The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Any minute now

Posted on November 22, 2020 by

From 2016 (and another classic in the “missing words” category).

We were keen to read the article, obviously.

Zounds, the irony.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 22 11 20 13:57

      Any minute now | speymouth

    128 to “Any minute now”

    1. Muscleguy says:

      If Sturgeon’s SNP vowed that the sun would rise tomorrow I would firstly look up when the next solar eclipse was due and secondly wait to see if it actually happened.

    2. G H Graham says:

      31st January 2020

      “… Sturgeon promised her government would publish a series of papers “in the coming months” laying out a revised case for independence, playing the same role as a single document issued before the 2014 vote.”

      I guess she was too distracted with trying to cover up her involvement in the attempt to disgrace & incarcerate Alex Salmond.

      Or trying to remember if she even met his advisors prior to his prosecution or some other laughable bollocks.

    3. Anon says:

      Different headline but same photograph and date with this URL:

      Strange. Can’t understand why Telegraph would tone down headline – and presumably article which is behind paywall.

    4. robert graham says:

      Very Appropriate ” Any Minute Now ”

      The total disconnect between the English media version and reality , English media all the SNP does is shout Independence ! .

      The reality the SNP appears to be the only impediment to calling a second Independence referendum vote .

      A total WTF moment

      The recent converts to a better future by becoming a independent country and accepting the growing support for another vote are going to be a little disappointed when they realise that they as well as us are being sold a Turkey , this SNP management have no bloody interest in a second vote while they are pushing their own questionable agenda,

      Given both can’t exist Simultaneously and both are eventually going to hit this bloody great big unmovable wall that’s when reality kicks in and we are presented with the WTF dilemma .

      I give up , I surrender going to look for something to watch on Netflix or Amazon that might make sense at least be entertaining , head shaking in total disbelief .

    5. Astonished says:

      This is just so depressing.

      On a lighter note I think a lot of SNP MSPs are beginning to think their jaiket is on a shoogly nail. Good.

      The SNP have got until the end of november. I need a new NEC with the woke gone. I believe we are heading that way, but will it be fast enough ?

    6. Tannadice Boy says:

      Not so much any minute now but this coming week another vote in Parliament to release the legal advice to the Harrassment Inquiry Committee. Another defeat looming for the SG.

    7. ScotsRenewables says:

      Craig Murray Zoom meeting Tuesday

      … and if anyone else is going to Conference, remember you can vote for Craig for President.

    8. Willie says:

      I see William Hill have just halved the odds on Nicola Sturgeon being gone by the end of the year to 4/1.

      Now odds as we know reflect the weight of money being placed on bets. But with Conference looming and with more Alex Salmond revelations to come out, one have to ask if there are those who might have a sniff of the future to come.

    9. Andrew F says:

      Beaten to it by others, but not surprising that when you find the article and read it there is no such quote or even direct statement that would support the headline.

      Put simply: “Scotland to declare independence if Britain votes to [leave] European Union, says Nicola Sturgeon” is a blatant lie. She never even came close to saying that. According to the article, the best she said was “could” blah blah blah.

      Found another version of obviously the same story at –

      And again, she bloody well did NOT (at least not in anything in the story). They have this quote:

      “If we get into the situation, where Scotland votes to stay in, the rest of the UK votes to come out, then people in Scotland will have big questions they will want to look at again about whether Scotland should be independent.”

      What is less surprising, that she apparently never said it or that the headline contradicts the story beneath?

    10. MaggieC says:

      Tannadice Boy @ 1.01 pm and for Ian Brotherhood ,

      Ian Brotherhood , I see that you had posted this on your twitter

      “Have you heard any more about the rumoured no-confidence vote in Wolffe/Swinney Has anyone?”

      This Wednesday 25 th in the Scottish Parliament the two debates are these from the ENGLISH Tory party Msps sitting in the Scottish Parliament .

      (Scottish ) Conservative Party Debate: Justice
      (Scottish ) Conservative Party Debate: Legal Advice

      The business bulletin doesn’t have any more details yet ,

    11. James Che. says:

      Its just ramp it up talk, from the opposition
      There an article in one newspaper inferring Scotland has closed its borders to the rest of Britain,
      There is another that talks about how the queens son let the cat out the bag how the monarch would interfere days before 2014,
      The media have been having a heyday with all sorts of stories, from John majors unfair idea of a Scottish referendum to rolling out all the other fuddy duddies,
      These items are supposed to keep you agitated, to make and cause you not to pay attention to what you really need to be doing,
      I am sure the psychology is successful in some quarters, but most of the Scottish people no longer believe the retoric, it’s like Cameron’s crocodile tears, the vow,

    12. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @MaggieC –

      Thanks for that.


    13. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Maggie C
      I haven’t heard anything about a vote of no confidence. However it would make sense for the Parliament to consider such an action. If the will of the Parliament is denied a second time then a vote of no confidence in Swinney could follow. A vote of no confidence is not legally binding so Swinney can ignore that as well. I think common sense should prevail and the advice should be released this week. It’s pointless having a Committee system if they can just be ignored. Standby for fireworks if Swinney refuses to release it. (Heck! I am wondering what’s in the document now)

    14. Stoker says:

      That Telegraph article also states:

      “Britain Stronger In Europe, the pro-EU campaign, has said that exports from Scotland to the Continent are worth an estimated £11.6 billion.”

      Nice way of playing down the reality eh? Just cover EU! And if that’s what a BritNat organisation is saying then we can only surmise the real figures to be a lot higher.×197.jpg.webp

    15. Republicofscotland says:

      From Brian’s link.

      “Scotland should declare independence if Britain votes to leave the European Union on June 23, Nicola Sturgeon has said.”

      “The Scottish First Minister said that it would “be best for Scotland to be in the EU as an independent member state”.

      So why didn’t Sturgeon practice what she preached.

    16. Kat says:

      Slow boat to China would’ve been quicker route to independence.

      Slightly off topic but any survey plans to ask voters (especially women) if they plan to vote for a party at Holyrood 2021 that is keen to abolish their rights in law?

      With the @ForwomenScot GRPB court case starting in January, the Census asking for gender not sex nonsense, the Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) Bill using gender instead of sex for medical practioner who would be examining rape victims, it is becoming evident the government (SNP) are trying to sneak in self ID by the back door.

      So it might be worth asking if women still intend to Wheesht for Indy and vote SNP next year. With an Indy ref nowhere near the horizon giving SNP another 5 years could spell disaster for Scottish women’s rights.

      With TENI, Amnesty International Ireland, National Women’s Council of Ireland and others signing an open letter calling for women’s rights to political representation to be removed just for asking that their sex based rights be protected, we can all see the direction of travel for Scotland. FYI it was retweeted by some Irish politicians and there is a petition.

      With the party conference coming up, a manifesto to be written, then an election to be fought, women (& men) need to start voicing their disagreement with the erasure of women in Scots law. We need to start telling them this is a vote loser and dangling the Indy carrot in front of us for another term in government won’t work again.

      So it would be extremely useful to have some feedback from polling on this. And since no other group or organisation is ever going to ask such a controversial question I thought I would ask you.?

      Cheers from a woman not prepared to Wheesht For Indy any more. ?

    17. Republicofscotland says:

      Christ those clowns running Scottish ruby need a word in their ears as the Scotland v France ruby match is on Amazon Prime and not on any terrestrial channel.

      The same can be said of the Hampden mob running the footballing national team.

      We must be the only country in the world that doesn’t have access to its national sides fixtures on tv.

    18. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Tannadice Boy & MaggieC –

      I could swear I saw something, early last week, saying that Swinney and the Lord Advocate were both heading for a VONC as a direct result of their contempt for the committee proceedings.

      Did no-one else see this?

    19. robertknight says:


      “ So why didn’t Sturgeon practice what she preached.”

      Is that a rhetorical question, or do you want a list?

    20. Contrary says:

      Ian Brotherhood

      Was it this article in the National?

      Someone must have posted it on here (and I was too lazy to close the tab it opened in)

      It doesn’t say what the consequences of a no confidence vote would be though. Will it actually force their hands?

      Swinneys letters are quite the masterpieces of obfuscation. Knowing how vindictive the SNP leadership is with anyone not entirely ,,, obsequious,,, I wonder if Fabiani knows she won’t last in the party now? Or is she one of the MSPs that have said they will not stand again?

