is being passed off as anything other than risible is well er risible.

      If that’s all Johnson has to worry about he’s home and dry.

    261. Bob Mack says:

      @Big Jock,

      Yes Jock he did say “Scotland will not stand for this”.

      Just before he sat down again. !!

    262. Big Jock says:

      No Davie he doesn’t.

      The Magana Carta was an entirely English document. Unless of course Blackford thinks that WM had 800 years of continuous history up to and including the Union.

    263. Republicofscotland says:

      Johnson’s Scottish lapdogs that voted against Scotland’s interests on the power grab bill.

      Andrew Bowie, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

      David Duguid, Banff and Buchan

      Alister Jack, Dumfries and Galloway

      John Lamont, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk

      David Mundell, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale

      Douglas Ross, Moray

    264. kapelmeister says:

      Breeks @9:26 am

      It has to be remembered though Breeks, that in 1918/19 there had just been a destructive world war, with Europe in ruins. Health services, sanitation and water systems, transport, agriculture, all a shambles. With malnutrition, mental ill-health and cholera, diphtheria etc, all rampant. Malnutrition in Germany was especially widespread because of the Allied blockade during the war.

      Spanish Flu was so pervasive because of the above conditions.

    265. Andy Ellis says:

      John Rose & John h

      The problem is the broader Yes movement has put all its eggs in the SNP basket, and has no means of articulating, let alone ensuring action on, any particular position that the SNP as a party either doesn’t support or is lukewarm about. An assertion of sovereignty and/or the supremacy of Holyrood to decide on the constitutional future of the Scots people appears to be the task at hand, but it’s the process of making it happen (irrespective of any interference from or backsliding by the SNP) that is the pertinent issue.

      Unless we are all content to get what the SNP give us (which looks like #indyref2 sometime in the next decade) the broader Yes movement needs to come up with a way to force the issue. Though I’d personally prefer a commitment to making Holyrood 2021 plebiscitary, I fear that’s a non-starter as we need the SNP to buy in to that, and they lack the political courage to do so. If no other “cunning plan” can be agreed upon and more importantly implemented by HR2021, we may as well resign ourselves to a longer slog, and start preparing the ground to pressurise ALL our MPs, MSPs, councillors and civil society leaders to affirm that they want Holyrood to be sovereign when it comes to deciding our constitutional future.

    266. Lothianlad says:

      If bkackford said those words written above, then the independence movements enemies are right at the heart of the SNP!!

      How fucking ironic that a party I’ve campaigned for all my life is the one which will deny us our greatest chance of freedom!!

      I hope these fuckers in the SNP SG realise how they will be judged by future generations.
      Still, with gold plated pensions and the trappings of power, these careerists dont care!

      Our nation should not pay the price for their privilege!!

    267. Big Jock says:

      I just can’t get my head round Blackford quoting the Magana Carta and saying this country!

      Does he not know that the Magna Carta has nothing to do with the UK. This country can only mean England with that reference to Magna Carta. The Scottish equivalent is the Declaration Of Arbroath FFS.

    268. Stan Broadwood says:

      Watched the Blackford speech on the BBC yesterday, during which, Boris had stood up and had left the building.

      The rest of the English MPs that were left talked and joked with each other over the top of Blackford,,,I don’t think a single one of them heard a word Blackford said.

      And to ad insult to injury, just as Blackford was building up to his big crescendo, where he would probably mentioned the recent rise in support for Independence, the sneaky english bastards of the Beeb cut away to talk about the weather.

      Just painful to watch these disrespectful english bastards show their contempt for anything relating to Scotland.

      Every SNP MP should give Westminster the middle finger and tell them to shove their english Parliament right up their arse.

      I am no fan of Blackford, but he represents Scotland and should be treated as such.

      If Sturgeon had any fight in her at all, she would pull her MPs out of that antiquated English hell hole.

    269. robertknight says:

      So, the paper tiger in a three-piece suit Blackford says “When people think of Britain, they think of the rule of law.”

      WTF?

      Blackford has spent so much time in Westminster he’s gone native.

      I’m sure he’s not the only SNP MP to do so.

    270. john rose says:

      @andy,
      There are no shortcuts without the compliance of westminster as in 2014 (assuming we want international and popular support). But while we wait for the next westminster election, we must be trying for a s30 via holyrood (asking for a mandate to seek a s30 in all manifestos of indy supporting parties). It will be rejected, but that is where the westminster voting and mandate comes in. The holyrood mandate for a s30 does not need to be solely through the snp, but it must be unequivocal. Realistically however a westminster mandate will be through the snp unless they stand aside and AUOB candidates stand instead (I would be happy if they were the current snp mps standing under a different banner (unlikely due to short money?)). But it does need the cooperation of the snp, there is currently no other viable vehicle.
      Trying to find loopholes in the law might seem attractive as we are all feeling a bit impotent at the moment, but that won’t carry the people with us, and as any competent defense attorney knows, it is fairly easy to introduce reasonable doubt, and that would kill any process without strong popular backing.
      If we don’t think that the snp will come with us on this journey, then we have to take it back. But we have to take it back with a reasonable and workable plan, not just anger and frustration.

