Wings Over Scotland

Good stuff!

Spot on again Chris. I sometimes worry about our fellow Scots.

Well ain’t that the truth!

Wi’ aw yon windae’s ye widnae hae thocht transparency wid huv been ony bother in seein whit wis gaun oan in therr! Braw stuff, gie’s mair!

From Charles Dickens ‘Bleak House’ –

“The plain rule is to do nothing in the dark, to be a party to nothing underhanded or mysterious…”

Oh, wait…

It has a balcony for that Ceausescu moment, just lacks a crowd baying for blood of double-dealing politicians and the rumble of approaching tanks of the National Liberation Front.

And we recall how Jarndyce v Jarndyce turned out.

Aye, all those extortionate, unnecessary legal fees paid out would have covered 100 miles of dual carriageway and at least one of the new ferries. Not to forget the incredible time, effort and other resources wasted. Sigh.

Chris knows all about perspective, in more ways than one.

I don’t know Auld Reekie well enough to tell if that’s Bute House, but if it is, can anybody expand the image to see if the locks have been changed?

Thanks.

TURABDIN 9:46

Whose tanks? That’s a serious question BTW.

We Scots are allowed our sgian dhus but usually only when kilted up for ceremonial purposes.

Superb penmanship from Chris as always but he ain’t gonna win the Turner prize!

Ah! the Turner Prize! They seem to have been as successful at brainwashing people as Stonewall.

I feel very sorry for young creative people who decide to study ‘art’ although it could be a laugh trying to win the Turner Prize! ‘Taking the piss’ could be considered a prize winning work of Art! Hey that could be highly reflective of what’s going on in the world today. The sad thing is our politicians aren’t ‘taking the piss’ or at least they don’t think they are but if they decided to tell us they were only ‘taking the piss’ at some future time I would believe them and congratulate them for one amazing piss take!

Sorry Chris great cartoon & drawing skills but you ain’t gonna win the Turner Prize.

The only CREDIT Sturgeon has to her name is the mess she left Indy and the SNP in, the continuity candidate has never left to follow its all been defeated in the courts! Sorry I’ve made a mistake he’s still to destroy the SNP and the dream of Independence.

People keep advocating the Alba Party is going to replace the SNP, sorry folks not any time soon until Alex steps down and Ash Regan replaces Alex as leader. I really don’t believe Salmond knows exactly how much damage Nicola and the SNP has done to his career. I Really do hope that Salmond realizes before the next Holyrood what he needs to do but I suppose this will be told to him next year at the Westminster election what he will have to do

@Alf Baird says:

“A return to direct rule seems more likely.”

Indeed, and with all the evidence available, making a case for direct rule, based on the charge of amateurish and reckless, governmental incompetence, would be a walk-in-the-park. That even nationalists wouldn’t know, in good conscience, where to begin to dispute such a charge, should concentrate minds.

@John Main 11:24pm
Yeah that’s a good representation of the Bute House and it’s Georgian facade. But a building 50 metres away, 7 Charlotte Square run by the National Trust of Scotland is a better experience. A museum that really captures Georgian life in Edinburgh. Well worth a visit if you are in Edinburgh.

That is a beautiful cartoon, Mr Cairns. The level of detail in it is impressive and the message is precisely the kind of contemptible attitude we all have come to expect from those controlling and enabling the SNP.

The titanic efforts displayed by Yousaf’s government, Sturgeon’s government, their advisers, the UK civil service and the crown office to suppress information from the public is so blatant, that it is leaving the Scottish public in no doubt every institution of government, parliament and legal establishment in Scotland appears corrupted to the core and run by crooks, all working in cooperation against the interests of the people of Scotland.

I am absolutely amazed these people in the SGov and civil servants have not been laughed at and publicly ridiculised like utter fools when claiming they had so many meetings without taking formal minutes (I am referring to the information kindly provided by the Rev in his article “Walking on Glass”). This is so ludicrous it is simply not credible. Not when the Scottish Government has in place a Record Management Policy.

These quotes have been extracted from it:

“Scottish Government Directors have overall responsibility for the management of records generated by their divisions’ activities. They are responsible for ensuring that
a complete record of the business undertaken by their area is captured, and that systems (electronic or otherwise) and procedures are used appropriately”

“All Scottish Government staff receive training so they are aware of their responsibilities as individuals with respect to record keeping and management and to ensure they are competent to carry out their designated duties”

In other words, there was no credible excuse to hold those meetings without minute taking because doing so might have violated the Government’s own Record Management Policy.

If despite the Record Management Policy in place those meetings were ever allowed to continue without minute taking, considering the government is a democratic institution subjected to continuous scrutiny from parliament and FOI requests from the public, the only possible conclusion from such action is that it was with the purpose of suppressing information from either parliament, the public, or both.

I am afraid I do not believe it. There has to have been some form of recording, even if it was just drafted action notes scribbled down on a piece of paper. Otherwise, how on earth could they have ever followed up and measure progress against the actions agreed at those meetings?

A claim by the government of holding meetings without minute taking opens the door to speculation over potential use of meetings as a front cover for something else. Surely these people are not that stupid.

For instance, without minutes, how do we know these meetings were not used to instigate some form of criminality or to devise actions to hide criminality from the public?

We cannot.

So I do not believe minutes were not taken. I think it is much more credible that notes were taken but were subsequently disposed of or hidden to claim they do not exist.

The Government’s Record Management Policy states:

“All employees of the Scottish Government (permanent and temporary), contractors, consultants and secondees must ensure that the records for which they are responsible are complete and accurate. They must also ensure that records are
maintained and disposed of in accordance with the Scottish Government’s records management principles”

The immediate question to ask is what the retention schedule for the minutes/action notes of those meetings is.

Those meetings took place in 2022. If those minutes were already disposed of, did they respect retention schedules included in the Government’s Record Management Policy? And if not, who and why authorised disposal outwith the retention schedule stated in their official policy?

Why haven’t the opposition parties and the press been all over this departure of standard operating procedure like a rash?

What kind of rubbish advice have the civil service and government’s legal team been offering when something as fundamental for the democratic process as it is information governance, record keeping and management, and retention policies might have not been followed?

Alf Baird @ 11.53am.

Jarndyce v Jarndyce. Nice link to the Bleak House caption. Great book.

Reminded me of the old joke: “Do you like Dickens?”

“Don’t know. Never been to one. I’m not in the Green Party”

LOL at that cartoon.

Excellent!

Alf Baird @ 11.53am.

