The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Braveheart or something

Posted on November 28, 2018 by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

258 to “Braveheart or something”

  1. Sinky says:

    Very good stuff.

    On the same lines

    ONE of the favoured weapons of Unionist politicians is to dismiss Scottish nationalism as essentially tribal. It only flourishes in division and is fuelled merely by grievance, they aver. There is barely any attempt to examine why a specific criticism of the British state might lead to a sense of grievance. And when an argument in favour of independence looks like prevailing they rely on the Unionist catch-all: that when adversity arises our interests are best protected by the broad shoulders of the UK.

  2. Muscleguy says:

    Did I see it right in the credits ‘in association with Wings Over Scotland’? I shall be writing to Ofcom to complain about political interference in the state broadcaster. See if I don’t.

  3. Pogo says:

    Class as alway!

  4. Dr Jim says:

    A really good wee show, smashin!

  5. starlaw says:

    Perhaps these guys should have been invited to Bute House yesterday instead of the BBC. Who only saw fit to beliyyle the event.

  6. Robert Peffers says:

    Now I might be wrong but –

    If Wingers can plainly see that the unionist government funded and/or controlled media is so obviously attempting to belittle Scotland to the level of an English Carry on film then it must be obvious to all, but the mist extreme Yoonatics, that the Westminster Establishment are, like old Carry On films, rather dated and worn out. Much like the British/English Empire their time has passed.

    Tome now for a new Scottish beginning and the final end to the United Kingdom.

  7. Doug_Bryce says:

    brexit exposed the real nationalists and xenophobes.

  8. Clootie says:

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.”

  9. gordoz says:

    Quality satire is not Dead in Scotland after all ….
    Just dead as a duck at BBC Bunty & STV Travesty channels ….
    Satirical humour overwhelmingly produced by YES inclined writers.
    Could that be the reason ?

  10. Sharny Dubs says:

    Love it.

  11. Sinky says:

    Satire is beyond Red Tory Unionists who hounded SNP candidate for retweeting Scotlandshire awards parody three years before 2015 General Election.

    I see the apologists for T May claiming only a few press are being access to her press conference and that it will be pooled but that will only be the Unionist press not the only independence supporting newspaper that will have an entirely different approach.

  12. Sorry was that satire or was it actually the BBC?

  13. Effijy says:

    Where is the Maybot in Scotland?
    It’s 2pm and no news on which rock
    She intends crawling under.

    Maybe just arrive for a Media picture planting
    an English Flag at the Wallace Monument and
    Then Home to Fascist Central.

  14. Robert Peffers says:

    Do we need a new carry-on film?

    Carry on up the Union, Carry on to Independence, Carry on to the WTO, Carry on Prime Minister?

  15. Luigi says:

    Robert Peffers says:

    28 November, 2018 at 1:56 pm

    Carry on Regardless. 🙂

  16. Luigi says:

    Aye, it must be quite an operation, getting the dear tory leader in and out of occupied but hostile territory without any mishap.

    I wonder, when Mrs May does emerge for the cameras, if the proud wee beard-snacking, butt-licker emerges for a photo op. You now, the one who hasn’t resigned yet. 🙂

  17. Robert Peffers says:

    Sorry to go off topic so soon but I just found a wee note I had left to myself to post this breath-taking Tory input in a debate in the Holyrood chamber and then forgot to post it on Wings:-

  18. Auld Rock says:

    Hi Robert & Luigi,

    How about simply “What a Carry ON?”

  19. Craig P says:

    Noooo! Don’t get rid of Dateline Scotland, it’s the best bit, right from the lashing rain in the opening credits!

  20. Luigi says:

    Carry On Up the Khyber (without a paddle). 🙂

    I’ll get ma coat

  21. yesindyref2 says:

    (phone rings) “Hello”
    “Hello, could I speak to yesindyref2 please?”
    “Who is this?”
    “It’s the UK Government”
    “What’s it about?”
    “It’s about retaining your account with the UK”
    “Not interested thanks, bye now and have a nice day”.

  22. mogabee says:

    Bloody good guys yet again! You’re settling in to the roles nicely. 😀 😀 😀

    Proper snorted at Dateline Scotland too.

    But hey poor Dalkeith. Not that I’ve ever been there like…

  23. Sinky says:

    I see BBC Scotland have a Disclosure Programme on Monday evening focusing on people on waiting lists in Scotland and TV guide blurb makes sure we know that Scottish government failed to meet its targets.

    Now everyone has sympathy for people who have to wait longer than others for hospital appointments but hopefully the programme will examine some of the reasons and compare the performance with position in England and Wales or under Labour / Libs pre 2007.

    Also, 800,000 hospital appointments are missed in Scotland every year by people not turning up.

    Numerous EU NHS staff have already left thanks to the Tories attitude to foreigners.

    So lets have a balanced programme with constructive solutions but that may well be beyond the BBC.

    MEANWHILE shock horror; Tories in industry back Theresa May’s plans despite all evidence that we will be worse off… by £1600 a year in Scotland.

  24. Brian Powell says:

    Anyone know why Scotland’s MPs and MSPs can’t dissolve the Act of the Union?

  25. Brian Powell says:

    I mean English MPs weren’t elected on the basis of maintaining the Union so why specifically must Scottsh MPs be elected on the basis of dissolving it, though in fact the majority of Scottish MPs are stated supporters of Independence?

    Added to this the majority of MSPs in Holyrood are stated Independence supporters.

  26. mike cassidy says:


    But I did like this article on ‘fake news’ and ‘fake news’ debunkers.

    And the neat twist ending.

    And in this wilderness of mirrors I did keep wondering whether it was for ‘real’.

    And was aware that I was reading it courtesy of one of the biggest peddlars of ‘fake news’.

  27. Cubby says:

    BBC Reporting Scotland today

    The propaganda unit continues on its merry way. A report on PMQ’s is shown as follows: the truncated question ( by that I mean seconds) of The SNP’s leader at HoCommons then the complete reply of Theresa May which was like a party political broadcast for the Tory party shown in full.

    These people are scumbags.

  28. Cubby says:


    Don’t know anyone who has had anything but excellent service from the NHS in Scotland.

    On the other hand I do know a family member who paid £10k for an operation privately only to find out when it did not fix the problem that the private doctors solution was for him to pay another £10k and get the exact operation done a separate time. Thankfully it was fixed the second time. This is an example of private health care. Pay through the nose with no guarantee of success and then pay again. In what other sector does failure provide more business. In addition the family member was not happy to realise that the NHS probably would have fixed the problem earlier.

    Private doctors running around in Ferraris and Maseratis, sometimes both, as a result of all these NHS scare stories. The media in Scotland has a lot to answer for.

  29. Ottomanboi says:

    England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity. It worked for the Irish so we really ought to give it a try.
    Saving the UK from this Brexit mess isn’t our brief.
    National newspaper shut out of May press conference…..kitten heals in mouth?

  30. geeo says:

    Here are some fun things to mull over.

    Current WM deficit = around £42bn

    Estimated loss of GDP for ‘best scenario’ brexit = 3.9% down.

    Post crash of 2008, GDP was reduced by, what was it,around 2.6% (happy to be corrected) , which led to a WM Deficit of £103bn at the high point (2012 was it?)

    1.3% lower is around another 50% added to that post crash deficit, so around £52bn added to the 2.6% means the post brexit (best scenario) WM deficit could jump to over £155 bn (granted that figure is over 15 years estimate)

    Now, bearing in mind Scottish independence will remove nearly £100bn from WM treasury, from things like.. GENERAL TAXATION/VAT/OIL/GAS/FISHING/FARMING/FOOD/ AND DRINK/FORESTRY/CORPORATION TAX etc….

    That is £100bn added IMMEDIATELY to the WM deficit post Indy.


    Around £42bn NOW

    Around £100bn added by Scottish independence.

    Best scenario of around £155bn added by brexit.

    Which begs the obvious Question: WHERE will WM post brexit and post Scots indy, find around £300bn in ANNUAL savings to clear the deficit ?