    271. john rose says:

      @big jock, you have to remember his audience and the setting. He was essentially appealing to english mps to reject the Bill. If he had quoted the DOA, (i would have preferred it) but the English mps would have switched off.

    272. J Galt says:

      john rose @10.57am

      So he’s going to win the argument through sycophancy?

      No wonder the English MPs showed him no respect – he doesn’t deserve any.

    273. stuwin says:

      Have to say the writing style is verbose and complex – not a well written article where the bulk of the readership are likely to be non-lawyers. The use of straightforward language and syntax is preferred – its not dumbing down. Just be clear and concise. Look at the way S Campbell writes.
      I think what it boils down to is that it does not a matter if WM legislate internal to the uk against the ref, as the treaty between Sco and ENg is international. The final court would be the international courts if we are thwarted in the clear mandate for indy ref. They would give us the legitimate international recognition for ref resutlt.

    274. stuwin says:

      Have to say the writing style is verbose and complex – not a well written article where the bulk of the readership are likely to be non-lawyers. The use of straightforward language and syntax is preferred – its not dumbing down. Just be clear and concise. Look at the way S Campbell writes.
      I think what it boils down to is that it does not a matter if WM legislate internal to the uk against the ref, as the treaty between Sco and ENg is international. The final court would be the international courts if we are thwarted in the clear mandate for indy ref. They would give us the legitimate international recognition for ref result.

    275. robertknight says:

      @John Rose

      “but the English mps would have switched off.”

      Come, come, do not be so miserly in your praise…

      When Blackford gets to his feet, EVERYONE switches off!

      Someone who makes claims to preventing Scotland being dragged out the EU against the will of the 62% and yet sits on his hands, (when not wringing them), doesn’t deserve to command anyone’s attention.

      He, as with the others on the SNP benches, are as much use as a chocolate fireguard when defending Scotland’s interests in that place.

    276. Robert Graham says:

      Dumb & Confused here

      A Scottish Parliamentary inquiry in Scotland ,hearing English voices operating inside our government doesn’t quite make sense , I wonder it anyone’s has questioned any of these Civil Servants as to who in the end they a personally answerable to , just strikes me as odd , if something looks strange to me I can’t let this obvious irregularity pass without comment.

    277. terry says:

      Now I know why the SNP had no intention of doing anything for the 700 year Declaration of Arbroath. They’ve gone native – banging on about Magna Carta – an English feckin thing. I despair. “This country” Blackford says. The UK is NOT a country – he can only mean England. Well hell mend them. we have been treated like fools long enough. If their mission is to destroy our chances of independence they couldn’t be doing a much better job.

      Seems like the Unionists have nothing to fear and a lot to like from the SNP hierarchy. Come on Alex Salmond – we need you now more than ever – along with Joanna, Kenny, Chris and the rest of the politicians that actually keep to the values of the SNP and independence.