Erdogan is likely to wring every penny out of the Scottish government, and likely up the bill for breach of contract, etc., etc. If Yousaf was hoping for some empathy, brother to brother, so to speak, Erdogan is probably the last place on earth he’s likely to find it.

Alf Baird.
Mia,

It appears that I am not alone in Maintaining that the parliament of England is the only parliament in the treaty of union.

Having just read a blog on “Yours for Scotland” by Alex Thorburn giving a good explanation.

JGedd @ 2.05.

I remember making the same comparison in an exchange with the captain of the sinking school a couple of years ago.

SNP has gone rogue and must be removed from office at all costs else the cause of Indy will, if it hasn’t already, be put back a generation or be damaged beyond all credibility.

No wonder the Yoon MSM don’t touch them – a case of “Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake” (Sun Tsu) and Sturgeon’s continuity SNP are just a never ending catalogue of mistakes.

Indy for Scotland!
SNP OUT!

James Che @ 1:39 pm

“To keep Scotland captured whilst having no representatives.”

Independence is there for the taking, according to this Westminster report, which Scotland’s daeless and still to be deployed third elected majority of ‘nationalist’ MPs might ponder, e.g.:

“46. The United Kingdom Parliament can dissolve the Union. Article I is not entrenched. That is apparent (1) because the Articles only bind Parliament as conditions of the Union established by Article I; and (2) because it would be contrary to common sense to argue that the English and Scottish peoples could never by a lawful route democratically decide upon independence from one another.

link to publications.parliament.uk

KT Lorimer at 1:15 pm
“The current shower meeting in Bute House are only there and in the position to make a mess of things because the majority voted No – this is the result of not being independent – if we were then grown-ups would be running the show.”

What makes you think these same people wouldn’t have been governing an independent Scotland?

SNP are re-inventing the circumlocution office.
Beautiful drawing Mr Cairns

George @ 3.23.

The structural change which would be most effective would be the phenomenon which occurred to one of the characters in Bleak House: that of spontaneous combustion. Interestingly, he was a Krook too.

James Joyce; Troll. Don’t feed it.

MAYBE REPLACE WITH AI CYBORGS.
These «smart» guys are there to help.
link to cogxfestival.com
Creepy!
The future is ?????

Holyrood seating arrangements need an overhaul.

Endless list seats (yoons) collecting a salary for doing sweet fck all but playing at Wasps at a picnic.

Don’t forget, those eejits have endless committees to scrutinise the shit out of stuff at least 5 times before approval & royal assent – so they’re equally as culpable & useless as the SNP along with a whole host of advisors & supposed legal experts.

Not just on this case. They’ve had a long list end up in the bucket. Their policy seems to be the Bain Principle… we’ll fck everything up cause we’re in a strop we’re not in charge.

James Che said;
“It appears that I am not alone in Maintaining that the parliament of England is the only parliament in the treaty of union.”

James, nobody who’s read the Treaty and its associated Acts ever thought anything else. There’s SUPPOSED to be only a single parliament in the Union under the Treaty, but critically, and which you keep ignoring, it was and actually is a SHARED parliament, containing TWO distinct sets of MPs, not one. Each set represents one and only one of the two separate and equally sovereign kingdoms that founded both the Union AND its parliament, as the two, and only two, sovereign Principals of the Treaty.

The issue of the Union is not its single shared parliament, it is the assertion of the English establishment, and in particular its unwarranted imposition, that England’s MPs can ‘democratically outvote’ Scotland’s MPs on any matter of the joint governance of the Union’s two territories. That assertion is utterly bogus on several levels, and means that the Union’s governance doesn’t possess the formal constitutional authority it requires and falsely claims to have.

Serious consequences flow from that, and Westminster will not want those to come under any scrutiny at all, from inside or outside the Union. But we do want that scrutiny, especially from the UN, because it will shatter the Union when it happens.

Salmond, during indyref, said Scots could vote to retain the monarchy as Head of State if that’s what they voted for in a referendum..

Cries fae England Vine, Farage & Hopkins *oh look, the Scots want to keep *our* monarchy after they’re independent*

Furrrrrck orfff! Like hell we do LMAO!

Scotland has to gather School weans, yank tourists & empty nursing homes for a day of flag waving when a royal is arriving.

Twas separate referendum. Chucky won’t be missed.

“Has it occurred to you that no minutes or written records may have been kept at the meetings you refer to because the attendees are illiterate?”

No, sorry, John Main. That possibility hasn’t ever crossed my mind because I believe it to be completely implausible and in any case it would not make an ounce of a difference to the note taking.

In the same way that in a court case the accused or the witnesses are not expected to take minutes during the session, external attendees to government meetings, illiterate or not, would never be expected to take minutes for the purpose of keeping Government records. They might take notes for their very own records, but it would be a dereliction of duty from the part of the Scot Government and the civil servants in government to leave the note taking to a third party. It would be, in my opinion, a clear breach of their own record management policy.

In every senior meeting I have ever attended at work (I do not work in government), there has always been an allocated note/minute taker. I expect the same, even with more reason, to apply to any government meeting.

I suspect a low ranking civil servant would be instructed to take the notes in government meetings or the least senior of the government attendees would have been tasked with taking the notes.

Nobody expects the First Minister of the Permanent Secretary to take notes. However, it is the duty of the chair of the meeting to ensure notes are being taken during the meeting and the Record Management Policy is followed.

As I said in my previous comment above, the Government’s Record Management policy states:

“Scottish Government Directors have overall responsibility for the management of records generated by their divisions’ activities. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKEN BY THEIR AREA IS CAPTURED (my capitals) and that systems (electronic or otherwise) and procedures are used appropriately”

The chances that civil servants appointed to the senior position of “Government Director” could be illiterate are zero.

With regards to government staff, the Government Records Management policy states:

“All Scottish Government staff receive training so they are aware of their responsibilities as individuals with respect to record keeping and management and to ensure they are competent to carry out their designated duties”

There we go. Chances of civil servants using illiteracy as an excuse to overrule their Government Record Management Policy to avoid taking minutes is also zero.

With that Record Management policy in place, I do not believe for even a second minutes were not taken at those meetings. I find much more credible that notes were taken but were either destroyed or hidden for the purpose of avoiding the inconvenience of having to make them public.

Mia

Good post and compelling reasoning.

Your original assessment: corrupt, crooked and cooperating against the interests of the Scottish people, stands unchallenged.

Geoff Anderson sayshttps://archive.ph/HFKTz SNP hiding info again.