    21. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Ian Brotherhood
      Of course Swinney narrowly survived a VONC on the 13th August. A second VONC 3 months later would be very embarrassing for the SG. That’s why I think he will release the legal advice before that. He can’t be that unaware or else there really is something worth hiding. As Campbell Gunn said, get the bad news out and take the hit.

    22. MaggieC says:

      Tannadice Boy 2.36 pm

      This is from the Times last week ,

      “ Lord Advocate James Wolffe faces vote of no confidence at Holyrood . Another option under discussion is a no-confidence vote against deputy first minister John Swinney, to force the government to comply with a parliamentary motion telling it to publish the advice. “

      This is from the Scotsman today ,

      “ A second vote aimed at forcing the Scottish Government to publish the legal advice it received when defending its handling of harassment complaints against Alex Salmond, will be held in Holyrood this week “

      The main reason that they don’t want to publish the evidence is it would show (allegedly) that they are all involved in trying to send Alex Salmond , an innocent man to jail for the rest of his life

    23. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Thanks all.

      There was also chatter about govt lawyers pulling out all the stops to ensure that a single paragraph from one of NS’s e-mails (or maybe Whatsapp messages?) is not published.

    24. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Maggie C
      Thanks for the update. If evidence comes out that there was a conspiracy to send an innocent man to prison. They will do well to avoid prison themselves. I have zero sympathy for them if that’s the case.

    25. Republicofscotland says:

      Robert Knight it was rhetorical, of course I suppose I was hoping for someone to come up with a valid reason why she didn’t clearly there isn’t one.

    26. Andy Ellis says:

      @Tannadice Boy

      Crowd funding for the funds to prosecute those involved ought not to be too difficult if (when?) the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service elects not to pursue those alleged to have conspired to do this. Given the COPFS’ responses to Stu’s various requests in the recent past, I wouldn’t hold out much hope of them doing the right thing.

    27. 100%YES says:

      Ever since Nicola Sturgeon took office she hasn’t delivered on a single promise on the EU or Independence. The Alex Salmond fiasco is straight out of Westminster hymn book for setting people up.

    28. Sarah says:

      @ Contrary: Linda Fabiani is not standing in May, as you surmise.

    29. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Andy Ellis
      I think it depends on the evidence presented. If there is an overwhelming case then the Crown will have proceed. Can you imagine the level of public anger if the Crown say ‘nothing to see here move along?’. So Alex Salmond was right the evidence will see the light of day. Interesting week ahead.

    30. wull says:

      This may be O/T but, reading the previous post, I was wondering what Breeks was referring to when he dated the sovereignty of Sots to 1328. The only thing that 1328 brings to my mind is the Treaty of Edinburgh / Northampton, in which England renounced altogether any and all its previous (false) claims to overlordship in regard to Scotland. England thereby unreservedly recognised both the status of Scotland as an independent nation and the legitimacy of Robert Bruce’s kingship.

      The following year, both these aspects were recognised internationally in the most official way then possible, as Pope John XXII granted Scottish kings the right to be anointed when being installed.

      None of this is in doubt, and Breeks is as well or better versed in it than I am. What is not so clear to me that the sovereignty of the Scottish people derives from any of these facts, or even from the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, which he also mentions. It seems to me that these legal actions and texts (of 1328 and even 1320) only recognised and gave expression to a reality that already preceded them.

      If it is thought that the Arbroath Declaration invented the sovereignty of the people as something new in 1320, this could even be counter-productive in terms of argument. The sovereignty of the people is not derived from a legal act or a written document. It is not something that some law-giving authority gives to a people. To the contrary, it is intrinsic, and I think Scots knew this, even before 1320.

      Is it not better to see the sovereignty of the Scottish people in this way? And to see the Arbroath document as giving expression, in written form, to something that was already known and presumed in Scotland, by most Scots, anyway?

      This, to my mind, is the way to go. It might be difficult to prove, but the difficulties are not necessarily impossible to surmount. The point is that if such sovereignty is an intrinsic right of the people, it is inalienable. No government, national or foreign, or any other authority, or any individual, can ever usurp it, or give it away to anyone else.

      This is what invalidates Nicola Sturgeon’s assumptions (which are peculiarly ‘British’, more specifically English, and not Scottish), and some of the actions she has taken and statements she has made in consequence. She seems to believe in a theory of parliamentary sovereignty – and indeed, almost, of the sovereignty of the leader of a parliament! – which contradicts the inherent sovereignty of the people.

      Contrary to what many people think, including academics, this (the sovereignty of the people) is not an idea which began in the 18th Century. It has deep roots in the Middle Ages, and can be traced back still further than that.

      The Scots’ peculiarity in regard to it is in having been able to articulate it, in writing, earlier than most peoples, and probably earlier than any. This happened not because of any Scottish superiority, but mainly because they had to, in the face of an attempted usurpation of that sovereignty by the English crown, at the time of Edward I and his successor, Edward II. Or, rather, I should have said successors, in the plural. Because, despite the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton, Edward III soon resuscitated the false claim. And English governments have continually tried to make good or impose their false claim, by hook or by crook, ever since. This despite the fact that they have never had any right to do so.

      Even the terms of the 1707 Union do not deny that sovereignty. or affirm any such usurpation. If they had done these terms would have been not just hugely flawed (as they were), but also inherently and self-evidently invalid.

      Meanwhile, I am still wondering what happened in 1328 that makes Breeks think the sovereignty of the Scottish people became real only then or, indeed, only from 1320 onward. To my mind, no document and no legal act ever made it real. It was always real anyway, long before anyone put anything in writing about it. At the same time, I would be intrigued to know if the 1328 documents – or whatever – do indeed make reference to it.

      In saying this, by the way, I am not disagreeing with Breeks, whose posts I much appreciate, in any significant way. I am sure that you and I, Breeks, are on exactly the same wave-length on the constitutional issue, and in seeing it as being of vital importance to the whole current issue and debate. My contention is that no matter what she attempts to do with it, and no matter how badly she plays around with it and fails to understand it, Nicola Sturgeon can never abolish it, and neither can her antics. Neither could any politician, or any political group or Party.

      In fact, even the people themselves could not do it, not even by a popular vote. Because whoever the people are now, they do not speak for the people who come after them.

      I suppose an individual could willingly sell himself into slavery if he was stupid and foolish enough to do so, or to want to. That would not mean, however, that his children and grandchildren would then be condemned to be slaves for ever, just because of their fatuous forebear’s idiotic behaviour, at some moment in history long since past. His stupid actions are not valid for ever, and do not bind his successors. If rights are inherent, they are just that – they inhere, they do not go away.

    31. wull says:

      Above, I was referring to the post of Breeks @ 9.26 in the previous article.

    32. Heaver says:

      I’d chip in towards a private prosecution if necessary.
      Mind you I’d also chip in to the WBB, Craig Murray, and one or two other things, and I ain’t rich. But I am angry.

    33. Contrary says:

      Thanks Sarah, I can’t keep up with all the different things happening just now – it gives Faniani a wee bit more freedom to write her ever more strongly worded letters… Will she and the committee go further though?

      They want to know legal advice given to the Scottish government, but also have the Scottish government release evidence held by COPFS. So there are two threads here that scotgov are holding back on.

      The investigation into Nicola Sturgeon using private email for government business is another thing they seem to be looking into (is that the ministerial code part maybe?) – that’s another ‘sackable’ offence.

      I’ve just watched Martin Keatings being interviewed about the s. 30 case – he gives a decent explanation if anyone would like a summary and his reasoning:

      (hopefully that links to the YouTube video post he made) He also makes some good points about how much politicians convince us we don’t have any power – but that challenges can work and we do have power.

    34. Breeks says:

      Hi Wull…

      1328 was indeed the year of the Edinburgh Northampton Treaty, but it was also the year in which the Pope recognised the Declaration of Arbroath and lifted the excommunication on King Robert.

      Combined with the Dowager Queen Isabella assertion in the Northampton Treaty that Scotland would be free of interference from England in perpetuity, I would argue this fully constitutes the medieval equivalent of what we nowadays call International Recognition.

      Scotland has, in a sense, a constitutional birth certificate asserting it’s sovereign legitimacy and can further provide documentation to authenticate it’s recognition.

      In a dispute over sovereignty, the Scottish Nation has impeccable credentials. The Treaty of Union however, and the “phenomenon” of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty has it’s origins mired in confusion and ambiguity, unwritten conventions, and a backdrop of bribery, corruption and impropriety.

      I once argued that Joanna Cherry needed to take on the Constitutional Test case which Scotland should have fought and won in 1707.