    278. Monsieur le Roi Grenoulleverteetprofonde says:

      Have just had an extremely fascinating and entertaining hour getting to the bottom of this.i.e. to the comment box.
      There are some overriding factors here, it seems to me.The first to note is the nature of the WM government(77 majority last night on as sticky a wicket as the Tories could fabricate)Basically they are impregnable.
      OK I know there are plucky Scots and Scotessess here who could verbally or metaphorically graze the knees of the Johnson makeweight government but that seems about the full extent of impeding them.They don’t give a flying fig about what is right, honest or just.Is there anyone here who really thinks otherwise? Personally I don’t think independence can be achieved without some blood on the streets.My reading of the current situation is that no-one will be persuaded along that route although ‘events, dear boy, events’ are mostly unanticipated and unpredictable.
      One comment highlighted the price of gold and its drection and then suggested that this was indicative of imminent strife. Covid of course continues to exert an influence and is lending weight to the sense od impending economic troubles and the bubbling to the surface of some truly existential hazards.
      At a time when there is a serious political embolism steadily forming in the economic aorta of humanity’s global body, in the form of the need for a seriously radical or transformative shift away from fossil fuels and all the associated carbon squandering technology utterly embedded in a barely politically literate electorate(WOS& Craig Murray subscribers are a minor factor and barely count in the great scheme of things).
      Domestically speaking, the momentum that has been built up by recent elections has been essentially stymied by the Johnson enterprise. The S.G have begun displacement activities,in the face of their implacable resistance, like a seagull unsure of whether to eat a mustard sandwich or hop aboard their female counterpart for a stress relieving bodily function.The Salmond affair and the distraction of woke social justice policies seem to me like classic distractors.(I doubt that it is well thought out ,it’s just that idle hands need something to fiddle with to appease their cravings.
      Combined with all this domesticalia we have the EU feeling the strain of Covid and reeling from the breakup with the U.K.,like a heavy weight sitting on a bough which is being cut from the main trunk.There will be a rebound effect, as the EU finds its new equilibrium, which has the potential to unseat that precarious Union. In the very long term there is some possibility of some form of Scottish renaissance within that context but in the short term that option is full of hazard.
      Looking back (with hindsight) to 1707 it was a time at the infancy of the British empire and the industrial revolution, a time charged with straightforward technical and moraL imperatives and exploitable naive optimisms At this moment in time I cant see any realistic opportunities(asteroid mining??/Mars colony)?) which does not involve a huge contraction of human life and activity.
      Who watched Attenborough’s effort on Sunday? full of his blustering hope,(If
      we change now we can save our living systems yet again) but he has been doing this for at least a decade and the current result is a government of more jostling crooks, self-stimulating reprobates and shabby shysters-exactly the same as in the Thatcher era when even then there were ample indicators of a declining living system. Not a shred of sincerity or any possibility of transformation.

    279. john rose says:

      @j galt, it’s called being a politician. You don’t get a hearing if the first thing you do is offend someone’s sensibilities.

    280. Joe says:

      @Breeks

      The major problem I have isn’t a virus or the idea of a virus and the steps we have to take to limit deaths.

      The problem I have is how this is used to consolidate state control over our lives.

      Yes, restricting of freedom is necessary in such a situation. Im not such an ‘individualist’ that I don’t recognise the need for collectivisation at times of emergency.

      However what we are seeing is worrying:

      1 – a total lack of consistency of government approaches to handling the virus – i.e we were in lock down while borders were open, masks wont help until the WHO receives political pressure and then they are an apparently absolutely necessary item etc.

      2 – all advice and measures empower governments and their agencies. Where is the information about increasing vitamin C, getting exposure to sunlight and all the other things that help limit the effect of the virus? We don’t get that.

      3 – while there are thousands of actual on-the-ground medical practitioners screaming out that there are commonly available drugs that can be used (and are being used) to successfully treat patients we are being told that nothing except a vaccine will work and these doctors are somehow lying.

      4 – the vaccine itself. One of the main proponents of mass vaccination, Mr Gates, has said that his investment in vaccines is worth 20x initial capital. The history of Big Pharma and their murderous lack of care, and subsequent slapping of the wrist from authorities, should weight heavily on anybody’s mind. Coupled with the fact that these same big companies that have done insanely criminal acts to protect profits in the past are being given legal exemption from vaccine side effects id suggest this is worth paying attention to. The ‘anti-vaxxer’ argument against this is nonsense. We are not against vaccines in the same way we are not against medicine. But we’d like some basic standards in medicine we are given or we wont take it. Same for vaccines.

      5 – there are documents over the decades from people such as the Rockefellers suggesting the use of viruses and vaccines as means of establishing greater ‘top down control’ of society.

      While the virus is real and there will most likely be a 2nd (and much more deadly) wave it must also be remembered that this is exactly the situation that powerful people have wanted for some time. Powerful people I must add that are eugenicists and population reduction advocates.

      It is naive to believe that this virus wont be the excuse to deliver us into a post democratic and post individual rights world. While its necessary to be sensible, if people give in to fear (terrorism) we will have seen the end of this short lived experiment in liberal democracy.

      Just had to say this. Cheers

    281. john rose says:

      I have to ask all those criticising Blackford using magna carta as a reference, what would they do if they were making a speech in the US senate? Quote the declaration of arbroath? Quote magna carta? Or quote the us declaration of independence?
      I think that Blackford and anyone else seeking to influence the senate would quote the US declaration of independence.
      As a politician, you quote the most relevant material.

    282. MaggieC says:

      Re the debate yesterday , Ian Blackford DID NOT make any reference to the Magna Carta as per Hansard . So could we just stop those rumours right now that he did .

      https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-14/debates/83A18A5B-75DE-4843-9C64-FAD20602C884/UnitedKingdomInternalMarketBill

      Ian Blackford starts in the debate at 5.30 pm

    283. robertknight says:

      @john rose

      “As a politician, you quote the most relevant material.”

      Indeed.

      In which case Blackford should’ve quoted the parts of the 1998 Scotland Act which are directly impacted by this Bill’s attack on devolution.