Since when have prisoners been given the benefit of anonymity if they happen to identify as ‘trans’, but not if they are not identifying as ‘trans’? The special ones again. If they are housed in the female estate, they will be recognized by the women, in any case, and, since no men will be there, what are they scared of by identifying them? It all smacks of special treatment not available to any other group in society. In any case, just because they have not beaten any females to a pulp, but have beaten another man to a pulp, doesn’t that still show a propensity for violence? What about a GRC? No man can enter female spaces without one, and, even then, can be excluded if the action is proportionate. So, where do they get off with self-ID by the back prison door? Do they really think we are all as thick as they are?

Hmmm this is very true.

twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1655837460503355392

Anything presented as a global problem is a globalist scam. They invent these fake global problems to bring about their sinister global solutions.

Sturgeon, Trudeau, Ardern… Globalists to the core, the antithesis of nationalists, i.e. people who believe in the future globe of nations, not a globe devoid of nations with only these vile fucks in charge endlessly with no alternative.

twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1655837460503355392

John Main said;
” “precedent cannot matter”

And that’s where we diverge. If generations have accepted a precedent, one after the other, then it matters.”

Then we diverge; if the precedent accepts illegality what it is accepting is still illegal. Convenience doesn’t make illegality legal. Also, I suspect that much of what you mean by precedent is really just giving in because the system is designed to make it virtually impossible to get justice. Acceptance should not be confused with precedent just because efforts to get justice failed.

“Not to mention the awkward fact that if just about every rule, law and custom we’ve been following all our lives is void, the effects are incalculable.

Far, far simpler and easier to make the economic case for Indy and consequently win power through the ballot box within the existing structure.”

Inconvenience is no justification for ignoring illegality, especially when the illegality is ongoing and causing great harm. Given what I just said about acceptance as precedent, your ballot box option ‘within the existing structure’ is very likely to fail for exactly the same reasons.

If we know what the root problem is, it is better to tackle it there, because it may take a hell of a lot longer to tackle all the branches as separate problems, and the root is still likely to generate more branches in the meantime.

Alba really need to stand in more than 12 Constituencies. I am not getting any younger and the Tories are plotting to raid our miserly Pensions.

@JGedd 2.05: re-read Little Dorrit last summer in my sitootery and immediately thought of How Not To Do It with regard to our useless government.

With a pinch of Kafka.

And a smidgen of Orwell.

Dundee Scot,

To hold the crown, ie but not wear it as monarch, and never coronated as monarchs of Scots, big difference.

It is impossible to join a union with a dissolved Scottish parliament, that was dissolved and published as dissolved on the 28th April 1707.

The dissolved parliament of Scotland still in a in a separate kingdom at the time of dissolution no longer had members or members that could represent Scotland in the (yet to be created parliament of Great Britain by time date) on the 1st may 1707.

In the separate kingdom of England the second parliament of Queen Anne was summoned on the 2nd of May 1705, it assembled on the 14th June 1705,

It was then dissolved on the 15th April 1708,
Fulfilling the Triennial Act of the parliament of England,

There were no Elections in the Westminster parliament of England between 1705 and 1708,

The joining of two separate kingdom parliaments did not happen, others here that are better mathematics will be able to ( count the timeline) in which the two parliaments missed each other as joined parliaments.
It was supposed to be a shared parliament.
That never happened, but critically and which is the point you keep ignoring.

A dissolved parliament no longer has any members and therefore cannot represent its constituents as members of a Scottish parliament of Scotland in the westminster parliament of England as soon as ithe Scottish parliament was dissolved by Queen Anne on the 28th April 1707.

The Scottish parliament was never again reopened to provide parliament members to represent the people of Scotland from its parliament

@ James Che,

Why do you think Scotland elects representatives and sends them to the UK Parliament in Westminster?

As to your web link, I was being helpful by pointing out that it was broken and you might like to fix it. No need for the personal abuse. Calm yourself down.

Xaracen at 1005pm,

Exactly. The ridiculous notion that just because the unfairness and undemocratic nature of this unwanted so-called ‘union’ with England has existed for over 300 years means that Scots somehow ‘accept it’ is baloney.

Scots do not accept it. This is why England bombards Scotland with pro ‘britishy’ propaganda 24/7, via the likes of the English controlled BBC propaganda channels, or the English controlled newspapers or Radio stations. It is why they actively encourage manufacturers to slap the butcher’s apron over every damn thing in shops.

Importantly, it is why ENGLAND directly interfered in the Scottish referendum on independence in 2014. Remember the silly non-factual threats, or the endless stream of anti Scottish propaganda by England? ALL from England.

Perfidious Albion, England, a country which has lied all through its history to keep colonies under its jackboot. England, the country that on the one hand cannot help itself from ridiculing everything truly Scottish, including our wealth, culture, natural prosperity and natural resources, yet on the other hand does everything and ANYTHING* to keep Scotland in its vice-like grip.

Now, their pathetic sock puppets on here try to insist that merely because Scots have had to tolerate this unjust, undemocratic so-called ‘union with England for over three hundred years, that means we accept it. No, it just proves we have had no means of ridding ourselves of English rule, propaganda and aggression.

* Like murdering independence campaigner Willie McRae.

John Main.

Except when the original ” Precedent ” was based on deceit with the intention to fraud by given misleading information.

Exactly. The ridiculous notion that just because the unfairness and undemocratic nature of this unwanted so-called ‘union’ with England has existed for over 300 years means that Scots somehow ‘accept it’ is baloney.

If Scots had accepted it, then BritNat Unionists wouldn’t be subverting democracy, attempting to rewrite the treaty, and violating Scotland’s sovereign Constitution by preventing Scotland from holding a referendum. The only way they can be sure to win a referendum is by never having one.

Furthermore, we wouldn’t be witnessing the plundering of Scotland’s assets, the asset stripping of our industrial capacity, and the social engineering enforced upon our population demographics by the Anglicisation of attitudes towards property and greed, and a great influx of NO voting attitudes. Of course they’ll have a vote you undemocratic savage!

I cannot make direct accusations about the farcical agenda Sturgeon pursued, when full Independence was right there in the palm of our hands, but the absurdity of Sturgeon’s deluded time in office will only seem even more deluded and suspicious with the passage of time. One day, we will know.

In the context of “knowing your enemy”, I truly would struggle to present a remotely positive argument along the lines of if it didn’t exist, why would you create it? (The Union that is). However I do believe a more enlightened attitude towards Scotland mixed with a degree of respect for our culture would stave off catastrophe for the Union for a decade or so more.