    35. twathater says:

      Sarah,Contrary,Ian B,Maggie C, TB I posted at the end of a previous thread that the COMMITTEE should call a press conference and Resign EN MASSE citing the deliberate delay and refusal to supply documentation by the SG which was PROMISED PUBLICLY by the FM to enable the committee to reach a conclusion to the inquiry , they could then INSIST on a judge led inquiry that would FORCE exposure of the documentation

      I think that would set a fox into the henhouse, but maybe as we are all aware that may not suit the yoonionists as they may then face someone who REALLY wants and pursues indy

    36. A Person says:

      -Re: Scottish sovereignty-

      In the Middle Ages the Pope was a kind of “United Nations”. All Christian monarchs derived their authority from his church and paid him homage. I would therefore argue that papal recognition roughly equates to international recognition.

    37. Chris Downie says:

      There continues to be talk of a VONC against the FM, but it gives me pause for thought; as Rev has pointed out, the media and wider establishment are giving her a relatively easy ride, largely because she is the “safe” option and least threat to the union. That will not have gone unnoticed among unionist MSP’s, therefore, what is to say she won’t survive a VONC based on some of them giving her a stay of execution, believing it better to prop up a lame duck FM who won’t pursue the multiple mandates?

      In the above scenario, I envisage the worst of all worlds, as she’d sail through the 2021 elections, with unbridled power to in-woke (sorry, couldn’t resist) her nutjob policies with no opposition, either within or out with her party and, worse of all, no pressure to deliver an independence referendum before 2026, which barring a miracle the SNP will also win at a canter.

    38. Andy Ellis says:

      @Tannadice Boy

      I think my concern would be that the movement as a whole could potentially find itself in a hostage situation vis à vis the “bitter einders” in the gradualist wing of the SNP. If, as widely expected, they win a majority @ Holyrood 2021 and the ordinary members fail to lance the Sturgeonista boil, there is a danger thay will simply try and brazen it out for the whole of the next Holyrood term.

      I have next to zero faith that the party can be reformed from within, so if change isn’t imposed electorally, the only hope would be some kind of palace coup to remove Murrell et al.

      I do have a real apprehension that the Crown will indeed say “nothing to see here, move along” and that will be taken as carte blanche by the gradualists in the SNP.

      I hope I’m wrong.

    39. ScotsRenewables says:

      Heaver says:
      22 November, 2020 at 4:58 pm
      I’d chip in towards a private prosecution if necessary.
      Mind you I’d also chip in to the WBB, Craig Murray, and one or two other things, and I ain’t rich. But I am angry

      Craig Murray is speaking on Tuesday, Zoom meeting organised by Grassroots Oban.

      I imagine I am the only Wings BTL poster going to Conference, but it is only so I can vote for Craig for President.

    40. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Andy Ellis
      I honestly can’t see an SNP majority in May. Too many supporters are scunnered with their whole approach and policies. And it looks like very bad news coming down the track. I remember a contributor on Wings recounted an incident where the Murrells were quoted as saying, “They will bring the house down”. I can’t see the self interest of SNP MSPs allowing that. I see the Murrells going very soon. This side of Christmas. Still enough time to revamp and reenergise the party for a decent showing in May. On the Crown issue they will be underestimating the intensity of public reaction if they don’t play this by the book. The law applies to everybody.

    41. Lothianlad says:

      I utterly despise the liar sturgeon. History will judge her as the villain not the hero.
      My opinion of course.

    42. Dan says:

      ScotsRenewables at 5:37 pm

      Then your imagination is flawed and your alert reader status should be withdrawn…

      Why are you “only” voting for Mr Murray for President and not assisting with a refresh of the rest of the NEC which has caused so many issues?

    43. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi wull & Breeks.

      This link may give you further food for thought.

      I do not offer an opinion on the contents. It’s a 2 minute read. Here’s a quote from it:-

      “The 1310 Declaration of the Clergy was issued by the annual convocation of the Scottish Clergy for the purpose of proclaiming the Kingship of Robert the Bruce to the General Council of the Church, which was assembled at Vienne, in France.

      In that Church Declaration, the Clergy of Scotland declared themselves in favour of ‘The Bruce’. It begins by stating that John Balliol (yon ‘Toom Tabard’) was made King of Scots by Edward Longshanks of England, but goes on to criticise Balliol’s status, because an English King does not have any authority to determine who will be the King of Scots. Such authority rests with the Scots themselves and alone, it stated, ignoring the fact that the other Estate, the Scottish Nobles, had given up that right in negotiations with Edward over twenty years beforehand.

      Like a lot of such grandiose statements we’ve seen down through the ages, the Clergy’s declaration was nothing more than misleading propaganda, which sought to disguise the facts of history.”

    44. Hatuey says:

      I heard the Harassment Inquiry had something of a closed-door emergency meeting on Wednesday or Thursday. Can anyone confirm that?

      I’m definitely sensing ripples in the force.

      I really hope the inquiry carries on and we get to hear what Salmond thinks. Looks unlikely though.

      How long would it take for the SNP to appoint a new leader?

      We could go into the new year, leaving this horrible year and so many horrible people behind, with a new SNP leader who’ll tell them where to stick their section 30.

    45. Sarah says:

      @ Scots Renewables: wrong. You are not the only Wings btl commenter going to Conference. I am sure there will be hundreds.

    46. Sarah says:

      Craig Murray for one.

    47. Lenny Hartley says:

      Wull re sovereignty of the Scots, This concept predates 1328 or even 1320, our ancient Celtic ancestors all over what is now called the British Isles and indeed probably in Europe had a similar concept.

    48. Ottomanboi says:

      All mouth and red stiletto heels….and those shoes starting to pinch.
      But she’s keeping us all safe from the beastly bug, isn’t she?

    49. Sarah says:

      @ Twathater: I admit I would like some dramatic action by the Fabiani Committee. I am just not optimistic that it would result in a judge-led enquiry.

      After all I would have thought that Peter Murrell would have gone by now, and the FM resigned or at least stepped aside pending, but no, they are still there and the party manipulating the conference agenda. It is all very grim.

      I am hoping that Joanna Cherry’s SNP-CWG and the SNP Members for Independence lists of candidates will get on the NEC and begin to improve things – but it is the leader who decides political direction of the party and no-one stood against her.

    50. Andy Ellis says:

      @Tannadice Boy

      Perhaps you’re right, but I think you over-estimate the interest &/or knowledge about the issues amongst the general population/voting public. I think in a general sense some of the salient points will percolate down, I’m just not sure they will prove to be the grenades rolled into the room that many appear to think.

      It’s certainly possible it will all hit the fan in coming weeks and that Sturgeon and Murrell will be removed, or that the gradualists will suffer a defeat at conference or be faced down by “rank and file” members…..but I honestly hae ma doots!

      I think you may be underestimating the ability of the establishment – legal or political – to protect its own.

    51. MaggieC says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 3.41 pm and others

      This is from the National on 14th November ,

      “ Ministers go to court to stop Nicola Sturgeon letter publication “

      MINISTERS are to take legal action to prevent the disclosure of just one paragraph of the First Minister’s communications with a senior civil servant around complaints against her predecessor Alex Salmond.

      I was beginning to think I’d dreamt about reading this article about the “ missing “ paragraph . I had archived it at the time and I’ve just found it now as I’ve so much saved and archived .

    52. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Lenny Hartley: yes, I’m sure the Declaration of Arbroath and the Treaty of Edinburgh were merely formalisations of long-established “clan” feelings of popular sovereignty. For a long time the King of Scots was decided by acclaim through acknowledged ability, not primogeniture.

      All we need to remember is that this SG has resolutely turned away from any strongly practical, constitutional routes to independence as described here variously by Breeks, Alf Baird and The Rev’s own Declaration of Bath and parked us up the dead-end of Gold Standard Section 30 Street (subject to permission from a Foreign Power, of course).

      Why would it do such a thing, pop-pickers?

    53. Breeks says:

      Brian Doonthetoon says:
      22 November, 2020 at 6:00 pm
      Hi wull & Breeks.

      This link may give you further food for thought…

      Well, I would not argue that the Declaration of Arbroath was not intended to be the forerunner of modern Republican principle, and furthermore, the Pope in his recognition is hardly likely to have recognised the divinity of God’s judgement being emancipated to the Scots… That may not have been the intention, but I would argue whatever the intention was, popular sovereignty for the Scottish people was the effect.