    284. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Joe (11.41) –

      Hear hear.

      People like to cherry-pick Orwell for quotes, but I can’t find the one I need here, so perhaps someone can help?

      It was probably an essay, and the phrase he used was ‘in revolutionary times like these’.

      The reason it seems apt, to me at any rate, is because it refreshes one’s perception of time. We are all too bound up in our own lives to get a view of the bigger picture i.e. the one viewed by the elites who genuinely consider us ‘proles’ to be a form of livestock.

      For the great aristocratic families and the governments who serve them, we most certainly are in revolutionary times and they don’t like it. In fact, they fear it. The fate of royalty and gentry in France and Russia is fresh in their families’ memory. Prince Philip has spoken of revolutionaries killing ‘his cousins’. It’s also why, when he ‘jokes’ about being reincarnated as a deadly virus, his tongue is not in his cheek.

    285. Robert Graham says:

      Anyone believe we will get any more information from this inquiry that’s not common knowledge ? , the tight remit of what and can’t be questioned is strangling the members of the committee , the first thing is any questions about the alphabet sisters because it appears to be all Women any inference to the identity is akin to a major breach of every Law in the universe it’s not just off limits it’s a definite NO NO , as the whole inquiry revolves round the Alphabet sisters this is one Avenue that has been blocked off ,

      Now it has been ruled any and all references to Alex Salmond are now also off limits , the tight limits are now shrinking and I wonder if there is actually any point in continuing given these constraints , while not agreeing with the politics of a lot of the Committee if you are going to have a inquiry , then bloody let the inquiry dig into what was a almighty balls up that’s not a opinion that’s what is on record ,

      The more this committee is stymied the more questions are being raised what’s being hidden and who is responsible for this obvious gagging of the Committee , it doesn’t look good especially when requested information and documents are being so obviously withheld by our government

    286. Lochside says:

      Someone asked who represents Scotland in the Union?

      Well the Scottish MPs are the direct lineage of the custodians of Scottish Sovereignty which was agreed to be shared with the English in the Acts of Union. And it was agreed universally, by all English ( and the SNP) parties until very recently, that a majority of those MPS held the Sovereign right to dissolve the Union as and when, by representing the majority of the Scottish people’s will to do so. AS by gambling our Sovereignty on Edinburgh agreement/2014 Referendum undermined that, but did not erase that basis for this asymetrical ‘Union’dissolution.

      Therefore, as Craig Murray and Peter Bell have suggested, the current majority of our MPs should affirm in the Westminster Parliament the total withdrawal of the Scottish people’s consent to the continuing traducing of our rights and laws, and walk out forever from that rotting dump.

      They should return to Scotland and a Convention of MPs and MSPs along with Civic Scotland should declare an Independence plebiscite immediately. Holyrood should then be declared the Sovereign Parliament of Scotland and no longer a devolved talking shop.At the same time, an appeal should be delivered to the ICJ and the UN restating the basis of our Sovereignty with the Declaration of Arbroath and the Claim(s) of Rights as the historical constitutional foundation for our renewed Independent status.

      We have no need to continue to prostrate our nation to English fabricated S30, Supreme Courts and ‘Referenda’ run by tory grandees and biased media outlets.

    287. Famous15 says:

      John Rose I agree!

      If you wished to embarrass the “mother” of parliaments in the world you use what they always boast about.

      It is like taking the piss out of 1966 !

      So I am not enamoured with Blackford but he attacked Westminsters standing in the world with their own joys!

      Gordon Brown is on fire with boasting about how he handled the financial. crisis, well at least his pants are on fire. He is hot on the Rule Of Law too. Hush about him financing illegal wars!

      Remember do not get dizzy spinning that the SU is weaponising Boris bullshit.

      Boris is chaotic,narcotic and pathetic.

    288. Meg merrilees says:

      Breeks @ 12.21 ( 14th sept – only reading now)

      Agreed!

      The Irony of watching 5 former PM’s protesting that the current PM is about to breach an International Treaty should he follow his proposed path and yet, each of them is exhorting him to stay on his current path which breaches an even older, more consequential International Treaty.

      You couldnae make it up!

    289. Shug says:

      Lochside
      And when Westminster moves against the mps and msps, locks them up and enforces its will directly. At the same time the BBC on a war foiting blames all disruption on The failing snp and people believe it what then

    290. CameronB Brodie says:

      john rose
      I don’t think you can support your opinion with legal sources. Would I be correct?

    291. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “In any event – there are no downsides to getting support for Indy over 60% before years end.”