That said, I believe Westminster understands that doesn’t work. It requires a patience and sophistication they do not possess. To keep Scotland in the Union by its own free will is undeliverable, while turning the emphasis towards assimilation and cultural appropriation promises better results. Scotland’s capacity to thrive must be deconstructed and our people dispossessed of a stake in their own nation.

Happily for us, if happy is the word, the case for Unionism is the same paranoid and insulting blunt instrument it always was. Witness the tireless sneering disposition of our resident house-jocks, because it’s all they’ve got to sell. They’re the mini Lord Haw-Haws of our time. Ever stop to consider why the real William Joyce adopted the plummy accent when delivering his propaganda?

There’s a crushingly accurate metaphor that Scotland is the unfortunate wife trapped in an abusive marriage, forever told she’s clumsy and ugly, and kept in rags and penury, and there to serve her drunken belligerent master. Why doesn’t she walk out? Because the prolonged abuse eroded her self belief and confidence. That’s the corrosive Wolf which the Union feeds perpetually.

The good wolf, the celebration of self, kindness, achievement and good character, cannot be allowed to flourish into confidence. That narrative must be poisoned and destroyed by propaganda, isolation, and indoctrination… and so it is.

If you want to “thrive” or get on as a Scot, you’ve got to be the right kind of Scot; obedient , subservient, the kind of creature Samuel Adams wrote about, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Aye. That.

Alf Baird.
thank you for providing the link for others yesterday re ” Case for Lord Gray” much appreciated.

Old technological equipment combined with old pensioner, ha, not always compatible.

So Nicolas man buys a £110k campervan and registers it in his 92 year old mothers name , he then buys a £95k Jag and sells it to we buy any car !!!! I aint no detective but ffs anyone who has used that company knows the money from the sale goes to a bank account ,if you find out we’re the money came from to buy and then went to from the sale you will know if it’s a dodgy deal , it should not take nearly 2 fuckin years. The polis are booting the arse out of this.

Scotland does not elect parliament members of a Scottish parliament to send to Westminster parliament as Scotland has not been able to send representatives of any of its constituent since it was dissolved in 1707,

The Scottish parliament has never been re opened by Scotland or in England for that matter,since that dissolution,

The devolved parliament in Scotland at present has its roots in Westminster parliament as debates, bills, acts and Statues of Westminster in England,
The same Westminster parliament that garners its Sovereignty from the monarchs swearing of the Oath to (govern); the people of the kingdom of England. Which includes the ” Bill of rights” pre dodgy union as it is also enshrined in the constitution of England,

This leaves the People of Scotland with a “Claim of right” passed in Scotland pre dodgy union as a Sovereign nation and kingdom separate from England,
And the right to govern itself,

Den 9.42am.

Money laundering ?

Disgusting JohnMain

‘ In current times, when our screens are hoaching with ghastly images of real fecking tragedy night after night, ‘

Is that a reference to the people you refer to as Pallys?

@john H , it absolutely is ,it’s (page 10 of Rodger the dodgers juke book) the oldest trick in the book buying and selling commodities.

I have never used the we buy any car lot etc just because the returns are likely to be poor. The auto equivalent of cash converters etc. Not the type of place to be selling high value cars….unless it’s not your money you are losing on the transaction. Was the motor home to be next?

@pipinghot loosing money in the Launder (up to 50% of value ) is seen as the cost of doing business when your running a dodgy enterprise

Oh dear. The information suppression must be such a contagious phenomena when it comes to Scotland’s information.

Until recently, you could search through the minutes and other records of the Parliament of Scotland up to the last session of parliament in 1706 through the website rps.ac.uk. But, for some reason, it has been out of action since the 27 November 2023.

Imagine something like the Netflix or Amazon websites being out of action for 2 weeks, huh?

@James Che

You say “The time line between the Scottish parliament being dissolved by Proclamation, published in 1707 and no longer having any members of a Scottish parliament, to represent its constituents in Westminster,
And the timeline between the parliament of England dissolving in 15th April 1708 but still continuing under the new Westminster elections that took place in 1808”

I am pretty sure we already debated this in previous threads, James Che, and I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree in the interpretation of the records.

I looked long and hard for those Scottish Parliamentary records that allegedly claim the Scottish Parliament was permanently dissolved as we have been fed time and time again by colonialists. I couldn’t find them.

The very last record that was included in the website that is now mysteriously out of action (rps.co.uk), did not state anything at all about a permanent dissolution of Scotland’s parliament. It stated very clearly that parliament was ADJOURNED.

I have two books in front of me which are compilations of the Acts passed by the parliament of Scotland up to the time it was adjourned [Alexander, W (1841) “An abridgement of the Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland”, and Leopold Classic Library (1908) “The Scots Statutes Revised: The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 1424-1707]. The last act in both books is the “ACT for preserving the Game”. There is no act declaring the permanent dissolution of the parliament of Scotland anywhere I can see in any of the two books, written over 60 years apart.

As I suggested previously in another thread of this blog, it is, in my view, not possible, or credible, that Scotland’s parliament dissolved itself. The same applies to England’s parliament.

Just think logically about it for a second. What happens when the UK parliament is dissolved? An general election is called.

If you look at the records of the parliament of Scotland (whenever the gremlins decide it is safe for the people of Scotland to look at the records again), there NEVER was a general election in 1707, nor there was ever an intention for one to take place.

Why? Because the crown tools (and I suggest the crown itself) were terrified all the hard work done by crown commissioners and bribers would be gone to waste if they invited the people of Scotland and the people of England to an election where they knew a majority of anti-union representatives would be elected trashing the union on its first parliament sitting.

Something that is not being talked very much about is that the people of England was against the union as much as the people of Scotland was. The union was always a self-serving (English?) crown affair to secure the same line of succession in both countries. The union was forced by the (English?) crown (through bribes and one wonders if blackmail too), on both countries.

To circumvent this huge risk to the union and at least give it a chance to take off the ground, somebody/something, I presume the English crown, decided that no general election would take place neither in Scotland nor England until the union parliament started functioning. Instead, the members of the last sessions of the current parliaments in 1707 would transfer directly to the new parliament of “Great Britain”.