    Even to stand still under current fiscal conditions, WM will need to pull out a couple of hundred BILLION quid in fiscal savings.

    English welsh and N.I. voters really do have a bloody great shock coming.

    Also, without SCOTTISH oil dollars, anyone daft enough to lend WM money will be charging WONGA style interest rates.

    If these figures are not 100% accurate, or wildly out, feel free to correct them for me. Thabks in advance.

    If fairly accurate…just WOW!!

  31. frogesque says:

    @Brian Powell:3.27, 3.35

    Scottish people are Sovereign. The guide fowk of Scotland have not, so far, given a majority of MPs their consent to dissolve the Union. Unless and until that happens either through a very specific GE mandate or popular plebescite (referendum) the SG would be acting illegally in international eyes. Basically a UDI situation.

    We have to carry at least 50% of the people, 60% would be better and 70% would be game, set and match, Union over! It’s not about what us confirmed YESers want, it’s about what the majority want and there are still plenty of diehard no surrenders out there.

    There are also plenty of wavererers and soft NOs. Still all to play for.

  32. Hamish100 says:

    Been worrying. Is May’s hair wet cos the rain. Surely bbc scotchland can send a investigative journalist.

  33. Sinky says:

    Nicola Sturgeon on Channel Four at 7pm.

    Can someone remind me when UK wide BBC or ITV (or even BBC Scotland or STV) have an in depth interview with our First Minister on prime time TV?

  34. Footsoldier says:

    Naturally the BBC have not opened HYS comments for May’s flying visit to Scotland – might not like what they get.

    No problem when it’s about Sturgeon or SNP, comments are opened immediately so that they can be slagged off from all over the UK.

  35. Roughian says:

    I hear Theresa May is at leather factory in Bridge of Weir. Couldn’t get much closer to Glasgow airport!! Quick in and out of Scotland. Also I think the factory makes leather seat covers for the upper end car market. Nice.

  36. geeo says:

    By the very nature of a Treaty, if it is broken by ANY ONE of the TWO EQUAL partners, it is OVER.

    We constantly focus on Sovereign Scots needing to produce a Majority in favour of Dissolving the Treaty of Union.

    But hold on a second, if WM breach the express terms of the Treaty of Union THEY signed up to, then that treaty is OVER by THEIR HAND.

    In such a circumstance, why would Sovereign Scots need to ratify such a clear breach by the OTHER partner?

    We focus so much on OUR responsibilities to end the union, we forget that ENGLAND, by the actions of English MP’s can also End the Treaties of Union.

    And THEY do not require a majority of Sovereign Scots to do so.

    If WM subjugate Scots Law, then THEY have ended the Treaty of Union.

    If WM subjugate the Expressed will of Sovereign Scots, (brexiting us against our will) then again, THEY have ended the Treaty of Union.

    So, with that in mind, why would WE require a referendum to End a Treaty of Union ALREADY BREACHED by WM and therefore, is LEGALLY OVER ?

    A formal Holyrood vote to declare agreement that indeed the Treaty of Union is breached and as such,over, is mere paperwork formalities.

    Hence why I mention calling it a Protective Political dissolution motion.

    Our politicians represent us at Holyrood to protect us from blatant breaches of such things as the Treaty of Union.

    Otherwise, WM would simply break and end the treaty, and just carry on regardless. (As they have done previously).

    Holyroods job is to protect us from that.

    England can end the Treaty of Union for us as well.

    Worth remembering that.

  37. Welsh Sion says:

    Apologies for BBC link (and also I’d imagine that most here will say that it’s “the same old …” well you know …), but sharing the info with you in any case lest you find it a wee bit of interest.

    PS Am I right in thinking that *none* of these new presenters are actually Scots? Do correct me if I’m wrong …

  38. geeo says:

    Welsh Sion’s link archived.

  39. Bob Mack says:

    Mark Carney the Governor of the BOE has just set off a financial bomb that will blow through England. His findings are truly horrific.

    Especially in England the fact the value of their castle will fall by around a third in one year alone.

    Watch the clamour for the people’s vote.

  40. Thepnr says:

    O/T and pure speculation on my part but something I’ve been considering lately.

    It’s that I think almost everyone expects May to lose the “meaningful vote” on Dec 11th and that there will then be a second “meaningful vote” at some point and this is expected to be much closer and that May might possibly win that second vote.

    That is a possibility of course but something will have to have changed in the meantime between the first vote and the second. I posted yesterday that the government must come back within 21 days with a statement as to how they intend to proceed but the Xmas recess in reality means that this statement must be given by the 20th Dec.

    The only opportunity to get change before the 20th Dec is at the last EU Council meeting of the year on 13/14th Dec and any change agreed with the EU will not be to the Withdrawal Agreement and it can only be with the “political declaration”. It is this that has me thinking aloud.

    Much talk now of some kind of “Norway Plus” deal gaining support and being acceptable to a majority in parliament, as I see it this means remaining in the SM and the plus part is some kind of ad hoc customs arrangement specific to the UK.

    Of course if we remain in the SM that requires Freedom of Movement but what happens if the political declaration is changed to imply that the UK’s intention will be negotiating a special deal on that too specific to the UK?

    If the political declaration could be so worded that it appears that the UK could remain in the SM and CU provided all future negotiations go to plan then would that satisfy enough MP’s to back this “new” deal in a second vote?

    Specifically I’m thinking of the SNP and whether they could support a political declaration whose declared goal is to remain in both the SM and CU with conditions attached to freedom of movement and a customs union arrangement.

    This is what worries me because the political declaration is a wish list with no legal basis, it’s just more of having your cake and eating it if it includes special deals over part of it. Surely it would almost certainly be doomed to failure.

    With SNP support and enough Labour support though it would likely get through and May would have her deal.

    We would then be left with May as Prime Minister, no possibility of a GE or second EU referendum and extremely doubtful chances of an Indyref2 being held anytime in the near future with years of negotiation ahead that would likely ultimately fail.

    Would enough MP’s fall for promises in the “political declaration” that are not worth the paper they are written on? It’s a scary thought that they just might do that and be enough of a carrot to get her deal through at the second attempt.

  41. CageyBee says:

    Martin Geissler is a well Kent Hearts fanatic

  42. Bobp says:

    Cubbyby last august my wife and drove from dorset to visit family in ayr. On the way my wife acquired a urine infection. Being in some distress and with no over the counter medication available for her problem ,and being 25/30 miles from ayr, we carried on and i drove straight to ayr A+E. After booking in to reception my wife was seen and discharged within the hour. She was absolutely gobsmacked (she’s english) and had expected to wait for hours. Well done the SNHS.

  43. Liz g says:

    Thepnr @ 5.22
    Good points, but we still have the different arrangements for NI that puts Scotland at an economic disadvantage and doesn’t respect our vote!
    I can’t see the SNP voting for that…
    Not to mention the ambiguity around fishing…

  44. Breeks says:

    frogesque says:
    28 November, 2018 at 4:28 pm
    @Brian Powell:3.27, 3.35

    Scottish people are Sovereign. The guide fowk of Scotland have not, so far, given a majority of MPs their consent to dissolve the Union. Unless and until that happens either through a very specific GE mandate or popular plebescite (referendum) the SG would be acting illegally in international eyes. Basically a UDI situation….

    That’s borderline conjecture I think. You’re not entirely wrong, but make an assumption that Scotland would initiate the dissolution of the Union.

    Suppose instead the UN or ECJ was required to make a neutral and disinterested determination over an issue of sovereignty, and made a determination which recognised Scottish Sovereignty as the superior sovereignty over Westminster. Such a ruling would make claims of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty untenable, and the Union would be in its death throws.

    Similarly, if Westminster was to subjugate Scottish interests, the act of subjugation breaks the Treaty between equals, and the Union is over as a direct consequence of Westminster’s actions alone. Scotland wouldn’t need to act at all.

    Once the Treaty is formally breached, it ceases to exist and cannot be resurrected, nor kept in part. It is over. Even if circumstances arose where there was demand to resurrect a breached Union with England, it would require a whole new Union to be agreed.