      Actually there are. The higher support is the more certain the UK government is to lose, and the more certain they are to lose the less chance there is of them granting a Section 30. Now, since the current chances of them doing that are pretty much nil it’s a bit of a moot point, but nonetheless they may yet still believe it’s close enough for them to win with another massive dose of Project Fear, and therefore worth the gamble if it looks like we might have a plan. If we’re past 60% it definitely won’t be.

    292. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “At some point when Boris thinks it would be good to ditch Scotland for his own power there will be a change in tory policy.”

      Boris will never think that, because no Tory PM who oversaw the disintegration of the UK could survive.

    293. Big Jock says:

      John Rose- The US senate is in the same country as the one that celebrates the 4th of July Declaration.

      The Magna Carta has nothing to do with the UK or the current Westminster parliament. Are you saying this is an English parliament and Blackford is essentially sitting in a foreign parliament.

      The Magna Carta is not a UK document.

    294. jfngw says:

      The quote being attributed to Ian Blackford was from Ed Miliband’s speech, funny how many are willing to just believe any old shite people write without checking.

    295. Breeks says:

      kapelmeister says:
      15 September, 2020 at 10:16 am
      Breeks @9:26 am

      It has to be remembered though Breeks, that in 1918/19 there had just been a destructive world war, with Europe in ruins. Health services, sanitation and water systems, transport, agriculture, all a shambles…

      Yes, I know, point taken. However a virus will mutate to optimise it’s survival and procreation in whatever environment it finds itself. If it has wounded men it can exploit, it will. If those circumstances don’t exist, then the big threat might find another way to evolve. Life will find a way.

    296. Lochside says:

      Shug says:
      15 September, 2020 at 12:08 pm
      Lochside
      And when Westminster moves against the mps and msps, locks them up and enforces its will directly. At the same time the BBC on a war foiting blames all disruption on The failing snp and people believe it what then’

      You sound like Ian Blackford…well if they did..do you think Scotland will stand and watch?

    297. john rose says:

      @cameron, I have many opinions. Which ones are you referring to?
      I have to say that I am not a lawyer, so I don’t keep legal references in my head. However I have watched the independence struggle for several decades, and have listened to many people with clever schemes for getting independence.
      It is no good us winning a legal battle if we alienate the voters, so any legal challenge based on a 700 year old letter from a bunch of Lords is not going to enthuse the people. As someone else said, keep it simple, after all noone likes a smart arse.

    298. CameronB Brodie says:

      The British constitution is not a codified and legally binding constitution, it is a political constitution historically articulated through the Common law. However, that has meant that British constitutional practice has had the liberty to define itself in an ad hoc fashion to support particular political interests. As such, British constitutional practice has evolved in a manner that lacks coherence and compatible with international law. If constitutional practice is not compatible with international law, it is not compatible with the Common law. The British constitution was a political contract articulated through the Common law. It is now being used as a fig-leaf to cover fascism.

      So there is no MORAL legal FORCE binding Scotland, only the colonisation of Scots minds, and piss poor legal officers who appear to support eugenics (see the Lord Advocate).

    299. Andy Ellis says:

      @ John rose

      You don’t understand Cameron’s MO: he affects an (unjustified) air of intellectual superiority by virtue of his background in town planning to bludgeon everyone into submission in the name of educating the benighted know nothing’s like us using a splatter gun approach of spamming the thread with secondary cut & paste links, frequently only tangentially related to the point at hand, frequently of no particular academic worth, but apparently available to him in inexhaustible quantity.

      For a brief moment yesterday it looked like he was going to give in after various people called his inanity out, but I think his meds must have worn off, and we were soon back to the carpet bombing of the thread with low value links.

      There are two threads of thought about his input: 1) he’s a britnat troll deliberately trying to derail the BTL discussion, or 2) he’s just some random monomaniac with no self control or social skills. My money is very much on the latter.

    300. Meg merrilees says:

      Davie Oga @ 10.10

      Think you have quoted the wrong politician when you attribute Ian Blackford with having mentioned the “Magna Carta”.

      Ed Milliband was the person who uttered the ‘Magna Carta’ after taking an intervention from Ian Blackford.

      Be careful when you quote – you have set a hare running this morning and who knows, by tea-time, a substantial number of non-unionists may think that Ian Blackford did indeed say those words. If they have turned off in disgust, we could risk them not returning.

    301. CameronB Brodie says:

      Unlike Andy, I understand how to support the rule-of-law. Remember, all Scots are agents of international law.

      International Law Clients: The Wisdom of Natural
      Law

      https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144228657.pdf

    302. john rose says:

      @big jock, a moot point given that blackford didn’t use the phrase. Having just read the speech, he made the points entirely without referring to any confused history of westminster. If he had, it would have been appropriate, given the history of the building he was in to refer to that document, but i would expect him to have referred to it in a more correct manner than the quote given.