      By accident or design, a thing was done which cannot be undone. In 1328, the Pope recognised the Scottish people were sovereign, and from that day to this, Treaty of Union included, there has been nothing done to remove that sovereignty from the people, because nothing can be done to remove it.

      We have our documented claim on Scottish Sovereignty, it’s pre-history, it’s inception, it’s declaration, it’s recognition, it’s affirmation, and centuries of cross references and provenance. If Westminster disputes Scotland’s sovereignty, then let’s have a Constitutional dispute over sovereignty and submit our claim and theirs, to the scrutiny of a Constitutional Test Case at the UN.

      Let’s have Westminster articulate the mechanism whereby they removed sovereignty from the Scottish people and empowered themselves to subjugate our emphatic democratic rejection of Brexit, and without such subjugation constituting an unlawful act of colonialism.

      I would fancy Scotland’s chances in any such test case. I believe Westminster’s case would collapse before it was heard.

    54. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Andy Ellis
      One thing is for sure we don’t have long to wait. I think this week is developing into a critical week. I also note Maggie C,s post.

    55. Breeks says:

      The other wee twist, which I confess, I only learned about recently, was Bonnie Prince Charles repealing the Union before his defeat at Culloden. If he was Scotland’s legitimate King and repealed the Union, then that too might form the basis of a credible test case too. I think that happened at Prestonpans but detail is difficult to source. Can’t imagine why.

      The British Empire got away with a lot in the 18th and 19th Centuries because there no power in existence to hold them in check. They were a law unto themselves, but not quite. They could evidently ignore laws with relative impunity, but they could not redefine legitimacy through coercion.

      But the Law has a long reach… and the British Empire isn’t the threatening ogre it used to be.

    56. MaggieC says:

      Hatuey @ 6.09 pm

      There was supposed to be a meeting held in private on Friday as was shown on the business page of the Parliament as below ,

      15TH MEETING, 2020 Virtual meeting
      The Committee will meet at 8:00 am in Virtual meeting
      1. Work Programme (in private): The Committee will consider its work programme.
      2. Review of Evidence (in private): The Committee will review the evidence it heard on 17 November 2020.

      But I now see below from the Harassment and Complaints Committee page that this Tuesday’s meeting will be the 15th Meeting of the Committee , I wonder if Fridays meeting was cancelled due to the lack of evidence submitted by the Scottish Government .

      “ Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints , Meeting Date : 15th Meeting, Tuesday 24 November 2020 : The Robert Burns Room (Committee Room 1) “

      The Committee will next meet on Tuesday 24 November at 10.15am in private to consider its work programme and review the evidence heard on the inquiry. Public papers for meeting ,

      In case you missed this I posted it on Friday with the latest from the correspondence page ,

    57. crazycat says:

      @ A Person at 5.18

      Pedantry alert:

      In the Middle Ages the Pope was a kind of “United Nations”. All Christian monarchs derived their authority from his church and paid him homage. I would therefore argue that papal recognition roughly equates to international recognition.

      I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration – the Orthodox confessions did/do not accept papal supremacy:

      At the time of the Declaration of Arbroath, the Papacy was in Avignon, not Rome, largely due to conflict with secular rulers (see In 1301, when Pope Boniface VIII issued a bull asserting that “God has placed us over the Kings and Kingdoms”, the response of Philip IV of France was “Your venerable conceitedness may know, that we are nobody’s vassal in temporal matters”.

      They were both dead by 1320, so their opinions may not matter much, but I do like the idea of addressing someone as “your conceitedness” – venerable or otherwise!

    58. Nally Anders says:

      Tannadice Boy
      If you’ve got any concrete reasons for thinking the Murrells will soon be gone, gonny elucidate.
      Desperately looking for some straws to clutch

    59. Ron Maclean says:

      ‘Spycatcher’ (1987) was ex-MI5 officer Peter Wright’s memoirs. His book alleged among other things that the security service operated beyond the law. The government lost an action to stop its publication in Australia. Then the UK Law Lords ruled extracts could be published by the UK media because any damage to national security had already been done by its publication abroad. In November 1991 the European Court of Human Rights found the government’s actions had violated the right to freedom of speech. Following the ruling Donald Trelford, editor of The Observer said ‘… these were genuine matters of public importance that the public should be allowed to know about.’ (BBC 13Oct88)

      In certain circumstances Parliamentary privilege grants legal immunity to MPs and peers. It covers among other things freedom of speech. For example it allowed details of MPs expenses to be publicised in 2010. Despite an injunction it was used to reveal the litigant in CTB v News Group Newspapers. It is a right which should be exercised responsibly – as should governance.

      In the public interest and in the absence of exemplary leadership innovative means of revelation could be used to expose alleged corruption and encourage appropriate investigation.

      Silence gives consent. Do we have representatives of the calibre necessary to take Scotland to egalitarian statehood.

    60. Tannadice Boy says:

      @Nally Anders
      Just my reading of the general situation. The non release of the legal advice, denying the will of the Parliament, breach of the ministerial code and if there is any evidence of the FMs role in Salmondgate then she will have to go. Other FMs have gone for a lot less.

    61. The Dissident says:


      The committee did not meet on Friday because the DFM pulled the witnesses they were meant to be interviewing on Tuesday. They can now discuss what they would have been discussing on Friday on Tuesday.

    62. ben madigan says:

      Breeks – why don’t you take all your info and thoughts about a legal challenge to an Indy-minded lawyer you trust and ask for an opinion?
      A view on “feasibility” shouldn’t be expensive (it’s not a case) and would be useful.

      Either Wings war chest or Wingers could cover the costs for you

    63. Hatuey says:

      Thanks MaggieC.

      Maybe they cancelled the scheduled meeting and had some sort of ad hoc meeting.

      Have you seen this; “ John Somers met the woman on two consecutive days, and on the third day Ms Sturgeon formally agreed that a new Scottish Government complaints policy to apply to “former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party”.”

      I guess we are to believe the timing is coincidental. No mention of who contacted who…

    64. cynicalHighlander says:

      Anyone else having problems with

    65. Iain More says:

      And now the SNP are discussing joining Boris ‘Jim Jones’ Johnson’s Tory Party Xmas Death Cult and the so called Scottish Press and Media doesn’t even blink.

    66. Andrew Morton says:

      ‘Scotland *should* declare independence if Britain votes to leave the European Union on June 23, Nicola Sturgeon has said.’

      Notice the difference between that and the headline.

    67. Daisy Walker says:

      @ Hatuey, ‘I guess we are to believe the timing is coincidental.’

      Timing is ensuring nothing outright definitive is coming out prior to the SNP Conference, which makes a coup or VONC much less likely to happen, once past that milestone, onwards to 31/12/20 and a No Deal Brexit.

      Playing devils advocate here, but just assuming somewhere down the line, soon, and NS is forced to step down. How long would that take? 2 weeks, a month?

      Then how long to hold votes for a new SNP leader, and/or a new FM? Another month? Or 2?

      Not forgetting, of course, the Christmas holidays and closures, and of course, emergency procedures due to Brexit AND Covid.

      So, by my reckoning that would be near enough the end of February 2021… leaving 2.5 months to campaign for Indy at the Holyrood elections, and almost no chance of the S30 order being requested, turned down, and the reply then used as campaign material in the election.

      What are the chances, that any and all indignation about corrupt revelations will be shelved, due to the seriousness of the Brexit/Covid emergency.

      Sensible ‘would be’ leaders will sagely agree for the need to put the Emergency procedures before that of dealing with a rogue politician.

      So, I wonder, for myself, as much as anyone, what is the very, very, last date, by which I can postpone campaigning for Indy without the SNP officially on board.

      In my mind I’m waiting on the outcomes of the SNP Conference, and the Nicola Sturgeon Inquiry, and perhaps even for the tartan messiah or some other leader to come forward …. but I feel so gutted at the moment, that I wonder if I’m kidding myself.

      Hey ho, sorry to be downbeat.

    68. Big Jock says:

      I’m reaching the point where I don’t care anymore. I think the whole thing is such a mess. We will just have to ride the storm and see where we end up.

      I don’t think anything we can do will change the next 6 months.

    69. Facundo Savala says:

      I fear that Stu and Sturgeon’s enemies are starting to run out of ammunition.

      With each passing day, its looking less likely that the Salmond Inquiry will be the smoking gun to end her premiership.

      There are some areas of the SNP and Yes movement who strongly dislike her, but she continues to fly high in the polls.