    The poignant irony about that is that Scotland subscribing to a new Union which resembled Westminster’s twisted version of the current Union, especially where Scotland surrendered its sovereignty, would actually be a worse and more dangerous deal for Scotland than Theresa May’s deal with Europe represents for the UK.

  45. Movy says:

    She was at the Scottish leather factory in BofW. Do you think it’ll rebrand as the Great British leather factory? There was speculation that she was going to Tunnocks. I wonder if Tunnocks was happy to be in the frame as a potential venue?

  46. frogesque says:

    @Breeks: 5.36

    Yep a lot of conjecture, from us both I think!

    My main point is that unless the majority of Scotland want to end the Union, short of being thrown out by England ( we wish!) then no outside interference of our Sovereignty would not be tolerated.

    It’s up to us to convince the majority!

  47. Thepnr says:

    @Liz g

    The UK remaining in the SM and with some “special” customs arrangement would render the backstop as irrelevant and there would be no economic advantage for NI.

    Anyway all pure conjecture on my part with very little chance of coming true. I just thought it worth considering as right now anything really can happen so just might LOL

  48. frogesque says:

    Above, sorry for double negative. Dog stuck his nose in my lug! Lost the plot.

  49. Ottomanboi says:

    “The crucial thing for the SNP is whether Brexit goes pear-shaped economically and this changes the calculus for voters so far as the perceived economic consequences of independence are concerned. But, ironically, nobody is doing more at the moment to try and stop Brexit than Nicola Sturgeon. She’s trying to stop the one thing that actually might be to her advantage.” says john Curtice.
    Think the prof. has a valid point.

  50. ronnie anderson says:

    Thepnr Ah dont encourage people tae drink but open anither can , your depressing me wie they scenarios LoL.

  51. wull2 says:

    Lets wait to see what the EU says in December.

    May will have moved more people to YES by then.

  52. Hamish100 says:

    just seen May on bbc scotchland. whurs the actors fae yesterday? Got the boot?

  53. shug says:

    Haw Sinky are you on something!!

    “So lets have a balanced programme with constructive solutions but that may well be beyond the BBC.”

    To even begin to think that is likely you need to be on some pharmaceutical product.

    As I type Call Kaye is lining up callers for the coming week to phone in and say how Nicola cancelled their consultation.
    She will repeat at least every 3/4 minutes the Scottish Government missed their targets and it will be repeated constantly from 8.00am through to 11.00

  54. Thepnr says:

    @ronnie anderson

    I’m depressing myself with all this, might take your advice 🙂

  55. galamcennalath says:

    ” Isle of Madness

    A Series of Miscalculations Has Brought Britain to the Brink

    Brexit was to allow the United Kingdom to reclaim its former glory. Instead, the country’s leaders have bumbled their way into catastrophe. Built on a false premise from the start, the UK’s move away from the EU has been dominated by mistakes and miscalculations. “

  56. Breeks says:

    ITV “News” going in hard on No Deal Brexit. Theresa’s Deal is bad, but no Deal is really bad, which means Theresa May’s deal is good. Propaganda in action.

  57. Davie Oga says:

    Some good drama would be for the SNP MP’s to vote last and cast the deciding votes in defeating the deal.

  58. Robert Peffers says:

    @Brian Powell says: 28 November, 2018 at 3:27 pm:

    ” … Anyone know why Scotland’s MPs and MSPs can’t dissolve the Act of the Union?”

    Yes Brian, and if they don’t know it they should for it has been explained to them here on Wings often enough.

    The independent, “Rule of Law”, in the Kingdom of Scotland, (as agreed in the Treaty of Union, 1706/7), when the two kingdoms agreed to join together in union differs somewhat from that of their partner kingdom in that Treaty of Union as regards legal sovereignty.

    In the 3 country Kingdom of England the Queen of England remains legally sovereign and that means she owns the entire 3 country Kingdom of England and that includes everyone in that 3 country Kingdom of England who are Her Majesty’s Subjects.

    However, during the English kingdom’s, “Glorious Revolution”, of 1688, the Parliament of England rebelled against their monarch and deposed that monarch.

    Obviously this could not legally affect the monarchy of the Kingdom of Scotland as it was still an independent kingdom in 1688 but by marriage and descent the two kingdoms crowns were worn by the same person but there was no legal United Kingdom except personally to the Monarch.

    However, the Kingdom of England assumed illegally that because the English monarch was deposed it had also removed the monarch of Scotland and Westminster claimed that the Scots who then fought to retain their own monarch were rebelling against the monarchy that Westminster invited to replace their deposed monarchy, (William & Mary). Thus began what they deemed to be, “The Jacobite Rebellions but they also changed the Rule of Law of the Kingdom of England by forcing William & Mary to legally delegate their royal Sovereignty to the Parliament of England. Thus the 3 country Kingdom of England became, “A Constitutional Monarchy”, and it remains thus today.

    However, in the Kingdom of Scotland the Rule of Law was internationally recognised to have changed from, “The Divine Right of Kings”, (a.k.a. sovereignty), to legally making the People of Scotland, and thus not either the monarchy or the parliament, legally sovereign by the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. This remains the Scottish Rule of Law until the present day.

    This difference in the two rules of law is recorded in the Treaty of Union as having to remain forever independent of each other.

    This is why Scottish elected members cannot legally do what they want without the express authority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland. To date the Holyrood parliament has obtained just such a mandate from the legally sovereign people of Scotland to hold a second independence referendum but that is the extent of what the people have authorised them to do.

    They just cannot unilaterally act without an express mandate from the sovereign people of Scotland.

    This explanation not only explains why they cannot just declare Scotland independent but why the Scottish government must act for ALL the people of Scotland even if they are unionists who wish the union to continue.

    It is not thus either Nicola Sturgeon, nor the SNP, nor even the Holyrood Government that is preventing a simple legal declaration that the Union is over. It is there is not a recognised majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland demanding independence.

    Without that legal majority such a declaration would be an illegal, “Unilateral Declaration of Independence”, and would not be acceptable by World Powers and that acceptance is essential if an independent Kingdom of Scotland becomes legally recognised by World Powers such as the EU, UN, NATO and all World powers.

  59. galamcennalath says:


    Yup. Today’s big propaganda story is that May’s shite ‘deal’ is not as shite as no deal which is really really shite.

    No mention of the other, more probable, routes out of this fiasco.

    Who is it all aimed at? Possible so blame after failure can be laid at the feet of those elitist MPs who won’t fulfil the will of the people.

  60. Davy says:

    The STV 6.00 pm news actually tried to interview mayhem May, they gave her a hard time as she desperately tried to avoid answering the f-ing questions.

    The BBC instead gave May a completely free hand to say whatever she wanted with no interview or questions.

    No bloody surprise there then.

  61. Arabs for Independence says:

    First Minister live on C4 news very soon

  62. Proud Cybernat says:

    Some thinking ahead here…

    Remain-voting Gibraltar is accommodated in Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

    Remain-Voting accommodated in Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

    Surely there is a deep injustice here that the wishes of the largest Remain-Voting country (Scotland) of the UK is not accommodated.

    We may think we know WM’s reason but, as we know, with WM there are always ulterior motives, hidden agendas at play. So, perhaps there’s another reason why Scotland has not been accommodated in the Brexit WA.

    May knows she can’t hold off IndyRef2 forever and that it must happen some time in the not too distant. She needs a major card she can play and that card may be that when the polls show YES infront she will play VOW2 – Yes, Scotland can remain in the SM & CU if they vote NO.

    Same way as Cameron played the ‘Devo-Max’ card when YES went ahead in the polls.

    Is that their game?

  63. Dr Jim says:

    Mark Carney’s worst case scenario Brexit actually doesn’t seem all that much worse than what Theresa May’s offering and if you’ve got any money in the bank it’s actually pretty good with a rise in interest rates making the bank give us some money back instead of just using our money to invest for itself, plus a big drop in house prices can’t be all that bad if you’ve got a job because job losses don’t seem to be any worse than May’s deal anyway

    The UK suffers trade wise in all cases so maybe it’s all good, the English folk get what they think they want total control of shit all and no foreigners and Scotland is so outraged even some of the Yoons might vote for Independence

    In all cases as long as Lord Bertie Armstrong of Fishtown gets his comeuppance I’ll be happy

    What do you mean he’s not a Lord ……aye not yet, Herring anyone?