And if you read the Act of the Parliament of Scotland named “ACT settling the manner of Electing the sixteen Peers and Forty Five Commoners to Represent Scotland in the Parliament of Great Britain”, you will see very clearly that this is exactly what happened.

this is a quote from that act:

“It is agreed That if her Majesty shall on or before the first day of May next Declare That it is expedient the Lords and Commons of the present Parliament of England should be the members of the respective houses of the first Parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of England they shall accordingly be the members of the said respective Houses for and on the part of England HER MAJESTY WITH ADVICE AND CONSENT FORESAID IN THAT CASE ONLY (my capitals) Doth hereby Statute and Ordain That the Sixteen Peers and Fourty five Commissioners for Shires and Burghs who shall be chosen by the Peers Barrons and Burghs respectively in this present Session of Parliament and out of the Members thereof in the same manner as Committees of Parliament are usually now chosen shall be the members of the respective Houses of the said first Parliament of Great Britain for and on the part of Scotland Which Nomination and Election being certified by a Writ under the Lord Clerk Registers hand the persons so Nominated and Elected shall have right to sit and vote in the House of Lords and in the HOuse of Commons of the said first Parliament of Great Britain.”

In other words, the first parliament of “Great Britain” was, in fact and by design, the continuation of the last session of both, the parliaments of Scotland and England. One mimicked the other.

The only two differences between what happened to the parliament of England and what happened to the parliament of Scotland are:

1. The members of the parliament of Scotland had to move to a England
2. while all MPs and Lords from England moved into the parliament of Great Britain, only a fraction of the representatives of Scotland sitting in the last parliament of Scotland session were transferred.

Scotland’s peers to seat in the new parliament of Great Britain were elected by peers themselves (peers were always stooges of the crown, so the crown had no fear there they would elect anti-union peers). However, the “commoners” were selected by the commoners already sitting in the last session of parliament, ensuring only pro-union MPs were selected.

Please note above the section I highlighted in capitals:

“HER MAJESTY WITH ADVICE AND CONSENT FORESAID IN THAT CASE ONLY”.

“In that case only” This means, the parliament of Scotland only agreed to send members from its last session to the parliament of Great Britain if the parliament of England did the same. In other words, IF a new parliament of England was not started by calling a general election in England.

My interpretation of this is that the members of Scotland’s parliament were only prepared to agree to this fudge (and it was a fudge) of sending members of the last session of Scotland’s Parliament if the members of the parliament of England did the same thing, ensuring that the last session of both parliaments would end at the exact same time, which is when the first session of the parliament of Great Britain ended.

From this you can infer that the members of the parliament of Scotland would have demanded a general election should the crown have allowed the parliament of England to call one to start a brand new parliamentary session of the parliament of England with new MPs.

This is to me another clear sign the members of the parliament of Scotland did not expect Scotland’s parliament to continue as a subordinate of the parliament of England or to be incorporated by the parliament of England as colonialists claim. They saw it as its equal and expected it to be its equal.

I think the only scenario where you could ever say the Scottish parliament was incorporated into England’s parliament is if Scotland’s members from the last session were sent to a brand new session of the parliament of England elected by a general election AFTER the union was agreed.

But this never happened. The last session as independent parliaments of Scotland and England ended exactly at the same time for both, which is when the first session of the parliament of Great Britain ended. The first general election after the treaty of union was ratified by both parliaments, was to elect members for the parliament of Great Britain, not for England.

Unless you prove me wrong by providing records of the parliament of Scotland which demonstrated the parliament was permanently dissolved, I would not believe it was ever permanently dissolved as I do not believe England’s parliament was permanently dissolved either.

I sustain this could have never been the case, because if the parliament of Scotland had been permanently dissolved before the opening of the first parliamentary session of the parliament of Great Britain took place, there is no way the same sitting MPs in the last session of Scotland’s parliament could simply be transferred to the new one without a general election. The exact same applies to England’s parliament.

If Scotland’s parliament was dissolved, it was only after the first Parliament of Great Britain was dissolved, and the exact same applies to the Parliament of England.

Looking at the records I have had access to so far, it is clear to me that neither of the parliaments of Scotland and England were ever dissolved. They were only adjourned.

It is also clear to me that the parliaments of Scotland and England still live on today in the form of the MPs representing each Kingdom in the parliament of the UK. It is my opinion this will remain to be the case until Scotland’s MSPs grow a spine and ditch the Scotland Act.

Only at that point, and unless before that happens our amoebas sitting in Westminster voluntarily transfer ALL their powers to Holyrood, Holyrood will gain full legislative and executive power.

At that point, the scope of Scotland’s MPs will be just like the scope of Scotland’s MPs in the European Parliament was: only extended to union matters.

Only at that point, the farce that has lasted for over 300 years of England MPs exercising their self-awarded chunk of Scotland’s sovereignty, will end.

I agree 100% with Xaracen. Any policy and law which was passed only with the agreement of a majority of the representatives from the Kingdom of England is not union policy or law. It is England’s policy and law.

But because we have a majority of spineless amoebas representing us in Westminter who are not representing Scotland at all, but rather themselves, England and the crown, those policies and laws have been made extensive to Scotland and forced on us by stealth.

When you realise of the above, it becomes crystal clear why the colonial forces in the union (and I include here the present SNP crop) are so desperate to make us believe Scotland ceased to exist when the union started. It also explains why they are so terrified and manufacture all sort of obstacles every time somebody mentions the idea of Scotland unilaterally ending that treaty of Union.

Westminster can end the treaty of union because it still represents both parliaments of Scotland and England. Both, England and Scotland have the legitimate right to end that treaty unilaterally.

But because we have crown tools representing us in Westminster rather than Scotland MPs, Westminster will never end that treaty on behalf of Scotland. In other words, it will only end it when it is convenient for England (and its crown).

The only way Scotland can end that treaty is by:

1. Holyrood ditching the Scotland Act and recovering the powers
2. A majority of Scotland’s MP removing themselves from Westminster, recalling the old Scotland’s Parliament and ending the treaty
3. A majority of Scotland’s MP representatives removing themselves from Westminster and voting to transfer all their powers to Holyrood, effectively overruling the Scotland Act.

I would go even further. “UK” legislation only applies to Scotland for as long as the Treaty of Union remains extant and for as long as Scotland has MPs in Westminster retaining all executive and legislative powers (power devolved is power retained).

If Scotland ditches that treaty, “UK” legislation will no longer apply to Scotland, just like EU legislation does no longer apply to the UK after Brexit.

And that is precisely why I do not agree with a referendum on “secession” from the UK, which is what the political frauds Sturgeon and Yousaf appear to seek.

In such scenario, the amoebas who claim to represent us in Westminster would not lift a finger to stop England law to be forced on Scotland so we will be treated in the negotiations as a region seceding from the kingdom of England rather than as England’s equal partner. And the only way you can ditch that UK law and stop it applying during the negotiations is if Scotland ends that treaty.