      I reckon she safely has another 5-10 years as FM. Whether she will want this or not is another question, but I cant see her being forced to leave. Sorry Stu!

    70. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Once the Unionist media starts using all the anti-Sturgeon/SNP stuff they are refusing to use just now – and this will happen once the Holyrood election campaign begins in earnest next year – the “soft” SNP support will begin to dissolve.

      The Party will still be the largest in Holyrood, but, there is a real chance, they will again be a minority government, perhaps in a worse position than at present.

      If that happens, Sturgeon may be forced to resign – I cannot, however, see her going voluntarily.

      Only with her, her husband and the woke coven out of the way, can the Independence movement reform and re-energise, and have the balls to go with a Plan B – since Plan A is never going to happen for as long as the Tories have a majority in England.

    71. Sarah says:

      @ Daisy Walker: I’m feeling the same. If someone high-profile had stood for leader that would have triggered enough of a storm to either lead to alternative routes for independence being activated or for NS to stand down.

      Sadly that didn’t happen and NS has resisted all Holyrood enquiry attempts without showing any signs of folding. It is quite scary actually when you think what other people were put through and forced out of office for – Mark Macdonald, Michelle Thompson, Neale Hanvey [almost but the party volunteers got him elected anyway]. What kind of personality has she that means she hasn’t buckled and Peter Murrell is still in place?

    72. Papko says:


      Can you imagine what it would be like if Scotland were Independent now and the Murrells still in charge?
      How would we dislodge them.

      Reminds me of that Scene in Lord of Rings when Galadriel looked in the mirror.

    73. robertknight says:

      Sarah @11:22

      “What kind of personality has she that means she hasn’t buckled and Peter Murrell is still in place?”

      Nothing to do with “personality”, but who behind the scenes has got your back.

      She should have been ‘gone’ ten times over by now since the Salmond story blew up. Ask yourself why she hasn’t. Cui bono?

    74. Facundo Savala says:

      Sturgeon is 100% safe.

      She may be here for 5-10 more years, so get used to her.

    75. Jack says:

      I see the Scottish Government now state in official documents that any view or opinion expressed which is contrary to the Governments version of events is now considered a conspiracy theory perpetrated by extremists. Be very afraid., we have seen this before and it doesn’t end well.

    76. robert graham says:

      All going according to plan because the security services have been doing what they do very effectively because that’s their job they are very good at it they have years of experience.

      Result being

      The Jocks are all fighting with each other so they can add fuel to the fire because the Jocks are not looking around themselves and are too focused on the supposed enemy

      And we are all falling for it forget all the froth and perceived distractions that’s the plan a reduced SNP support only helps one side , we can sort out the problem after the main objective is attained

    77. Terry says:

      “She’ll be here for 5-10 years. Get used to her.”

      Sounds like a diktat from our imperial masters whom it seems she answers to.

    78. A Person says:

      -Socrates at 10.56-

      You are absolutely correct IMO.

      I just can’t see the SNP removing Sturgeon. Too many are still in thrall to her. Very disappointing as the internal dissent is real. Instead she will continue to do the British state’s dirty work for them, either by accident or design, by purging the party of it’s more vigorous, and in some cases it’s more left-leaning, members.

      However I reckon that once she has sufficiently neutered the SNP the unionists will finish the job and throw the proverbial kitchen sink at her. Her popularity is “a mile wide but an inch deep”. They have started this process quietly as you can see in some of the rhetoric being deployed (I wonder if Johnson’s hot mic moment was intentional?). They will wait til the election to really go for it.

      A few seats falling to unionists and they have a majority. It’s really not that unlikely that a rotten unionist coalition will emerge.

    79. wull says:

      Many thanks Breeks, Brian Doonthetoon and all.

    80. Sarah says:

      @ Facundo Savala: no, not 5 or 10 years more of this FM. There is a mechanism to at least challenge the leader. We have missed the chance this year but I am sure there will be a challenger next time.

    81. Hatuey says:

      Robin McAlpine put it reasonably well when he said;

      “What could also sink the whole ship is if it is possible to pin on her accusations of using the powers of government to create procedures designed to target an individual and potentially put them in jail. It is really difficult to stress enough how high up the list of ‘really bad abuses of democratic power’ that is.”

      He’s right, of course, the seriousness of this couldn’t be exaggerated, but he doesn’t go far enough. We are talking about a regime here, not one person. We are potentially talking about Government officials, high ranking Civil Servants, politicians, and God knows who else.

      Robin McAlpine again;

      “I know a group of business figures in the party were proposing a vote of no confidence in Murrell… They backed off when they were told (effectively) that Sturgeon/Murrell would burn down the whole house if they tried.”

      I starting to think we can probably rule out a smooth transition.

    82. Denise says:

      I would say that we are in the last chance salon. If a completely new NEC is not elected next week end, we may as well give up on independence this decade.
      We would need a political cycle, SNP win in May, 2025 defeat as not delivered any promises, Nicola is replaced, 2029 New leader wins . The fastest we’d get to an independence vote Is 2030.
      So, if anyone is a delegate make sure you vote for the good guys, you are Scotland’s only hope

    83. AYRSHIRE ROB says:

      It’s funny you should mention this Denise @ 12.35 am

      I’ve been having dreams of 2029 and 2046 for nearly a year or so. I wasn’t sure what they mean ,why these dates keep coming into my head. Maybe 2029 is the next referendum and unfortunately 2046 is the day I go see big man upstairs, yikes!

      Whatever it means am sure they’ll be quite a few on here spitting bullets cos they want it long b4 then.

      So if my dreams or nightmares come true you all have a long time

    84. TJenny says:

      ‘They backed off when they were told (effectively) that Sturgeon/Murrell would burn down the whole house if they tried.”

      How? Are the Murrells implying that they would say every SNP MSP/MP were in on the setting up of AS? What is it that they could do to burn the whole house down? Sounds like an empty but desperate threat to me. So what are ‘the group of business figures in the party’ afraid of?

    85. David Ferguson says:

      Hatuey says:
      22 November, 2020 at 9:05 pm

      The Somers meetings with Complainant A have been extensively discussed on Gordon Dangrfield’s blog. Other interesting aspects:
      1. These were formal meetings logged in Somers official diary.
      2. They were removed from the SG “timeline of events” supplied to the Committee.
      3. There was no logical reason for Complainant A to meet with Somers anyway. He had no responsibility for investigating such complaints, and he was not involved in the re-draft of the procedures.
      4. As Craig Murray has pointed out, it would have been a complete breach of Civil Service protocol for Somers to conduct these meetings behind his boss’s back.
      5. As others have pointed out, there was no plausible or legitimate reason for him not to tell Sturgeon. At the time she was responsible for investigating such complaints both under the existing procedure and under the new draft as it then stood.

      So Somers met Complainant A for no reason, and didn’t tell Sturgeon about it for no reason, and then didn’t say anything to her for the next four months for no reason. A complete pack of lies.

      The whole thing stinks, and if we could get to the bottom of just this incident it would see the end of Sturgeon.

    86. Hatuey says:

      Yes, David, I’ve kept up with this and am familiar with all that. There’s so many branches to it, it’s difficult to process. Dangerfield has been a huge help.

      I’d heard and read about the Somers meetings but amidst the avalanche of information that week I didn’t see the significance. I’m still not sure that I do but I think I see why people like CM gave emphasis to it now.

      The question that jumps out for me is who initiated the meeting and why?

      The “why” part is key, I imagine 😉

      I’m pretty sure I could guess the “who” part.

    87. Hatuey says:

      TJenny, the burning down the house stuff isn’t necessarily connected to the AS stuff. If you read the article, it seems that there were question marks over Murrell’s general ability and performance.

    88. TJenny says:

      Hatuey – I’m still not seeing how bringng down either or both of the Murrells would/could bring the house down. Happy to be educated. 🙂

    89. twathater says:

      @ Sarah 6.34pm I watched the link supplied by Maggie C the other day where a tory member was GRILLING Leslie Evans and was exposing her failings and contempt, at that point Linda Fabiani interrupted and told the tory member to move on

      I must admit I find the questioning by the SNP members of the committee to be very placid and NOT very penetrating , I also find it infuriating that when ANYTHING is published re the refusal of documentation not being supplied they ALWAYS have to include Alex Salmond as being uncooperative when it is PLAINLY the SG who are blocking the needed documentation

    90. Hatuey says:

      Tjenny, the word used was “burn”. Maybe you can ask Robin McAlpine to elaborate. As a guess, I think we can assume it means any attack on PM would necessarily arouse the displeasure of NS and lead to all sorts of acrimony and division, with people being asked to choose sides, and lots of shit getting thrown around.