  64. starlaw says:

    Early tonight I heard on some news or another that a fish processing factory in Dingwall was to close I saw no such item on either STV or BBC’s so called Scottish news, does anyone else know more about this Dingwall factory.

  65. Hamish100 says:

    c4 news compare with BBC Scotland. C4 superior to toodiloothenoo

  66. Robert Peffers says:

    @Brian Powell says: 28 November, 2018 at 3:35 pm:

    ” … I mean English MPs weren’t elected on the basis of maintaining the Union so why specifically must Scottsh MPs be elected on the basis of dissolving it, though in fact the majority of Scottish MPs are stated supporters of Independence?
    Added to this the majority of MSPs in Holyrood are stated Independence supporters.”

    I know what you mean, Brian and I’ve given you the long and detailed explanation already. To answer these specific questions refer to the previous long explanation but here is the simple answer to those specific questions.

    When the legally sovereign people of Scotland elect anyone for anything those who ate elected are delegated to do what the legally sovereign people elected them to do.

    In The Kingdom of England it is a different set-up as the Queen of England is legally sovereign and it is her sovereignty that the elected person is delegated to act for. An English, Welsh or N.I. elected person acts for the Crown/Parliament but the elected person from the Kingdom of Scotland acts for the legally sovereign people of Scotland.

    Put another way, we Scots elect our representatives but the English, Welsh and N.I. voters elect the Queen’s/Parliament’s representative. Their problem is that there has not been an elected Parliament of England since the last day of April 1707.

    Westminster, though, has since the union always acted as if it were the Parliament of England but it never has been it has since 1 May 1707 always legally been the bipartite Parliament of the United Kingdom and that is a united kingdom – not a unified country.


  67. Proud Cybernat says:


    J.K. Rowling
    I’ve got no problem whatsoever with a second independence referendum. If the polling shows people want one, as is the case with the People’s Vote, then it should be held.

  68. call me dave says:

    Theresa repeats Elvis’s first words when she landed at Prestwick
    as the King did then in 1960.

    “Where am I”

    (The National X-word clue answer a few weeks back)



    Aye take Ronnie’s advice and stop gien them ideas. 🙂 🙂

  69. Clootie says:

    The Scottish visit by the PM – I wonder how long the media searched fo find May supporting members of the public to ensure “balance” in their reports?

  70. Robert Peffers says:

    @Ottomanboi says: 28 November, 2018 at 6:13 pm:

    ” … nobody is doing more at the moment to try and stop Brexit than Nicola Sturgeon. She’s trying to stop the one thing that actually might be to her advantage.” says john Curtice.
    Think the prof. has a valid point.”

    But then you would say that, wouldn’t you?

    Fortunately Nicola has a far better grasp of strategy that you have – furthermore she doesn’t carp endlessly against herself, the SG and the SNP as you do.

  71. Robert Louis says:

    Robert Peffers,

    I fully understand your posts regarding the people’s sovereignty in Scotland. However, I do have a question in relation to that. You say, the elected politicians of Scotland cannot end the union, without a clear mandate from the people, however, I don’t think that quite holds true.

    You see, when MP’s or MSP’s are elected they are elected to form a government, and during their term (if in government) they may choose to enact policies that could not have been predicted when elected. So, with brexit, whilst it migh be nice to get a referendum, I do not think their is any reason for the Scottish government not doing it. They are elected to act in the best interests of Scotland and its people, and clearly brexit will be bad for Scotland. Therefore they would be acting in the best interests of Scotland to end the union in order to stay in the EU – something for which they have a very clear specific democratic mandate to do.

    You see Scots have clearly expressed their desire to stay in the EU already, so it not just an option but a DUTY of the Scottish government to ensure that happens. Surely ending the 1707 union to ensure membership of the EU is retained is a perfectly valid course of action.

    1. It is supported by the claim of right (that scots are free to choose the nature of their government – so that would include EU membership).

    2. Their is a very clear democratic mandate for Scotland to stay in the EU (62% in favour).

    3. It is the duty of the elected representatives to do whatever is in the best interests of Scotland, and if that means they have to end the union treaty in order to carry out the wishes of the people of Scotland to stay in the EU, then surely it is their DUTY to do so.

    If the above is not the case, then surely what is being argued is that, their is a democratic mandate to keep Scots in the EU, but that cannot be done, because their isn’t a specific mandate to end the treaty of union of 1707. These are two major constitutional changes, so why is the mandate of the people to stay in the EU being ignored?

    You see, you cannpt argue that the Scottish government can only do something if it has a democratic specific mandate (stay in the EU) since the people are sovereign, but it cannot do another thing (and the union), because it doesn’t have a specific mandate.

    Incidentally, I do not agree that ANY government MUST have a specific mandate for a course of action, especially in dire situations such as England forcing Scotland out of the EU against its wishes. Surely, the mandate by being elected in the first place, is a delegation of people’s sovereignty, to act in the best interests of Scotland. You cannot argue that the people’s sovereignty is delegated, then in the same breath argue that they cannot act on important matters.

  72. ronnie anderson says:

    Nana that link to the Edinburgh Salmond Company 2016 £ 6.86 million loss 2017 £5.225 million loss something seriously wrong with the Management , they would have been in profit if they had produced cat food . I hope that the Scottish Gov dont bail them out for the sake of Ian Blackford’s seat .

  73. Gfaetheblock says:


    Been on the bbc since mid afternoon

  74. geeo says:

    Robert peffers@6.50pm

    All good info, but what if WM via English MP’s actions, break the terms of Union by subjugating Scots Law, or Subjugating our Scots peoples Sovereign will ?

    Then, where do the constitutional cards fall if there has been a defacto fatal breach of the Treaties of Union by England via the actions of their English MP’s ?

    In those circumstances, by the very nature of a Treaty, said treaty no longer exists, so in fact, under such circumstances, the Treaty of Union has been ended without Scots being asked, as is the right of English MP’s.

    Not having a sitting English parliament cannot be used as an excuse to simply subjugate Scots and Scots Law with impunity.

    At that point, and we are, arguably, potentially days away from such a position, it must surely become incumbent upon our elected HOLYROOD representatives to act expediently on our behalf to ensure our protections afforded by the Treaties of Union, are either FULLY upheld, (no subjugation of our sovereign will nor of Scots Law) and the only immediate way to do that is to declare the Union over by the hand of WM’s English MP’s and conclude that England has ended it.

    As such, Scotland reverts to her prior status of an Independent Kingdom.

    At that point Holyrood can only really ask Scots if we wish to have a go at creating a new Treaty of Union, of just sticking with our new, independent status.

    Or am i missing something ?

  75. shug says:

    Brian taylor’s interview was toe curling embarrassing.

    What a little creep – clearly the man has lost all spine.

    Come indy he can expect a P45 and his London masters will drop him as a failure

    Shame really for a while I thought he had potential to be a journalist

  76. geeo says:

    Robert louis 8.18pm

    Wee note to chew over.

    If Scots Law or Scots Sovereign will is Subjugated, by WM actions, why would WE have to end the Union, when WM’s subjugation will be a breaching of the Treaty of Union ?

    All our politicians need do, is point out the fact WM has dissolved it by their illegal subjugation.

  77. ahundredthidiot says:

    Confession time.

    I have always voted SNP. I have always wanted an Independent Scotland. I believe I am passionate about politics in Scotland, the UK, Europe and less so, abroad.

    I was bricking it when I X’d the Yes box in 2014.

    There, I said it.

    Now though – I am itching at the bit to vote Yes (again) in IndyRef2.

    Let that be a barometer, if nothing else, for anyone considering their options.

    To quote Outlaw King – Wallace was an ‘idea’…..well, so was 2014.

    Time to get serious.

  78. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Pandering to the lowest common denominator indeed.