I see pete wishart has just worked out the current indyref 2 policy is not working

@ Mia at 11.50: rps.ac.uk has an archived version – interestingly none of the Scottish Parliaments records in Anne’s reign are available whereas the previous reign, William, is available!!!

Mia says:
10 December, 2023 at 11:50 am
Oh dear. The information suppression must be such a contagious phenomena when it comes to Scotland’s information.

Until recently……..

What a great piece of work that post is. Superb! But I doubt it will quieten the ramblings of poor old James Che.

Mac says:
9 December, 2023 at 9:23 pm
Hmmm this is very true.

He then links to a guy (dinky ponytail, neat beard not that there is anything wrong with that) who says that anything identified as a global problem is definitely a scam – saying covid and climate being the obvious examples.

Well, does that not mean that the global corporations claiming enhanced oil pumping is the only way we can safeguard civilisation, globally, (shame about the wars) is also a scam? I’m with him on that. Not often I agree with a purple (red-blue alliance) pumper!

Mia
Thanks for that. Very informative.
Don’t be so hard on amoebas. They are, at least, sovereign, unlike the rest of us.

James Che is the gift that keeps on giving. I’m still chuckling at his latest reply. His one-track mind sums up so many of the posters here. Isn’t that right, Geri?

ayemacrihanish…

It’s a pity the Articles of the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England didn’t have an equivalent to the EU Treaty’s Article 50. But I’d wager that if it did, the Devo-Max troughers in the SNP would still be wriggling like a worm on a hook to avoid triggering what would’ve been Article 26 -“XXVI Either kingdom may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.

If only…

ayemachrihanish at 1:37 pm
“-if the UK´s drafted Brexit text was sufficient legitimate for the UK in Activating Brexit and the end of its Union with the EU (and in addition all the Treaty agreements that then followed). Then that UK drafted Brexit text by precedent must be sufficient for Scotland’s withdrawal (from the UK).”

Not so. Britain legally invoked Article 50, an existing and agreed clause for the voluntary and unilateral withdrawal of a Member State from the EU. There is no parallel.

Besides, none of the deliberately favourable reinterpretations of The Act of Union matter if the independence movement can’t demonstrate a significant majority in the polls. What you’re all proposing is that a Scots minority pulls the plug. Not a great way for a supposedly democratic country to enter the international stage.

alf baird at 2:53 pm

“- all that is required is for the majority of Scotland’s representatives to withdraw from Westminster and the union is ended. Even the Westminster committee on privileges is telling us this: link to publications.parliament.uk

Specifically which bit?

wullie says at 3:23 pm
“A Scots minority pulled the plug in 1707. goose and gander.”

Good point. Let’s hear it for suffrage.

Wrong James, the reason there is no Article 50 in the 1706 or 1707 Union Treaty is simply down to poor drafting on the part of the UK not Scotland.

The point is Scotland has NO exit treaty to invoke. The wording drafted and used by the UK is therefore, by precedent, sufficient for Scotland’s withdrawal. The is no Article to retain them

On the gaslighting point. The Brexit referendum resulted was 51.9% of the votes cast being in favour of the UK leaving the EU.

Therefore in Scotland’s case, and again by precedent, 50.1% of the votes cast being in favour of Scotland leaving the UK would of course be sufficient.

Now go away.

@ayemachrihanish

You ask if Paragraph 22 in my previous comment, which ends on “parliament of Great Britain ended”, should read “parliament of Great Britain began”

The response is no, sorry. It should read as it is written, “the FIRST session of the parliament of Great Britain ENDED”.

This is because by sending MPs from the live last sessions of the parliaments of Scotland and England, instead of electing new ones through a general election, they were effectively ensuring the first session of the parliament of Great Britain was in fact a continuation of the last session of the parliaments of Scotland and England.

The last session of the parliaments of Scotland and England, therefore, only really ended when the first session of the parliament of Great Britain ENDED and a new GE was called.

This ensured the last session of the parliaments of Scotland and England ended at the exact same time.

The same applies to your query regarding paragraph 26.

With regards to your suggested point 4:
(“Word for Word use the exact same text the UK used in its Brexit withdrawal letter to the EU and have an elected or appointed representative of Scottish (or FM) deliver the letter by hand to the UK PM at 10 Downing Street”)

I would say that would be the best and most obvious route for Scotland to take should it be an independent state.

But for Scotland to act as an independent state, the first thing we need is Scotland’s parliament and government to recover, in full and respectively, their legislative and executive powers.

In my opinion, this can only come, politically, from points 1, 2 or 3.

Besides those 3 I think there might be also an apolitical route. In my view this might be the most likely to succeed because it does not involve career politicians. This route would be where the people of Scotland find a way to overrule Holyrood and Scotland MPs. This could be, for example, by reconvening the convention of estates.

If I am not mistaken, this last route might be close to the route Salvo is pursuing.

The FM is, at present, simply an MSP and therefore bound by the Scotland Act. In my opinion, the Scotland Act and Scotland MPs are what is constraining Holyrood and ScotGov’s powers.

Unless that convention of states overrules Holyrood and the Scotland Act, or Holyrood itself vote to ditch the Scotland Act forcing the return of our powers from Westminster, or Scotland MPs overrule the Scotland Act by voluntarily transferring their powers to Holyrood, or Scotland’s MPs reconvene the parliament of Scotland effectively ending the union of parliaments, I do not believe the FM can, right now, deliver that letter in a credible way.

It is very unlikely Scotland’s MSPs would ever vote to ditch the Scotland Act unless that had been included previously in a manifesto (for example by saying that a vote for the party is a vote for independence), or there is a planned and concerted action between Scotland’s MPs and MSPs to transfer first the powers to Holyrood and then to ditch the Scotland Act.

This kind of concerted action is precisely what I have been expecting to see from the SNP for the last 9 long years.

But for that to happen you need a serious leader committed to independence and you need serious MPs who are elected on a mandate for independence and are determined to deliver independence rather than growing their bank accounts and social network. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of SNP MPs do not fit the profile.

Without the backing of Holyrood or the convention, the only thing the FM can do is, as leader of the political party which currently holds the majority of Scotland’s seats in Westminster and the largest share of the seats in Holyrood, instigate SNP MPs to vacate Scotland’s seats in Westminster and get them to hold a vote on either reconvening the old Scotland’s parliament to repeal the treaty and act of union with England, or to transfer directly their powers to Holyrood for it to do so.