    303. Meg merrilees says:

      Dan @ 9.05 am

      Re Joanna Cherry https://twitter.com/Scotswillbefree/status/1305634887081308160

      Boris has backed himself into an almighty corner.
      Theresa May’s government collapsed because there was no way around the conundrum of there being a land border between North and South Ireland – that border also being a land border with the EU, and she could not see a way to do Brexit.
      Boris didn’t pay the 30 pieces of silver to Arlene Forster and her band, he promised to get Brexit done and agreed a Treaty, internationally, that said there would be no hard border with the EU/ between N. and S. Ireland ( to protect the Good Friday Agreement).
      He maintained that there would be no border between the ports of N. Ireland and the wider UK. The UK Government even went so far as to say that there would be no hard borders because ‘they would not erect them’, so there. It was Europe that wanted the hard borders and if they were created, ‘it would be their fault’.

      Even (T)Ruthless, baroness Davidson pointed out the borders conundrum and could not support Boris’ Withdrawal Bill. There would have to be Custom’s checks.
      Any such presence annuls the Treaty of Union which expressly states that the internal ports of the UK should be treated equally and have no tariffs or duty between them.
      Legally, the die was cast on January 31st when we left the EU as this is now the Agreement under which we are negotiating a trade deal with the EU.
      The EU has to protect their perimeter border. A land border would annul the Good Friday Agreement therefore there has to be a border in the sea for them to agree a deal.
      Boris is turning this on its head, blaming the EU by stating that the EU wants to impose tariffs /a blockade on movement of goods between N. Ireland and the rUK – effectively ‘Break up the Union’ when this is expressly Boris’ fault for agreeing to an impossible deal.

      Both sides want to observe the GFA so a land border in Ireland is impossible.
      For the EU, a border in the sea is essential.
      For Boris, a border in the sea breeches the Union and as Minister for the Union, he now realises he cannot allow this.
      Technically, Brexit is impossible and always has been without either
      A. the re-unification of Ireland or
      B. the dissolving of the Treaty of Union.
      But Boris has promised to “get Brexit done” so as a man of his word, how can he do this?

      Easy, this is what I want, I’ll just break the law to do it.

      Even none other than Alistair, The liar, Carmichael, MP for the Union and ‘We’re Better Together’ has said in Parliament that should Boris proceed with this then Nicola Sturgeon should just declare a section 30 referendum and do it.

      Now Joanna has also pointed it out in her eloquent way, to a silent House.

    304. cirsium says:

      @breeks, 9.26

      The Spanish flu was caused by bird flu virus, HIN1. SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus. Strains from the four winter virus families (influenza, adenovirus, rhinovirus and coronavirus) appear every year. Whether there were lockdowns or not, the virus was going to die out – see the illustrative graphs for various countries in http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=8UvFhIFzaac&feature=emb_logo

      SARS-CoV-1 never reappeared. So SARS-CoV-2 might do the same. What can be guaranteed is that a coronavirus or coronaviruses will appear with the influenza viruses in the winter. This is not a second wave. It is a natural seasonal occurrence.

      What is also going to appear are the excess deaths from all the non-COVID diseases which were not treated in time due to the withdrawal of the normal medical services.

    305. robertknight says:

      @Meg m

      “a substantial number of non-unionists may think that Ian Blackford did indeed say those words. If they have turned off in disgust, we could risk them not returning.”

      If they haven’t “turned off in disgust” already on the basis of previous assertions by the same Ian Blackford that “we will not be dragged out of the EU against our will”.

      Look at how that turned out!

      It amazes me that Ian ‘Toom Tabard’ Blackford has the brass neck to stand up in that place and say anything given his track record – his words aren’t worth the paper his PPS prints them on.

    306. john rose says:

      @lochside, I essentially agree, except the mps who dissolve the union must have been elected with dissolve the union in their manifesto.
      It is galling to have to wait for another westminster election, but i see no other way that would take the people with us.
      If we try anything from holyrood (along the same lines), it will simply be dissolved, or suspended if it looks like succeeding. That’s what they do in northern Ireland.
      If we try to assert historic rights or something equally fanciful, then we start legal processes and arguments that will lose us support, and muddy the waters. We may win the legal argument then lose (or partly lose) the vote because people can’t follow the argument.
      We are currently in a position of strength. The strongest we have been in for at least a couple of centuries. We have to keep the fight and aims simple, and use the representation that has been built up to break open the fallacy that is westminster sovereignty from the inside. Use it against itself.

    307. Big Jock says:

      Sorry we were mislead about Blackford quoting the Magna Carta!

      However my point about it’s irrelevance to the current UK institution stands. You cannot hold up the Magna Carta as a British or UK document. It has nothing , repeat nothing to do with the UK after the Act of Union.