  79. Petra says:

    Abracadabra. Now you see her, now you don’t.

    BBC and STV news still reporting on Big T’s visit to Glasgow. Trying to make out that she’s brave enough to visit the No Mean City (like Nicola) when in fact she scuttled in and out of a factory in a fairly remote (easy to protect) residential area of Renfrewshire.

    STV news: Bernard Ponsonby gave her a hard time. Wouldn’t let up on trying to force her to answer his question about the country being worse off with her deal. The look on her face spoke volumes.

    Channel 4 news: A wee Tory lackey went knocking on doors close to the Bridge of Weir factory. At the first house he asked the man who answered the door, if Big T visited would he talk to her. The resident said, “No.”

    In all they broadcast interviewing five people (I would love to see what they edited out). One supported Treeza and the other four didn’t hold back …. “The deal is detrimental for Scotland.” – “She’s made a dogs breakfast of it.” – “Going to make us all poorer.” – “I don’t trust her.” – “I don’t trust the Chancellor.” – “I don’t trust politicians.” – “They’re all too busy stabbing each other in the back”, etc, etc.

    All in all I doubt she converted anyone in Scotland. A flying visit, following 30 months of ignoring the Scots, won’t wash up here. I doubt she’s aware either of the fact that the Scots seem to be more politically astute than the folks down south. It might also please some to know that the factory and immediate environment stinks to high heaven. Good enough for her.


    And the Sun newspaper reporting that Nicola Sturgeon is being excluded from the debate, as she’d “wipe the floor with May.”

  80. Gfaetheblock says:

    Robert Peffers at 8.18

    But you don’t answer Ottomanboi’s question.

    Brexit = indyref trigger
    Deal is better than no deal
    Deal will make brexit quicker
    Therefore deal should be supported by SNP to get quick referendum.

    So two outcomes from sturgeons tactic, neither deliver a good outcome:

    1. Hard brexit, maybe a trigger for indyref2, but will be terrible for Scotland , in uk or Indy
    2. No, or very soft, brexit, no trigger.

    So feels like the SNP know that indyref two can’t be won so hope for outcome 2, as outcome 1 above is madness. If they were confident about indyref2, mays deal is a no brainier to support (with timetable for indyref2 as condition for support)

  81. Boudicca says:

    Q for Robert Peffers.
    Sorry if this sounds stupid, I get your point about the Kingdom of Scotland, and Of the kingdom of England being made up of three countries. But, can you pls explain the difference between a kingdom and a country. Thanks!

  82. Thepnr says:

    @Robert Louis

    Therefore they would be acting in the best interests of Scotland to end the union in order to stay in the EU – something for which they have a very clear specific democratic mandate to do.

    You see Scots have clearly expressed their desire to stay in the EU already, so it not just an option but a DUTY of the Scottish government to ensure that happens.

    Scots have also clearly expressed their desire to remain in a Union with the UK by 55% to 45% so we have a conflict of opinion here.

    If a Scottish government satisfied those that wished to Remain in the EU but at the same time ignored the express wish of those that wanted to stay part of the UK Union then who exactly have they satisfied?

    It’s obviously not possible to satisfy both majority votes so cannot be resolved by MP’s or MSP’s taking a view.

    This question of whether to remain in a Union with the UK can only be answered by those that are entitled to a say in that question and that is the Scots electorate being asked again to vote in a referendum.

    There is no easy way out, the Union with the UK will end but only when the people of Scotland tell both the Scottish government and the UK government that they want it to end.

  83. Liz g says:

    Robert Louis @ 8.18
    Well ….. Yes on matters of policy I’d agree.
    And I don’t presume to speak for Robert Peffers… I’m sure he will give you his take soon.
    But in the meantime… If ye don’t mind… here’s what I think!!
    When it comes to Our Sovereignty… I’d argue that even Holyrood dare not presume, to act!
    They did THAT in 1707 and never again should we stand for it!
    The Sovereignty is ours and only we can answer such a question.
    I’m actually hoping to have some such clause in our Constitution as never again should Holyrood be able to sign us up to a Union… any Union that lasts 300 odd years!
    300 years for fucks sake is this a political decision or a fairytale!!!
    Now we and not a bunch of Nobles are in charge.. we need to make dam sure they never get to do that again.
    EG…. Ask me to vote for EU membership right now and I’ll probably do it..
    Tell me it’s going to be for 300yrs and they will even then try to stop future Scots leaving… then Naw, I cannot commit CENTURIES of Union from Scotland
    That would be Insane.
    And MY Scottish Sanity has nay price either…
    Jist Sayin Robert L

  84. Petra says:

    @ Thepnr at 8:40pm ……

    Thanks for your post, Thepnr. We could go round and round the houses forever on here. Your post is clear and straight to the point. We need 50% plus of Scots to show that they support Scotland becoming Independent. End of.

  85. yesindyref2 says:

    The big problem is the actual question of the EU Referendum:

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

    with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):

    Remain a member of the European Union
    Leave the European Union”

    It says nothing about Scotland remaining in the EU, and considering the Miller Appeal, wording is legally important.

  86. Artyhetty says:

    Great stuff guys, is BBC Scotland really being shut down? Lol!

    I have been thinking about Scotland recently, and how 300+years of being ruled over by another country must be very difficult for the English elite to let go of. Now that Scotland has an actual Scottish political party at the helm in Scotland and 35 SNP MP’s at Westminster, they will find it hard to let go. Tear emoji.

    Scotland though, has been robbed, stolen from, used and abused. So, it’s a tug of war, in a way, because Scotland has it within her grasp to throw off the chains of subservience.

    Scotland is not a region of England no matter how much the Britnats in WM and their messengers in Edinburgh try to portray it as such.

    The silencing of the SNP in the Tv Brexit ‘debate’ is about denying Scotland a voice, denying Scotland a platform on the world stage. It’s always been thus, but now, Scotland has an actual political party not based in England.It’s scaring the beejeezus out of the British Nationlists in London,
    determined to deny Scotland having a voice, especially on the world stage. Their agenda is to deligitimise the SNP, the Scottish parliament ( while no Britnat party is in power)
    and to wipe Scotland off the world map.

    No we won’t be letting that happen, Scotland deserves her freedom now, and the world can see that. It’s well past time for the so called union!

  87. jfngw says:

    Looks like Brexit has been called by the media as falling under EVEL, Scots are not allowed to be present at any debates or on the media. Just wonder when the HoC speaker will realise this.

  88. Robert Peffers says:

    @Davie Oga says: 28 November, 2018 at 6:44 pm:

    ” … Some good drama would be for the SNP MP’s to vote last and cast the deciding votes in defeating the deal.”

    Unfortunately Westminster doesn’t work like that. The debate in the chamber goes to a vote. The Division Bell rings throughout the Commons and the Members in the chamber actually debating the matter that called for a vote are joined in the division lobby by the lobby fodder who were off doing something else, like eating, drinking or in the games rooms, gyms or whatever that we kind tax payers provide for them.

    Of course there will be a faction that try to ignore their duty and that is where the Whips come in. It is the Whips job to seek out would be absconders and, “whip”, then into the division lobby where they filter through the Yes or no lobby where they are hand counted.

    It isn’t like Holyrood where they just press a button and it shows up the total on the Presiding Officer’s monitor for an immediate and 100% accurate count.

  89. Iain mhor says:

    Intriguing as the idea is, I don’t really think breaches of the Treaty, legal declarations at Holyrood or other technicalities will bring de-facto Independence. The howls from Unionists will ensure the need for a defining or at least confirming referendum.
    There might well come a point when Scotland does find itself “Not in the Union” and with a default “Independent Status”, whether that lends itself to reinforcing a YES in a referendum, or whether it would be all hands to the pumps by Unionist voters to swing it back to NO, remains to be seen.
    A referendum will very probably have to occur though one way or another.
    Of course, the SNP could try and stand their ground in such a technical scenario for the duration of their term and try and weather the onslaught; it would take some fast international manouvering with quick treaties (especially from the EU) to nail it on. If they could manage that and if they could hold out, its possible people could be a year or so “Independent” without the sky falling in and so come to terms with it – its a bit of a long shot though.