      I’m getting the distinct impression that we are essentially dealing with an authoritarian regime. As Robin McAlpine puts it;

      “HQ routinely (and remarkably openly) smears internal critics. It rigs things to favour preferred candidates. It simply ignores serious complaints if they’re about ‘the wrong person’. It is toxic and nasty, but people have believed they have no option but to stomach it.

      The real truth is that it doesn’t pretend to act for the party as a whole, but only for the leader and a small clique organised around her. It is a stain on Scotland’s democracy.”

      That’s quite an assessment.

      Robin McAlpine is famously quite diplomatic and academic – boring even, a sort of political anorak. If just about anyone else said that sort of stuff, I’d probably put it down to the usual online tendency to exaggerate.

      The tragedy is that people generally think of NS as well-meaning, too timid if anything in relation to objectives. It’s clear that McAlpine is ruling that out.

      And it’s looking very much like we were/are a bunch of mugs who were/are the victims of a sort of political confidence trick.

    91. TJenny says:

      Hatuey – Och thanks for your patience. I still say bring it on and we can clear out the stables and starrt to rebuild now.

    92. Hatuey says:

      I agree, TJenny. I’m no health and safety expert but it seems like a bad idea to threaten to burn your own house down.

      Let’s finish on a more optimistic message from Robin;

      “you shouldn’t despair, because while not all of it is temporary, one of the core reasons for all of this is that Sturgeon/Murrell won’t be around forever – perhaps not much longer, by the looks of things – and at this stage almost anything would be better for our democracy.”

    93. Hamerdoon says:


      Actually, I think Linda Fabiani got that one right. The Tory misunderstood what Evans was talking about and was challenging her on the wrong issue. That’s why Fabiani told her to go read her brief again. She was initially quite polite about it, trying to let the Tory down gently by couching the situation in terms of a collective mistake. However, when the Tory continued to argue (off mic) Fabiani pointed out her error in a less restrained tone.

    94. Contrary says:

      On the Somers meeting with Ms A- my theory is that NS and Evans weren’t getting enough potential complaints despite the “encouragement” they were doing, so sent Somers to seek out and convince Ms A to make a complaint again retrospectively. Because, Ms A had , in fact, been though a “process” already with Salmond in the past and so would have been known to at least HR and possibly NS (as deputy FM at the time).

      Ms A raised a concern on the 22nd Nov 2017 ‘officially’, after those meetings with Somers. Now consider: the issue had been dealt with years ago, and no one knew that there would be the option to complain about former ministers – because there had never ever before been such a procedure and the one they were so very, very rapidly creating was not yet published – how did she know it was an option, and why would she think the same complaint could be made twice? Because Somers told her, and then reassured her she’d be either rewarded or at least protected.

      Very significant event, Somers meetings with Ms A on 20th and 21st Nov 2017 – a lot of action took place on the 22nd – those involved in shaping the procedure were immediately informed Ms A came forward and lots of official letters flying about, meetings, and another version of the draft procedure sent to NS. If it was all innocent, Somers should be happy to publish details of the meetings.

    95. Breeks says:

      ben madigan says:
      22 November, 2020 at 9:04 pm
      Breeks – why don’t you take all your info and thoughts about a legal challenge to an Indy-minded lawyer you trust and ask for an opinion?

      Well, I can’t do a Martin Keatings, though I’d be delighted if somebody else would. I’d lose my job, tied accommodation, and that would just be the start of problematic things…. I have no safety net.

      But I have written a few emails to Joanna Cherry and indeed Lawyers for Independence in the hope of getting a reply. I haven’t had one, and don’t even know if they’ve been read.

      In the spirit of the thread, I’m sure they’ll be in touch any minute now.

      The information I have is no secret. It’s all out there. The trick is, don’t listen to people’s interpretations of what is said, read the documents yourself. I find many detractors of the documents are being influenced by expediency and ‘follow the crowd’ conventions. Well of course. Scotland has been plagued by this for centuries. It is the meat and drink of Unionism.

      It is essentially simple.

      Scotland was established as a nation for hundreds of years before the Declaration of Arbroath, indeed the Declaration itself refers to the unbroken reign of 40 kings. So the Declaration itself did not create the nation.

      It did however attempt to codify our Nation on paper, literally declare itself, firstly as a nation, and then described as a nation which hoped for, and appealed to the Pope to keep safe from King Edwards colonial aggression.

      To be brutally honest, I’m fairly sure the reference made to “driving out” an errant King and choosing another, was never intended to make a play for popular sovereignty for the people, and there was certainly no concept of modern democracy. I “think” the reference was a plea to the Pope to forgive King Robert’s excommunication, but that if the Pope would not countenance such forgiveness, then Scotland would replace him with another King whom the Pope might endorse.

      I think that was the intention, and on the Pope’s part, I think his 1328 recognition of the Declaration of Arbroath was political and expedient in it’s intent, and didn’t stop to consider the theological ramifications of endorsing a people’s right to pick and choose their King… which in every other realm was a divide right appointed by God.

      But the Declaration was made in 1320, recognised by the Pope in 1328, and given indirect ratification from the 1328 peace treaty of Edinburgh / Northampton. Thus an assertion of what was ‘popular sovereignty’ was given the blessing of the Church and Scotland’s principle enemy (a colonial claim thus conceded), and even if the consequences were unintended, it doesn’t matter. A ‘thing’ became law.

      Scotland’s right to depose it’s monarch became enshrined in the formal recognition of the Declaration of Arbroath. It is that very tight distinction which is the nucleus of Scotland’s popular sovereignty.

      The Declaration of Arbroath stood recognised in the “International Law” of it’s day. The Nation of Scotland was recognised by the all powerful Catholic Church. Treaties between Nations are by definition, issues of International Law. Literally, inter – nation – al.

      Critics of Scotland’s constitution condemn the Claim of Right as having no force in law, and to a degree, that is true. But the Claim of Right is not written as a law itself. The Claim of Right is an affirmation of Scotland’s popular sovereignty derived from our Internationally Recognised Declaration of Arbroath which IS law.

      The Constitution is the Law, and the Claim of Right is an affirmation of the Constitution. I wonder however whether the Claim of Right might be categorised as domestic legislation, and thus, something which might be used against Scotland by our ‘domestic’ Unionists… because as an International Treaty, the Declaration of Arbroath and Scotland’s Constitution is above their pay grade.

      A thing that leaves me frustrated is why we afford such high regard for the Claim of Right, when all it is, is an affirmation of what the Declaration of Arbroath says. It is the Declaration of Arbroath which carries the clout and gravitas of International Recognition.

      I do not dismiss the Claim of Right, but it’s the Declaration of Arbroath and it’s International Recognition which forms our Constitution.

      Where can we find a lawyer brave enough to take this on? It is very real make of break career stuff, when the circumstances of Alex Salmond’s trial and vexatious prosecution of Craig Murray and Mark Hirst suggest our legal Establishment is undoubtedly Unionist leaning.

      That isn’t a rhetorical question. If Scottish lawyers have too much to lose, is there such a thing as a circuit of International Lawyers whom we might approach, who are beyond the clutches of the BritNat Establishment?

      Where did the Chagos Islanders find their legal team?

    96. Achnababan says:


      Your post concerning the Somers meetings with one of the complainers is really relevant and damming to the NS/LS charade.

      I am genuinely surprised why Craig Murray or Gordon Dangerfield have not picked up on this because the meetings you allude to must surely demonstrate that NS has lied about the date when she was informed about AS behaviour and that the entire process and provide proof positive that NS/LS promoted was intended only to ensnare AS….

    97. Achnababan says:

      Sorry for the previous post – correct version below


      Your post concerning the Somers meetings with one of the complainers is really relevant and damming to the NS/LS charade.

      I am genuinely surprised why Craig Murray or Gordon Dangerfield have not picked up on this because the meetings you allude to must surely demonstrate that NS has lied about the date when she was informed about AS behaviour and provides proof positive that NS/LS promoted the retrospective process only to ensnare AS….

    98. Ottomanboi says:

      The pandemic that never was and an independence party that never was, the perfect dystopian scenario for the New World Order. There’s a computer game in there somewhere but who’d be the heros? Role models pretty thin on the ground at the moment.
      Great (Capitalist) Reset, or maybe lets just get rid of the lot of them….graphically.