But we know that is not going to happen under this pretend SNP. Yousaf and the majority of the SNP MPs are simply keeping the green seats warm awaiting for that much desired (by the SNP) labour majority so they can finally relax (even more) and continue to do absolutely nothing to progress independence, but at least this time they will have a better excuse for it.

I completely agree with you that the Union of Scotland and England is not very different to the union of the UK with the EU. The only main difference I see is that the UK (or shall we say England acting as the UK) is happily exercising statehood, while Scotland is being denied that opportunity by its very own self-serving representatives in both Holyrood and Westminster.

We are not being betrayed by England or England MPs. They have no mandate to represent our interests. We are being betrayed every single day by our own spineless and self-serving representatives.

Our only representatives who appear to actually want and are prepared to put up a fight for Scotland to recover its statehood are Alba MPs and MSP.

The SNP MPs and MSPs have not lifted a finger in the last 9 years to make that happen. They are quite happy to watch, from the comforts of the green seats and Westminster bars, the ransacking of Scotland’s assets continue at pace.

James Jones said;
“Britain legally invoked Article 50, an existing and agreed clause for the voluntary and unilateral withdrawal of a Member State from the EU.”

Actually, Britain illegally invoked A50, because A50 obliged the leaving member state to affirm that it did so in conformity with its own constitution. But the UK Govt grievously breached that constitution when it utterly denied the sovereign will of the Scottish half of the Union, and denied its representatives any involvement in the exit negotiations.

England and its MPs do not speak for the UK nor for Scotland, and they certainly didn’t do so on any aspect of Brexit.

Mia.

Here is more information for you to digest,

That piece of information regarding the Scottish parliament being Adjourned in Scotland but being being dissolved by Queen Anne in Westminster parliament of England is curious as it is prior to the treaty of union commencement date and prior to the parliament of England being dissolved,

Did Queen Anne have legal and territorial control over Scotland?

The succession to crown through queen anne to Scotlands territory and parliament is not quite as if first appears.

Her succession to the Crown of England is not doubted,
However there is a glitch, error as to wether she was monarch of Scotland.

The text of the Act of security, also known as the Regency Act 1707 and given Royal Assent on the
13th Feburary 1708,
EXTENDS the monarch of Englands succession to the crown of Scotland at the above said date1708.
After the treaty of union articles had been ratified,
Queen Anne did not ratify the Scottish side of the treaty of union , it was the duke of Malsbourgh.
The Scottish Royal Seal having been thrown in the Thames river by king James as he fled.

Why the need to extend the succession of the crown to Scotland from England, she was already queen of Scotland according to a letter sent to Scotland. From England.
Did she actually only become queen of Scots and their (territory) in 1708.?

Xaracen, at any and every time you post.

You’re a hoot. Continually pretending to yourself that Scotland gets an equal say.

I know some Advocates in Edinburgh. For £1,000 an hour, they’ll happily represent your nonsense all the way up through the courts, right up until you’ve run out of money. And you won’t have won your case in any court.

Xaracen

Does that mean that technically we are still in the EU?

Do we have redress against those EU negotiators who unconstitutionally chucked us out?

Or is the realpolitik reality that as the UK joined as a unitary state, we had to leave as a unitary state? Precedent again, and precedent can defo be a real bitch.

If you were to claim that our EU membership was unconstitutional because the accession negotiations did not take into account Scotland’s and England’s separate sovereignties, then I might take your arguments seriously.

But right now, you are adopting your usual pick-and-mix approach, where sovereignty doesn’t matter when you get what you want, but kicks in as important when you don’t.

“But the UK Govt grievously breached that constitution when it utterly denied the sovereign will of the Scottish half of the Union, and denied its representatives any involvement in the exit negotiations”

Absolutely. Every time England (as the UK) government forces on Scotland legislation voted down by a majority of Scotland’s MPs or rejected by HOlyrood, they are, at all practical effects, forcing absolute rule over Scotland, which is in violation of the Claim of Right.

The Claim of Right is a fundamental condition, that must be respected at all times, for the Treaty of Union to remain valid.

The overruling of a majority of Scotland’s MPs should have only been allowed to take place once. Scotland’s MPs should have taken immediate action after that to avoid a repeat.

Our MPs are therefore not free of accountability when it comes to Westminster’s abuse over Scotland.

Firstly, they have done nothing to stop the violations of the Claim of Right by WEstminster and by the crown every time it gives royal assent to legislation voted down by a majority of Scotland’s MPs or Holyrood.

Secondly, they have done absolutely nothing to officially terminate a treaty which has now more violations to its name than the number of holes in a sieve.

We all know how prone to abuse and to undermine Scotland Westminster Parliament and England’s government are. We also know the disproportionate representation of England in Westminster, to the point that it is, at all practical effects, England’s parliament. Because of all this, Scotland’s MPs, particularly the nationalist ones, should always refuse to take part in votes when Holyrood has already voted against or the proposed legislation goes against the will of the people of Scotland. The A50 vote was a clear example of this.

Doing so would send a very strong message that Scotland is not represented in those votes, therefore they cannot be considered “union” votes, only England’s.

As it is, and for as long as our MPs continue to do nothing to stop legislation rejected by a majority of Scotland’s MPs being forced on Scotland, in the eyes of the UK gov and the eyes of the world, even in Scotland’s eyes, taking part in those votes is, at all practical effects, legitimising them and legitimise the abuse over Scotland.

It is my opinion that in such circumstances, taking part in those votes is, at all practical effects, overruling Holyrood and legitimising the overruling of Scotland by England.

Every time our MPs take part in a vote for legislation after Holyrood has already voted against, they are effectively undermining Holyrood.

So the first culprits for Holyrood having so little power and weight on legislation are our very own MPs.

If Scotland was ever dragged out of the EU by England (as the UK) gov, it was only because Sturgeon, the SNP MPs, the Tory MP, the Labour MP and the LibDem MP at the time choose not to stop them and chose, with their participation in the vote, to legitimise it.

Breeks says at 5:09 pm

“They had no provision for the dissolution of an existing Member State into two sovereign constitutional equals.”

Water under the bridge now.

link to ideasforeurope.eu

But Article 48 was fairly appropriate.

“ROADMAP FOR SUCCESSION IN EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE CASE OF MEMBER STATE’S SECESSION OR DISSOLUTION

Establishment of the transitory arrangement:
— Application of the principle of continuity in acts not requiring changes
or amendment to the acts of secondary law to enable:
— The continuity of uniform application of the material provisions of the
European Union’s legal system throughout the new state’s territory.“

London has far too much to lose in letting Scotland go.