  90. Petra says:

    Who cares? It’s only Scotland.

    ‘May and Mundell breach Commons Convention in Scotland.’

  91. geeo says:

    Iain mhor.

    Just for clarity.

    You are stating that EVEN IF Scots Law is ILLEGALLY SUBJUGATED, EVEN IF Scots People’s SOVEREIGN WILL is ILLEGALLY SUBJUGATED, the Treaty of Union STILL EXISTS ???

    That gives WM a blank cheque to abuse and demean Scotland ANY TIME THEY LIKE.

    And here you are, defending their right to do so.

    In effect, you are stating that only Scots can dissolve the treaties of Union.

    Are you actually serious ?

  92. Elmac says:

    Re Shug at 6.36pm and 8.29pm

    There has to be a day of reckoning post independence when those in politics and the media who have abused their position through lies, omission and manipulation are held to account including Kay(E). I would hope to see criminal prosecution of the worst offenders and the public shaming of the rest through an equivalent of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Revenge they say is a dish best served cold and I am prepared to wait but there must be retribution for what we have had to endure as a nation.

  93. Thepnr says:

    I’m sure most reading Wings have heard of the UN Charter on Political and Cultural Rights where paragraph 1 states:

    All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

    The important part here is “All peoples” in other words even No voters are entitled to a voice when it comes to self-determination.

  94. Thepnr says:

    In an newly Independent Scotland I don’t want a government elected by a minority just as we have now with the Tories where they can stamp all over the wishes of the majority just because they can.

    In a true democracy every voice is heard and that’s why proportional representation is a better method for electing governments than FPTP.

    Scotland can only regain Independence with majority support, it’s simply not possible to argue otherwise since that wouldn’t be Independence.

    For the majority who were against Independence it would be subjugation.

  95. geeo says:

    I am not doubting that charter nor the facts you highlight, Thepnr.

    My point is, if Scots Sovereign will and Scots Law are illegally subjugated by WM, do the Treaties of Union still apply at the point of obviously being breached by WM actions, or are they set aside by the illegal actions as a matter of simple fact ?

    I would be amazed if, legally, any treaty still existed at that point !

    Would the GFA be left wholly intact if there is No deal, and nobody allowed to end it no matter how much WM decided to treat it with absolute contempt, breaching its terms time after time ?

    Somehow doubt it.

  96. geeo says:

    No offence to anyone, but it looks like it is being claimed ONLY Scots can end the Treaty of Union.

    WM can do what they like to it, breach after material breach at the fundamental levels, nothing can be done to breach it until Scots say “hey, NOW it is breached”!

    WM nor England can end the treaty of Union, is what seems to be getting stated here.

    I totally dispute that.

  97. Robert Peffers says:

    @Robert Louis says: 28 November, 2018 at 8:18 pm:

    ” … You see, when MP’s or MSP’s are elected they are elected to form a government, and during their term (if in government) they may choose to enact policies that could not have been predicted when elected.”

    Aye! That’s how it works under English law – which is what Westminster operates under but assumes that it also applies to Holyrood because they assume Holyrood is a devolved bit of Westminster and that Westminster hold sovereignty.

    Thing is Westminster doesn’t actually have legal sovereignty over Scotland and never has had it. It says so in the Treaty of Union.

    As, under Scots law the people are sovereign, then when they elect someone it is the legally sovereign people the elected person is delegated to represent.

    In England the legally sovereign person is the Queen of England and even if the people elect them it is the monarch’s sovereignty they are delegated.

    However, English Law, decided that as from William & Mary the monarchy had to legally delegate their sovereignty to the Parliament of England. The apparent reasoning being that the sovereignty actually belonged to the kingdom and not to the king.

    Which is highlighted by how they announce the death of the English Monarch, “The King is dead – long live the King”.

    Sovereignty remains with the kingdom and instantly passes to the next in line. Previously the Monarch named their successor in their will. Elizabeth I of England caused problems because she refused to name a successor.

    The woman was full of fears and doubts. Probably because Mary, Queen of Scots had, arguably, a better claim to the English throne than Elizabeth. Hence the execution. It is suspected Elizabeth feared naming a successor as doing so would provide her successor a great motive for a royal murder. Just such a motive as had Elizabeth see off Mary Queen of Scots.

    Anyway, the essential difference is that the Queen of England is legally sovereign but must delegate the Parliament of England to exercise the Royal sovereignty. Factually Westminster is NOT the elected parliament of England it is the parliament of the bipartite United Kingdom.

    There is no actual parliament of England to delegate sovereignty to. Which means they are delegating sovereignty to the Members chosen by the people of England but the people of England are not legally sovereign so the people get to select them but the sovereignty is that of the English Crown and Westminster presumes it hold sovereignty over everyone – including Scotland.

  98. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    The FM on C4 News tonight for those who didn’t see it:

  99. Thepnr says:


    I don’t have a clue either, maybe it would be possible for the Scottish government to take a case to a higher court accusing Westminster of breaching the Treaty of Union/

    There might be many reasons for doing that such as the refusal to hand back powers from the EU that should rightfully come to Scotland and not return to Westminster.

    As I say, I’ve no idea but there is surely a difference between breeching the treaty and facing penalties than there is in ending it?

    I think to end it then that is a decision for the people of Scotland and not for the courts. Of course England would have the same choice if they wanted to do so.

  100. Welsh Sion says:

    I can’t speak for Scotland (obviously) but tucked away in the Welsh Language Act 1993 (as passed in Westminster prior to Devolution, of course), there is a provision to repeal the “Acts of Union” between Wales and England (aka “the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542”). This provision has never been invoked – but it goes to show that a ‘mere’ application of a relevant section of a Westminster Act can seemingly dissolve a/the Union. This Act was the brainchild of John Major when he was Prime Minister. Go figure!

    Go for it Scotland – and dissolve your union with England. I see no reason why you shouldn’t be able to do so. Either at Holyrood or Westminster.

    Yours, aye.

  101. Golfnut says:

    @Robert Peffers.

    I think its important to emphasise that the Queen has 2 crowns, one Scots and the other England. One is not superior to the other. When the Queen lends her Sovereignty over England, she does so ,only for her English crown. She has no authority to lend or delegate Scotland’s Sovereignty. The people of Scotland’s sovereignty is not subject to Parliament.

  102. yesindyref2 says:

    That’s good, I still have this in a tab.

    LSE did some good stuff about the Indy Ref, one of few who did at the time. It’s a bit sad they’ll be one of the worst affected by Brexit.

  103. call me dave says:

    @Jockanese Wind Talker

    Thanks for that. Excellent.

    Commentators and interviewers eh! What are they like. 🙂

    Aye buts! Independence!

    The FM plays a straight bat & tells the truth.

    (We do have cricket teams in Scotland)

  104. Liz g says:

    geeo @ 9.52
    Firstly don’t worry yer head about offense …. We are just debating it and you are as entitled to a point of view as well as anybody else..
    Anyhoo…. As I understand it Westminster cannot do anything that diluted it’s power.
    Which is why Devolution was
    A. Contested
    B.Such a fudge.
    C.Pretends to keep all power in Westminster.
    Therefore.. No Westminster cannot end the Treaty, the Treaty is their foundling document.

    So… where is the other partner (England’s Parliament) who could end it? They are long gone.. Aye?

    And yes… Scotland in 2014 approved of the Treaty, so therefore it could be argued that,only breeches of the Treaty since 2014 would count.
    And that Breeching it was so common between 1707 and 2014 the Scots would have known that Treaty breeches were likely when they voted in 2014.
    Therefore…. it would take an “extraordinary “ breech to actually matter….
    Now I know and you Know that’s not what was presented as the choice in 2014… but it was it really was.
    And Westminster are taking it that way.