      It’s bad enough when English commentators conflate English and British history. If Milliband made the comparison that is exactly the kind of conflation that should anger everyone.

    308. CameronB Brodie says:

      Big Jock
      Sorry to disagree, but the Magna Carta played a central role in the evolution of English Common law and the legality of British constitutional practice, which English Torydum has now rejected entirely.

      International Review of Law and Economics, 26 May 2016
      Magna Carta, the rule of law, and the limits on government

      abstract

      This paper surveys the legal tradition that links Magna Carta with the modern concepts of the rule of law and the limits on government. It documents that the original understanding of the rule of law included substantive commitments to individual freedom and limited government. Then, it attempts to explain how and why such commitments were lost to a formalist interpretation of the rule of law from 1848 to 1939. The paper concludes by arguing that a revival of the substantive commitments of the rule of law is central to reshaping modern states.

      https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Magna_Carta.pdf

    309. Big Jock says:

      Cameron. However there is no British constitution. There is no British Law. There is English & Welsh law and Scots Law. Magnamay have played a part in English law, but certainly not Scots.

      Scots law is based on European traditions and English on the law of torts.

      “For historical reasons, as a state made up of several separate jurisdictions, the United Kingdom does not have a single unified legal system. Instead, there is one system for England and Wales, another for Scotland, and a third for Northern Ireland. In most cases, The Supreme Court sits above all of these as the final court of appeal.”

    310. Lochside says:

      Things on here are really fucked up when old time regular ‘Wingers’ help to derail the thread by engaging with trolls over ‘virus’ pish when our constitutional and existence as a nation is on the fucking precipice!

    311. CameronB Brodie says:

      Big Jock
      Unfortunately, British constitutional practice articulates English Common law, allegedly.

      Description and History of Common Law
      https://www.radford.edu/~junnever/law/commonlaw.htm

    312. CameronB Brodie says:

      I didn’t mean it is unfortunate that our constitution was justified through the Common law, it is unfortunate that English Torydum has forgotten what made the British union politically tolerable. The Common law respects Natural law, which is essential to democracy and human rights.

    313. Big Jock says:

      Fair enough Cameron. You are probably right.

      However I don’t think many English commentators understand that the Magna Carta is an English document. They see WM after 1707 as a continuum of the English parliament. It doesn’t help when politicians quote 800 year old English texts and use the word this country! When we know they mean England as the UK.

    314. CameronB Brodie says:

      Big Jock
      Britain has not successfully dealt with the legacy of colonialism, which has lead many English to believe they are specially blessed by GOD, and so not bound by international law. This is what Brexit seeks to bury out of sight.

    315. CameronB Brodie says:

      Contemporary British constitutionalism no longer respects Natural law, so contemporary British constitutionalism can’t be considered compatible with democracy. So it is unfortunate that the Lord Advocate appears to be unable to support common law jurisprudence and democracy. Though he appear content to support eugenics.

      Laval théologique et philosophique, Volume 15, numéro 1, 1959
      Natural Law and Modern Jurisprudence

      https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ltp/1959-v15-n1-ltp0954/1019972ar.pdf

    316. CameronB Brodie says:

      If the Lord Advocate does not respect Natural law, he should have no influence over Scots law.

      Natural Law and Human Rights in English Law:
      From Bracton to Blackstone

      http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2480&context=journal_articles;Natural

    317. Lochside says:

      john rose says:
      15 September, 2020 at 1:23 pm
      @lochside, I essentially agree, except the mps who dissolve the union must have been elected with dissolve the union in their manifesto.’

      The SNP, who are and have been the majority for Westminster since the Referendum are supposed to represent the party for Scottish Independence….just like the Tory Party is supposed to represent capitalist policies. The name is on the tin my friend.

      ‘If we try to assert historic rights or something equally fanciful, then we start legal processes and arguments that will lose us support, and muddy the waters. We may win the legal argument then lose (or partly lose) the vote because people can’t follow the argument’

      ‘Equally fanciful’??..that gives the game away. You are another Pete Wishart sound alike. Historic rights like democracy and Sovereignty are I guess for someone like you, an inconvenience to be explained to a dumb electorate, by the sound of it.

      Another imposter!…I would change your monicker to ‘English Rose’ it would suit you better!