    99. G H Graham says:

      Sturgeon puffing on Twitter this morning about a new Scottish investment bank.

      So of course we checked the website …

      Not one name of anyone is listed anywhere, so we went to the LinkedIn link shown on the website.

      And that suggested 19 employees which to us, seemed a lot since it hasn’t actually done anything yet. But more odd was that only 2 people’s names were actually visible, the others blank.

      Meanwhile, back on the website, no address, no phone number, no email, nothing. It’s like one of those spoof websites that attempts to give the impression of honesty while quietly stealing your money.

      Coming from the SNP, why does that sound so familiar?

    100. G H Graham says:

      Did a bit more digging on Sturgeon’s new bank.

      As far as I can tell, it has £50,000 in capital & two directors & one secretary.

      I think if she has any plans to transform Scotland’s economy, someone should tell her that’s not enough.

    101. Cuilean says:

      Sturgeon’s greatest fear should be failing to get a second independence referendum.

      The reality is; Sturgeon’s greatest fear is getting a second independence referendum.

    102. Bob Mack says:

      The whole thing would move you to just dropping the subject of Indy if you were not made of sterner stuff.

      We have many supportive of Nicola, and who believe she is actively pursuing a shrewd policy that will suddenly emerge and force Boris to capitulate to a Section 30 request. Either that ,or she wil! Use a cunning legal device to get a referendum anyway.

      There are others like me and growing in number who believe the good ship Nicola is effectively run aground on a sandbank,unable to move.

      We oppose each other over the true version of Governance in Scotland. Many tell me to ignore it all because of Independence, but I cant. I really don’t want to be governed by these charlatans who use threats of prison to incarcerate political rivals ,then have the lack of moral fibre when asked for the truth of their actions.

      They also want to deprive my family ,especially the women, of their basic rights as women.

      How could I live with myself knowing this and then voting for them? I don’t think I can. I would not be creating a free country. I would be creating a haven for everything I personally dislike . I would be putting power to their actions and giving my permission with my vote.

      In reality I think I have to withhold my support till things change. I want Indy now. I wanted it yeserday. I will never attain it till the party is cleansed if those too scared of too self interested to put Independence at the top of their priorities.

      If they can’t do it why should I?

    103. Tannadice Boy says:

      @G H Graham
      As usual it’s about narrative and presentation rather than substance. Dismantled the autonomous Independent Enterprise Network to the point of anaemia and replaced it with the centralised politically controlled Investment Bank. A bit like the publicly owned company trading in the energy market. It has taken on the big six and plummelled them into a pulp. Creating a vast profit for fuel poverty. Hasn’t it?

    104. Phydaux says:

      When I look at that happy clappy picture of Nicola Sturgeon celebrating something or other, it reminds me of the heart-draining sense of abandonment and betrayal I feel from a party which has morphed into one where sycophancy and compliance are lauded and mediocrity is rewarded. A party where reason and the laws of cause and effect hold no sway. Where the ridiculous beliefs they adhere to have no reason, as in GRA.A party which has turned stonewalling into an art form, as can be seen and heard from the Parliamentary Inquiry….uncooperative, obstructive, evasive, delaying tactics. A teaspoon of information at a time. The issue is always control.

      Plotting and scheming to “ get Salmond “. A diabolical mixture of malice, spite and low cunning. Is it not the case that foreknowledge of a crime can make you a co-conspirator? Knowledge after the fact can put you into an area known as aiding and abetting. Mind you, the culture of law enforcement is ferociously tribal in nature and they are experts at closing ranks. I won’t hold my breath.

      A party which has zero ethics, integrity and trust. Our beautiful mountain hares, beavers and raptors continue to be slaughtered in an orgy of extermination. So called blood sports, shoot to kill for the hell of it, eh? Is this now in the SNP’s DNA as well? Doing nothing about it is complicity.

      The hardest truth to bear is that they have no intention of fighting for our Independence. I don’t know who Nichola Sturgeon is anymore. She seems impervious to criticism and legitimate concerns, floating above the fray, creating a tragic profile, before a camera, in her daily Covid broadcasts. It may be that, in her doomed to fail attempts to “ get Salmond “ , she imagined herself like a Phoenix, arising from the ashes of its predecessor. Some legends say it dies in a show of flames and combustion.

    105. Dan says:

      Wave yer Butcher’s Apron flag and clap like a seal for a “our” less effective cheaper vaccine!
      Coz if you’re going to have someone inject something into yersel to protect you from a deadly virus, who cares if it isn’t as good as it could be…



    106. Andy Ellis says:

      @Bob Mack

      Hear, hear. I think there are many who feel your pain. Perhaps it could never be otherwise in the road to independence: one goal, but many paths? As someone who observed #indyref1 from afar as I still lived and worked in England then, the positive, inclusive nature of the Yes campaign impressed me. It stood in such stark contrast to Project Fear, and I could discern no positive case for the union – or certainly none that was being articulated or promised. Perhaps that’s been part of the problem since?

      There seems to be a growing gulf between “gradualists” and “fundamentalists” in the movement. At present the former are very much in the driving seat, and totally dominant within the SNP. I was never a fan of the concept of the SNP being the sole engine of the indy charabanc, but was persuaded that we are where we are, needs must etc. After the 2014, and even more so after the brexit vote, I think many of us (naively as it turned out?) still thought it was worth persevering with the SNP as our expectation was that they would make their move and ensure we had another vote ASAP.

      It’s now quite apparent we were wrong to put our faith in the SNP, and that it has let us down. There are a number of reasons for that. The question for fellow “fundies” is what we do about it. Some may be persuaded by the appeals of party loyalists to “keep the faith” and for our “eyes to be on the prize”.

      Increasingly however I find myself sharing Bob Mack’s take on this. As much as I want independence, do I really see the gradualists and mountebanks in the SNP delivering it?

      Would I really be content to campaign shoulder to shoulder with some of the odious individuals who have connived against Alex Salmond?

      Am I expected not to react to those who abuse fellow independence supporters as TERFs and transphobes for not uncritically accepting their deeply regressive, a-scientific and misogynistic world view?

      Must I support and vote for elected officials who block anyone who disagrees with them on social media, who monster those opposing trans extremism and appear entirely relaxed about having no Plan B and kicking #indyref2 into the long grass?

      Enough, and more than enough of being taken for granted. The SNP can no longer be trusted to deliver, nor does it appear to be in any mood to reform itself. I have little faith that the upcoming conference, or the investigation into who knew what and when about the apparent attempt to frame Alex Salmond, or the campaign/result of Holyrood 2021, will bring about the changes some of us want to see.

      We need an alternative. I hope that the scales will soon fall from the eyes of some of those who (at present) are giving the party the benefit of the doubt and believe – despite all the evidence – that it can change.

    107. Facundo Savala says:

      Unless Stu, Kenny or Eck himself provide substantial further info to the inquiry, then Sturgeon is 100% safe.

      With where she sits in the polls, she will be Firstminister for another 5-10 years easy.

      Better get back to being used to her again!

    108. Effijy says:

      Let’s be clear, no one said the less efficient Oxford vaccine was cheaper!
      I’m sure it won’t be.
      It’s a vipers next for England’s Tory Boy Elite.
      They can have any price they like for it and it just
      Gets added to UK debt under the guise of emergency
      pandemic give away.

      I’m sure they can return a few bob back to the party come election time
      and proved some on line trolling for them.

      How very convenient that the Poor 70% effective rate magically turns into
      Pfizer’s basic 90% with a couple of injections.

      Oxford chap on TV now claims it’s now a wee bit over 90%? lol
      Give it a week and it will overtake the next highly efficient vaccine.

    109. Andy Ellis says:


      A week is a long time in politics. It is of course quite possible that Sturgeon will hang on and emerge from the inquiry if not unscathed then able to continue. I can even see her winning a majority @ HR2021 elections.

      But…..(ah yes, there is always a but, huh…?)…..what happens when it becomes apparent she’s coming up empty in #indyref2?

      Even if the gradualists retain control of the SNP, I honestly find it hard to accept that they won’t face a harder time after 2021 when it becomes obvious they have no effective answer to the brit nats “now is not the time” response.

      In short, those opposed to the Sturgeonistas should adopt Mark Anthony’s approach: they should come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him.

    110. Mike d says:

      Ovarian barbarians taking over the SNP. Not being able to vote SNP in England takes the decision out of my hands. I feel sorry for people in Scotland who are wrestling with what way to vote.