    The result being, exactly what Nicola has been sayin since 2014…
    Only when the Scots demand/command her to end the Treaty can she go ahead and do so.
    She stands ready, but has told us often enough and has highlighted every breech of the Treaty.
    But only the People of Scotland are in a position to end it.
    Even if the majority in England wanted it gone, the have as yet no mechanism to do so..
    And it never seems to occur to them that their elites don’t intend to allow them to have one either, despite all that money they think they send to us!!
    So it really is a case of..Have ye had enough yet Scotland?

  105. I Note that the British legal system is now ‘doing a hatchet job’ on Carwyn Jones’ reputation following the death of Carl Sergeant.
    Is this a forerunner of how they intend to trash Alex’s reputation?

  106. yesindyref2 says:

    We as Independence supporters are arguing that NO voters were voting for a UK in the EU, so Brexit breaches that.

    Unoinists argue that Remain voters voted for a UK in the EU, having voted for a Scotland in the UK.

    We can’t have both, a Scotland in the UK, and a Scotland in the EU.

    The only solution to find out WTF the Scottish people actually want now, is a Referendum. On both. Being part of the UK, and if that’s a NO get lost it’s YES to Indy, then a second referendum on EU membership. (plus EFTA etc).

    Then Scotland will have exercised our right to self-determination, and our Sovereign will, the right to choose the form of government we want.

  107. Sinky says:

    Brilliant front page from The National tomorrow.

    Look forward to BBC and Sky Newspaper Reviews to feature it.

    Aye Right… its North of Watford so doesn’t count when we can promote The Star front pages..

  108. Liz g says:

    Golfnut @ 10.06
    That’s where Robert Peffers and I (and potentially you) disagree.
    Auld Lizzie had herself Crowned Queen of the UK
    She was never actually Crowned Queen of England and was certainly never Crowned Queen of the Scots.
    I’d say it was illegal but then in England her and her Parliament are Sovereign.
    And the bulk of Scotland has accepted her as Queen all these years.
    So for all intents and purposes I suppose she does have two Crowns…
    And we should be prepared to use that!!!
    She should be singing our Continuity Bill no matter what the Courts/Holyrood or anyone else says.
    We should not be letting her away with not doing so

  109. geeo says:


    But again, that is to say that a Treaty can be partially breached, which as far as i gather, is a legal impossibility.

    Its a treaty (agreed by ALL signatories) or it is not a Treaty.

    How it becomes NOT a treaty, is when either or both signatories, breaks an explicitly agreed term within said treaty against the direct wishes of the other party or parties involved.

    To become a treaty again, there must be a NEW agreement and THAT becomes the Treaty.

    Which is why i would maintain that if WM subjugate Scots Law and / or Scots Sovereign will, the current Treaty of Union is indeed,over.

    Now, WM acting as defacto English Parliament, are clearly never going to declare THEY are dissolving the Treaty of Union, so it falls to SCOTTISH politicians, to announce they shall be puting a PROTECTIVE motion to Holyrood to declare the Treaty as being over due to actions by WM, namely illegal subjugation as outlined earlier.

    If Holyrood then wish to forward a plebiscite to ask Sovereign Scots if they wish to instruct their representatives to enter into negotiations to re enter into Treaty with WM, or affirm they are happy to resort to the pre 1707 treaty status of being independent, that helps satisfy the Sovereign will criteria, but if WM cannot live up to nor agree to Scotlands NEW treaty terms, then the Treaty of Union stays dissolved, as caused by WM’s illegal actions (subjugation).

    Thats my take on it, if i signed a contract for a five bedroom house and the builder built just 3 bedrooms, who ended the contract ?

    A. The builder.

    I might decide feck it, 3 rooms will do, but that would involve a new contract to keep it all legal as the old agreement is ended by the dispute.

  110. Toby says:

    Re Petra @ 8.36
    The Bernard Ponsonby interview on STV news at 6.00pm was not shown on the following ITN news, nor news at 10. Instead, all that was heard was May’s usual pre-prepared obfuscation. No one else in the UK, aside from those of us watching the the STV evening news, will have seen her ‘train wreck’ of an interview, on her flying visit to the leafy suburbs of Renfrewshire.
    Hope someone with more IT skills than me can get the full interview out to a greater audience .
    Just been shown again on STV news.
    Woman can only repeat a prepared script !

  111. Cubby says:

    If you watch BBC Reporting Scotland and consider how many reporters they have it is no wonder they built such a massive building at Propaganda Quay. Each reporter must work a 7 hour week to produce their share of the propaganda. A crap propaganda program prepared by a bunch of lazy Britnats having an easy life on taxpayers money. No wonder they want to keep the gravy train running.

    If it was privatised they would probably sack about half of the staff and tell the rest to work a normal week.

    BBC Scotland = A bunch of parasites working for a foreign country.

  112. Robert Peffers says:

    @geeo says: 28 November, 2018 at 8:24 pm:

    ” … All good info, but what if WM via English MP’s actions, break the terms of Union by subjugating Scots Law, or Subjugating our Scots peoples Sovereign will?”

    What do you mean, “What if … “?

    Westminster has been doing that since 1 April 1707 and they have always got away with it because there were not enough Scots ready to stop them doing so. Westminster, on 1 April 1707 was legally the United Kingdom Government – not the continuing Parliament of the three country Kingdom of England.

    They began as they intended to go on as the continuing parliament of the country of England but with the now added, “Country”, of Scotland as just another country subjugated by England.

    Why do you think they made the claims in Indy1 that, (and I quote David Mundell here), “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”.

    The Treaty of Union does no such thing but Westminster commissioned what they claimed to be two internationally recognised constitutional experts to produce a paper that, among many other ideas, quoted just that.

    ” … Then, where do the constitutional cards fall if there has been a defacto fatal breach of the Treaties of Union by England via the actions of their English MP’s ?”

    There has been literally hundreds of breaches of the Treaty of Union since day one of the Union. Like many other criminal actions, unless someone reports the crime and demands legal action is taken then nothing is done about it.

    I’ll quote you just a couple of such obvious breaches – The Poll tax being levied in Scotland before being levied in England,

    The entire system of devolution. The fact there is no Parliament of England. No one made complaint so there was no action taken and Westminster carried on as the master race running England but devolving England’s powers, (that they do not legally have), to their only partner kingdom in the United Kingdom.

    Of course they then claimed, “Custom & practice”, has legitimised their actions.

    ” … In those circumstances, by the very nature of a Treaty, said treaty no longer exists, so in fact, under such circumstances, the Treaty of Union has been ended without Scots being asked, as is the right of English MP’s.”

    Of course it isn’t until there is an official complaint made and acted upon. Which is why Westminster instigated the Supreme Court and stacked it against Scottish action.

    ” … Not having a sitting English parliament cannot be used as an excuse to simply subjugate Scots and Scots Law with impunity.
    At that point, and we are, arguably, potentially days away from such a position, it must surely become incumbent upon our elected HOLYROOD representatives to act expediently on our behalf to ensure our protections afforded by the Treaties of Union, are either FULLY upheld, (no subjugation of our sovereign will nor of Scots Law) and the only immediate way to do that is to declare the Union over by the hand of WM’s English MP’s and conclude that England has ended it.”

    And we are back to that, “Custom & Practice thing again with the claims of Westminster that we should have spoken up at the time and not accepted the abuse of power. All very well but it is still an uphill battle to get people to see the truth that the United Kingdom is exactly what it claims to be in its title, “The United Kingdom”, not The United Country not even a single country nor even a single kingdom but a bipartite union of kingdoms and not a quadratic union of countries.

    The Treaty has only two signatories kingdoms and neither of them signed up as countries. Which is why they have a royal signature and two royal seals were attached to the document.

    We cannot expect action to be taken by Westminster and we cannot expect action from a Scottish government unless it has a clear mandate from the sovereign people.

    I believe that the Nicola and the SG are playing a blinder and their tactics should lead to backing through the ECJ and get the backing of the United Nations. We may also expect to get the backing of at least a majority of the EU member states who must be fed up to their back teeth with Westminster’s hi-jinks by this time.

    No matter of the justice of any state that has broken away from another state the fact still remains – if the international community does not accept their case their case has failed.

    For example Palestine has a great case but has not nearly enough backing from the international community to make their case stick.