    318. john rose says:

      No lochside, I have been supporting independence for over 40 years. It is my first, second and third priority. I don’t however want to dream about it, I want to achieve it.
      The reason that I view historic rights as “fanciful” is because they are not backed by any documentation like a constitution. They are unwritten, and that is a problem. They can be interpreted. You are also forgetting that we live in a monarchy, where the parliament in westminster has taken over the Royal powers. It views itself as supreme. We may view the people as supreme in scotland, but that is not where a legal fight has to be won. In actual fact, we have no rights, the only reason that we appear to have rights is because politicians want to get elected.
      So it is by using the electoral process for westminster that we can achieve independence most neatly,and quickly. Any attempt to use any other route can be smashed by the Royal perogative at westminster (this is also why I am a bit of a republican).
      So, if you can give me a route that cannot be scuppered by the royal perogative of the parliament at westminster, then I’m all ears.

    319. CameronB Brodie says:

      john rose
      Your logic appears to be poor. The British constitution is unwritten, so has no merit according to your thinking.

      Edinburgh Law Review
      2001
      Natural law and common law

      http://nbls.soc.srcf.net/files/files/Legal%20History/Supervision%201/3.%20Ibbetson%20(ELR,%202001).pdf

    320. john rose says:

      @cameron, that is not what I said. The point is that it is unwritten, therefor any challenge would be mired in argument, with no clear rights. You can however bet that parliament will legislate according to their view, and there will be damn little that can be done about it. It does not provide us with protection from parliament.

    321. CameronB Brodie says:

      john rose
      Sorry for picking you up wrongly. Yes the constitution is unwritten, but British constitutional practice lacks coherence and compatibility with international law, and so incompatible with the Common law. Any lawyer worth their salt could rip the legal validity of Brexit to shreds.

      Relying on positive law to shape your constitutional identity (see Brexit), is excessive legal instrumentalism. This is the sort of legal practice that enabled the Nazis to do what they did.

      Positive Law v. Natural Law [Introduction to Common Law]
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASpcFTUGfxM

    322. CameronB Brodie says:

      Rejecting natural law from legal consideration and jurisprudence, supports excessive legal instrumentalism, and is incompatible with the principle of equality in law. It is not possible to legally respect “difference”, without a respect for Natural law.

      Fordham International Law Journal
      Volume 15, Issue 4 1991 Article 3
      Natural Law and the Law of Nations: Some
      Theoretical Considerations

      https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=ilj

    323. Gareth says:

      Professor Allan MacInnes was my lecturer at uni.

    324. Shug says:

      Lochside

      Yup Scots are cowerdly and will come to heel soon enough

    325. Daisy Walker says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      15 September, 2020 at 12:12 pm
      “In any event – there are no downsides to getting support for Indy over 60% before years end.”

      Actually there are. The higher support is the more certain the UK government is to lose, and the more certain they are to lose the less chance there is of them granting a Section 30. Now, since the current chances of them doing that are pretty much nil it’s a bit of a moot point, but nonetheless they may yet still believe it’s close enough for them to win with another massive dose of Project Fear, and therefore worth the gamble if it looks like we might have a plan. If we’re past 60% it definitely won’t be.

      OK, My understanding of what you are saying is that while there is bugger all chance of WM granting a S30 order just now, if we get support over 60% before years end, bugger all chance will reduce to absolutely bugger all chance…. have I got that right?

      That is not a strong argument.

      But if we get the support of over 60% of Scottish voters – to realise the current threat to their country, and vote for Indy – how much more power (and pressure) to those we chose to elect is that. And how many of them will ever ‘convert back’ to no, once they’ve made the move. Very few I would suggest.

      And we need them – every country has its conservatives (with or without the lower and upper case ‘C’s). We need them, an Independent country needs them, in a time of national emergency, we need them. All shoulders to the wheel.

      One last point, do we really want to start an election or an Indy campaign with support for Indy at 50ish % or over 60% – given what will be thrown at us by the Brit Nat establishment. Because lets be honest – whether its 50% instead of 60% they are not going to pull their punches and leave some plates on the shelf just in case now – are they.

      Getting support for Indy over 60% before years end is necessary, it will moral boost, it will create momentum, it will leave current SNP official policy of (Scotland isn’t ready) floundering under its own watermark (and put pressure on them to change policy), and most importantly it will get the voters of Scotland on side, up to speed on the dangers Scotland is facing, and pushing for Indy.

      Getting support for Indy over 60% before years end is essential and something we can all aim for without waiting for ‘permission’ from our ‘leaders’.

    326. A lot said already,freedom of speech.This internal Market,once passed ends the Treaty of Union. In 1707 Scots law in Scotland is Equal to English Law in England,signed by both sides.This internal market breaks that law,and ends this biased union.There should be NO need for anything else.Breaking the Ireland Peace agreement will probably tie the hands of the U.S.A and the E.U. NOt to mention in International law Westminster heads a Pariah state.W.T.O,s with whom?? people they have robbed and ruined.As for immigrants,that won,t stop,they will come from other countries as part of any W.T.O. agreements,guess who is getting screwed!??



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




    ↑ Top