    111. Robert Graham says:

      I suggest everyone has a look at the recent indy live stream featuring Martin Keatings and his attempts push forward and clarify the legal standing of Holyrood ,

      In this short clip he puts forward the case the SNP will have to eventually undertake if and thats a very big if they are going for a second independence vote,

      So far the biggest impediment appears to be the Scottish government headed by the SNP , draw your own conclusions as to why this is the case , he goes on to point out a proposed draft bill is not a bill therefore just talk and bluster

    112. Robert Graham says:

      totally o/t
      I was surprised to learn Reparations from the treasury to slave owners in this country were only wound up in 2015 that means most of us here were compensating the families of slave owners ,one family’s name stood out David Cameron former PM .
      No wonder they want to keep it well hidden

    113. Dan says:

      @ Andy Ellis

      Huv tae point out that your posts that are heavy on the woe and doom vibe and talking about what can “we” do are a little on the premature side, what with the outcome of conference and make up of the next NEC still to be determined.
      Did you notice the results of the recent SNP MSP candidate selection process, and did you see the membership appeared less inclined to back nominees of a certain persuasion?

      This shit situation won’t change itself quickly if nobody does anything about it, so it takes concerted effort and commitment by folk that can be arsed to try to change the course for the better to actually get or stay involved.

      All it takes for evil to prevail n’ aw that…

      So rather than post rather downbeat depressive stuff, any chance you could be a little more supportive towards the idea that people might actually make a positive difference.

      Your current dismissal of that possibility is rather akin to all the SNP loyalist and Indy activists that have shunned and have been dismissive over the past year of the alternative Pro-Indy Party standing on the list.
      Imagine if all these folk hadn’t wasted a fucking year knocking the concept at every opportunity and instead had promoted the idea…

    114. Andy Ellis says:


      Always remember Dan, Cassandra was proven correct in the end! 🙂

      If the bright sunny uplands of the neo-fundamentalist SNP are attained, I’ll happily eat my words.

      I hear lots of criticism from SNP gradualists (and even some from folk whose view I share by and large) who insist we have to give them time to change. Perhaps so, but time is rapidly running out.

      I’m simply pointing out that in the event the changes we want to see don’t happen over the next few months, it behoves those of us who are disaffected to start thinking about what happens next.

      You may see my analysis as defeatist or dismissive, I just see it as realistic and a call to arms for when the inevitable happens. If there are no substantive changes from the party conference, if the gradualists retain control and win a majority @ Holyrood 2021 and no referendum is “granted”, tell us your plan.

      We’re honestly all ears.

    115. Mac says:

      One thing that is working in Sturgeon’s favour is the sheer magnitude of her betrayal of Alex Salmond.

      Similar to the concept of the Big Lie, the betrayal by Sturgeon of Alex Salmond (but also the independence movement and rank and file SNP members) is so enormous, so gargantuan, that it simply repels people’s belief. People struggle to believe anyone is capable of it, to take in the enormity of it. It really is staggering.

      I have followed this blog in detail and do not one iota of doubt left in me that Sturgeon is a psychotic level operator up to her ears in this attempt to stitch up Alex Salmond and send an innocent man to most likely die in jail. But not only that to destroy him completely, all his life achievements effectively undone and relegated to being a r@pist. (And we all know how popular they are in prison.) But being in zero doubt I am still in awe at the level of betrayal, you have to pinch yourself to check this is not a dream.

      I can’t think of a more shocking betrayal in modern political times. And the fact this was done is shocking on so many levels.

      It should be an affront to anyone who believes we are fit to run our own country. Is this who we are?! This banana republic Imelda Murrell bullshit? It is a fucking embarrassing is what it is. Maybe that was also the whole point. “Well if that is how the SNP act with a whiff of real power imagine how bad they would be if Scotland was independent”. And people would have a point.

      Just a few years after taking power the Murrells were / are acting like some medieval monarch. It is mind blowing just how bad this all is.

      The fact the unionist press are covering for NS tells its own story as well.

    116. Contrary says:


      We have only very recently found out about the Somers’ meetings with Ms A from a letter from John Swinney – but we don’t know what those meetings were about and John Swinney is delaying Somers giving oral evidence to committee, so even though the sequence of events I put down are correct I have no idea about the actual substance of the meetings – a wild guess based on circumstantial evidence – they may have just met to discuss the new discovery of gravity waves for all I know ,,, I think for Gordon or Craig to comment on it they’d want more substantive information (well, Gordon would for sure, and he says he’s really busy at the moment,,, frustratingly). It’s very difficult slotting all these little pieces of information into context. I had to draw out a timeline-flowchart thing to put things in context.

    117. stonefree says:

      G H Graham at 9:17 am
      re the £50,000 , It doesn’t have to exist as a bundle of cash in a bank.
      It is a nominal amount, £50K is the minimum amount for a Public Limited company, a Private Limited company can be started at £1
      The Public one does need 25% Fully Paid up so £12,500 will be in an account( there may be a slight variation in Scottish Public Companies)
      I did look up yesterday the Scottish Investment Bank on Companies house and then web site

      Th blurb from their web site

      Who we are
      We are a mission-led development investment bank for Scotland, wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers on behalf of the people of Scotland. We have been established to operate commercially, and are operationally independent from government.

      What we do
      We invest in Scottish business, projects and communities to deliver environment, social and financial returns for the people of Scotland.

      I question some of the wording, It sound similar to Johnson’s PPE firm
      However the link to the new firm, it at present says it is a holding company,That may be innocent enough and just be the category it was stuck in “temporary”

    118. Mike d says:

      He’s awfy quiet. But Alex could enlighten us all if he done a wee post for wings. Tell us who we should lend our votes to in 2021, without incriminating himself in any way obviously.

    119. Mike d says:

      That would put the fear of God in to the high heid yins who would be terrified of losing their seats on the gravy train.

    120. Mike d says:

      Dont think the media could ignore that. Alex Salmond speaks on wings.

    121. Mike d says:

      Stonefree 9.04pm. If Scotland had an independent Scottish bank,
      immediately 24hrs after a declaration of independence their coffers would be swelled by my savings and millions of others here in England transferring their money out of the banana republic that the brexsiteers will have turned little England into. Win,win.

    122. Contrary says:

      Mike d

      Intriguing – do you really think there would be interest from English customers in putting savings in a Scottish bank, in a Scottish currency? Would it depend on how Brexit actually turns out? (You never know, it might,,, well maybe not)


      It looks like the investment bank is an exercise in serving neoliberalism, it certainly won’t be benefiting the plebs. Sigh. Yet another hope ripped to shreds by the SNP.

    123. stonefree says:

      @ Mike d at 9:50 pm
      @ Contrary at 10:42 pm

      I think England would pay into a a Scottish Investment Bank, my reasoning is The fact that it is clearly an Investment Bank not a day to day bank,One fact slightly against would be , the returns but that would be clarified if it gets up and running
      As stated getting it to suit the commoners , That’s a question
      If it was structured to suit the likes of say McColl where that kind of person would want more for less.
      Then there is question of the likes of Banker’s bonuses and salaries.That would need to be sorted from the word go
      The idea is viable
      Two problems solvable though,and I use the SNP as a model, too many fannies who know absolutely nothing about business but can lecture on all kind of rubbish that has no value and the other Sturgeon
      They should be nowhere near money

    124. Contrary says:

      Correction to my above reply to Achnabanan;

      Mr Swinney does say about the Somers meetings of 20th and 21st Nov that Ms A made a ‘disclosure’ to him – so we know some of what the meetings were about – it was about the complaints. Why she made disclosures to that particular gentleman, we can only speculate.

    125. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. the constitutional legality of Brexit and whether Scotland has a legal right to extricate herself from union. It’s an open and shut case IMHO, if you acknowledge the the universal legal principle of “equality in law”. Which appears to be an alien concept to ‘our’ legal Establishment.

      Brexit is only legally sound if you ignore it imposes England’s political will on Scotland, and can be expected to cause considerable harm to our economy and international standing. As well as undermine the regulatory environment that protects our health and social welfare. Brexit is both blind to the Natural law and empty of sociological legal reasoning, so can only really be considered legal by those who support arbitrary, parochial, and legally dogmatic constitutional majoritarianism, rather than democracy. So here’s a look at “The Concepts of Equality and Non-Discrimination in Europe: A practical approach”, which I think might prove instructive for those who can’t see a legal means to defend our democracy from expansionist English nationalism. Or science denying extremists.

    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