“The book ends with some extremely pertinent observations about ‘personating’ or vote-rigging. Personation involves voting multiple times and was widespread in the north of Ireland under the motto of ‘vote early, vote often’. Carlin’s revelations about the mechanics of ballot-rigging led to a change in the voting laws in the north of Ireland. This was lauded as historic progress, yet, those same laws remain unchanged in the rest of the UK.

This seems inexplicable, since marginal constituencies can easily be swayed by even small voting irregularities of a few hundred ballots. But perhaps this is exactly why the laws have not been changed in rUK, particularly to harmonise with the more strict laws on postal ballots in the British partition. “Living in Scotland,” Carlin writes, “and being an SNP sympathiser, often tempts me to approach some local activists and show them how to achieve this feat.”

Reading this jolted a memory from the 2017 general election. That was the election when many of us were perplexed by First Minister Sturgeon’s underwhelming, uninspired performances during debates. The unexpected loss of so many SNP MPs at the first post-Brexit election did not sit right with me. Scotland was ripe for independence. One poll put support at 60%. European citizens and many No voters were ready to vote Yes. And what did we get? A lacklustre campaign, a disengaged First Minister, and some truly bizarre results. The 56 became 35, still a victory but announced as a defeat by the organs of state propaganda. Not long after, the plot to defame and destroy Alex Salmond gathered momentum. Gender activism came from nowhere and replaced independence as the SNP’s main focus, hardly coincidental at the very moment the break-up of the UK looked inevitable.

Only those who refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes, dismiss the claim that the SNP has been infiltrated. Perhaps 20 years from now, we’ll get a mea culpa from an informer, an infiltrator who had ‘divided loyalties’. Whether these North Brits work from some sense of monarchial Anglo-Saxon idealism, for financial gain, or due to coercion, is neither here nor there. What we do know, is that within less than a decade the SNP has been neutered, its focus shifted, its electoral prospects diminished, and most of its gerrymandered MPs and MSPs now unfit for public office.”

link to en.wikipedia.org

link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

Mia at 6:03 pm.
“Absolutely. Every time England (as the UK) government forces on Scotland legislation voted down by a majority of Scotland’s MPs or rejected by HOlyrood, they are, at all practical effects, forcing absolute rule over Scotland, which is in violation of the Claim of Right.”

It’s called democracy, and since Scotland is effectively a superannuated county it has to take the rough with the smooth like everyone else.

Mandy Rhodes, editor Holyrood Mag, says ..

link to holyrood.com

I disagree Dan. Scotland was not “seceding” from a Continuer UK State. The UK would have ceased to exist, so UK no more, and step back into the light sovereign entities of England and Scotland, neither Nation Continuer State, neither Nation Seceding State.

Article 48 relates to an act of secession, which the dissolution of the UK is not, and cannot properly be.

There is an issue that the UK was the named Member state on paper, but the argument there is whether Scotland, where our nationals were already EU citizens who had voted emphatically to remain EU citizens, would adequately qualify as a “limited” Continuer state, because the EU had no protocol to expel our Nation or people from Europe.

I’m not disputing what Article 48 says, but simply that Article 48 is simply inappropriate for Scotland’s circumstances.

When the protocol doesn’t fit the circumstance, expediency requires a new precedent to be improvised, and an appendix written in to the Treaty – just like German unification. Why didn’t Germany have to exit and re-join? Why didn’t East Germany have to join the EU and then re-unify? The hammered out a compromise and made it work. That’s what they should have done for Scotland. You don’t simply apply the “best fit” protocol from the list and force Scotland to endure unconstitutional subjugation that is contrary to International law.

Brexit, and Scotland’s rejection of Brexit was without precedent, and should have not had led to Scotland’s subjugation and expulsion. The EU and Barnier SHOULD have recognised the Sovereignty of Scotland, the Continuer State of Scotland’s EU membership after England’s exit by England’s volition.

The EU got it wrong, and Sturgeon’s ignorant cabal just rolled over. There is no denying it happened, and no turning back the clock, but wrong is wrong, and Scotland is owed restoration of its entitlements and/ or justice and compensation.

I don’t believe we will ever see said compensation, but the EU need’s to understand the huge grievance and impropriety it suffered upon Scotland, and then we discuss our relationship moving forward… from a position of strength and righteous indignation.

Tom

Thanks for the link.

I still mind the days when Scotland’s fiscal black hole was only £1 billion.

According to that article, it’s now £2 billion.

I still mind the £1 billion days cos they were only last week. Ah ken the SNP don’t have much sense of responsibility when it comes to spending us taxpayer’s hard-earned, but surely misplacing £1 billion in a week sets a new record for them.

The 4% GDP hit forecast as a result of the Grangemouth refinery closing won’t help either. Maybes time for pretendy FM Yousaf to accept that if he wants to continue jetting around the world to splurge our cash on his pet projects, he better get aligned with WM plans for oil & gas development.

Might even be a few votes in it!

Mia

I am absolutely convinced that if 51% of those who voted from a 20% turnout did so in favour of Indy you would be claiming loudly that it was a very realistic consideration of the democratic will.

You know that too, which is why your rubbishing of the Rutherglen result rings false.

You’re not the only poster on here displaying the pick-and-mix attitude – accepting questionable results that suit your narrative – rejecting those that don’t. But you really don’t want to be arguing in a way that will give support to the naysayers should a plebiscitary election return a questionable verdict.

If the intention is made crystal clear beforehand that one (or more) parties is treating the election result as a plebiscite, then if the party(s) command a majority of seats, then the result MUST stand.

Anybody who couldn’t be ersed to vote CAN’T be allowed to quibble afterwards.

ayemachrihanish at 8:01 pm
“My point is it was ´the soon to be UK governing entities´ who were drafting those Articles to suit themselves. Not for the benefit of Scotland.”

So, if there is no withdrawal Article – that´s not our problem. It simply means that there is nothing to invoke – and nothing to bind Scotland to the Union of the UK. We simply vote and if the majority decide, invoke to leave.”

Did Scotland not guide the draft too? It didn’t decide to add a withdrawal article so there is no automatic right to leave without the agreement of the Union. Catalan tried to invoke what you propose and it wasn’t regarded well by the EU, the next Union an independent Scotland pins its hopes on.

Again, you don’t have the majority on your side. Instead of sticking two fingers up to the Union and rushing into the arms of an almost certainly antipathetic international community you should be persuading the ‘No’ voters and the undecided voters, making independence much harder to deny. I don’t see much of that here, I see wild claims and I see abuse of anyone not yet convinced. It’s not the way forward.