  113. Collie says:

    Sinky,,,,Sky News paper review actually ran with the National front page story and the guests in the studio backed the stance the National took.

  114. Cubby says:


    Not one of your better posts. A wee tinge of the cringe.

  115. Thepnr says:


    The subject of violation of treaties after a quick google appears to be very complex and far too complex for me to make any sense of in an hour or two.

    So I’ll come back to what common sense tells me and that is treaty or not without majority support for Independence in Scotland itself then it is not possible to become Independent.

    The EU or the UN are not going to raise a finger in support of an Independent Scotland that England crushes by force without the Scottish people having given majority support in the first place.

    My question to you is why wouldn’t you fight first for majority support? Do you fear that we cannot ever gain that, why when we are so close are you against asking Scots if they have changed their mind since 2014?

    This is what I fail to get, we’re nearly there anyway and if we can’t bring the majority of Scots with us then any other kind of “Independence” is not worth having in my opinion.

    Either Scotland votes for Independence and gets it or it doesn’t.

    All questions answered and nobody need die in the process. Only persuasion of those that voted No or were undecided in 2014 will win the day, anything other way is fanciful thinking.

  116. From the Mail on line reporting:

    NHS should be run like McDonalds health Secretary Matt Hancock says.

    Don’t you just love it when the Tories let the truth slip out

    They could then take all credit and debit cards.

    Drive through consultation, if you can afford it.

    The proles? Well who cares about the proles certainly not the Tories or Labour.

  117. geeo says:

    Good god !!

    If Scottish political representatives cannot make a COMPLAINT on OUR behalf, to ENABLE a plebiscite to see “if enough of us indeed do object” then how the fuck do we ever address breaches of the treaty ?

    We gave a mandate in 2016 did we not ?

    Was that not clear instruction for our politicias to hold an indyref from Sovereign Scots ?

    Yet here we are saying if WM says fuck off, we contantly breach the treaty terms and just do not care, there is fuck all we can do as we are trapped in a paradox where we have no means of instructing our politicians by proving a majority want something, and actually facillitating those politicians to give us what we instruct.

    May as well just pack up and go home.

    Fucks sake !!

  118. Hamish100 says:

    Re May’s visit to Bridge of Weir. Has the leather factory only got 5 staff? We’re the rest locked away in case they asked difficult questions. Reminded me of pictures local Tory constituency meetings A wee cup ot Tea.

    Tories are contemptuous of Scotland. May mentioned Scottish fishing. The pelagic fleet have been sold out. English French Spanish fishing fleets etc will take their quotas. Fish should be processed in Scotland for hygiene reasons. Of course not, they will head south to England.

  119. geeo says:

    I never ever said no to indyref2.

    My point is what can be done if WM simply says feck off not happening.

    All i read is nothing can be done.

    So..tell me, what CAN be done if WM simply says gtf no indyref ?

    All ears where the leverage comes from.

  120. Rock says:

    Boudicca says:
    28 November, 2018 at 8:39 pm

    “Q for Robert Peffers.
    Sorry if this sounds stupid, I get your point about the Kingdom of Scotland, and Of the kingdom of England being made up of three countries. But, can you pls explain the difference between a kingdom and a country. Thanks!”

    Very good question.

    I guess he will answer after doing extensive research on Wikipidea.

  121. Rock says:

    geeo says:
    28 November, 2018 at 11:08 pm

    “So..tell me, what CAN be done if WM simply says gtf no indyref ?”


    Establishment lawyer Nicola informs the Scottish public that she cannot call an independence referendum without a Section 30 order from Westminster.

    But she says that Westminster has assured her one will definitely be granted in 2640 AD.

    Just a bit more patience folks.

  122. Thepnr says:


    So..tell me, what CAN be done if WM simply says gtf no indyref?

    I would guess then that it takes us all the way back to this:

    All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

    Nothing can stop us having a vote on our right to self-determination so fear not. One way or another we will have that vote.

  123. Robert Peffers says:

    @Boudicca says: 28 November, 2018 at 8:39 pm:

    ” … can you pls explain the difference between a kingdom and a country. Thanks!”

    Well, besides the point that kingdom’s are all monarchies and all monarchies are diametrically opposites of democracies. You cannot have a democracy when the monarchy is sovereign.

    A country is a geographic term and, for example the country of England was once composer of many smaller kingdoms.

    For example Wessex, Essex, Cumberland, Northumberland and so on were once all smaller kingdoms. Furthermore, Ireland was a country but there were many kings and kingdoms but they had a High King as the supreme leader and monarchs all claimed to have the divine right of Kings – that is they claimed they were chosen by God.

    However the real natural order has always been that the people were ultimately sovereign in that no monarch could survive unless, for any reason including fear, the people allowed them to rule. Think of the French and Russian revolutions and the American War of independence.

    The Kingdom of Scotland was an anomaly in that the monarch was deemed to be NOT sovereign but was the protector of the people’s sovereignty and that is still Scots law.

    England, three countries, is also an anomaly in that the parliament forced their monarchy to legally delegate the Divine Right to Rule to the Parliament of England but, that was not the people’s parliament it was the aristocracy who took power from the monarchy. (Hence a House of Lords still exists).

  124. Rock says:

    Meg merrilees says:
    28 November, 2018 at 10:29 pm

    “I Note that the British legal system is now ‘doing a hatchet job’ on Carwyn Jones’ reputation following the death of Carl Sergeant.”

    There is no such thing as the “British legal system”.

    Only the English legal system, and its puppet, the pretendy and rotten to the core “independent” Scottish legal system.

  125. Rock says:

    Robert Peffers says:
    28 November, 2018 at 11:20 pm

    “Well, besides the point that kingdom’s are all monarchies and all monarchies are diametrically opposites of democracies. You cannot have a democracy when the monarchy is sovereign.”

    Where did you learn that shite from?

    Is the Kingdom of Norway not a democracy?

  126. Dave McEwan Hill says:


    We should surely purloin the “Better Together” slogan. Nice posters with the flags of all of Europe and smiling European faces with the title “Better Together”.

  127. Thepnr says:

    Won’t be long now I would think before the Union collapses under a stinking pile of it’s own incompetence.

    I can be patient, good things come to those that wait 🙂

  128. Rock says:

    Robert Peffers says:
    28 November, 2018 at 11:20 pm

    “A country is a geographic term”

    Does that mean “Britain” is a country?

    Robert Peffers (22nd March 2016 – “Blood and soil socialism”):

    “The British Nations are:-

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland:
    The Republic Of Ireland:
    The Bailiwick of Jersey:
    The Bailiwick of Guernsey:
    and The Isle Of Man.

    What’s more every bloody one of them is British for, by definition, they all live in the geographic archipelago of Britain.”

  129. geeo says:

    Thepnr 11.20pm.

    Ok, so far so good, but how do we express to our politicians that we WANT THEM to enable such a referendum ?

    A. They act on our behalf, they make the call, that is what we want as a result of WM refusal to play ball.

    So, how is that different from Holyrood making a PROTECTIVE decision on our behalf and then caveating that protective action by then turning it over to US to decide ?

  130. Gerry says:

    Y’all have some interesting observations on the sovereign nature of our country and the Acts of union.

    Important to remember though that a statute can only be enforced with consent, which is why you have to stand up in a court when the guy with the wig appears, in order that he has gained jurisdiction over you, and can then, and only then subject you to the force of a statute.

    Consent is not something that is required only to be given once. You walk into a court and give your consent to be under the jurisdiction of a statute on Monday, you aren’t subject to that same jurisdiction the next day, or year, or for that matter 311 years.

    Question – The treaties and act of union were consented to where on Scots behalf ? Answer – In the same place that it can be legally withdrawn from.

    The clarification and recognition of the claim of right in WM was a clever move indeed. We are sovereign, and only subject to the jurisdiction of statute law by our own consent, which makes the union far more soluble than many would have us believe.

  131. Thepnr says:


    That’s simple you join in the marches, get active, send them an email. You decide, you know better than me how YOU can let them know.

  132. Hamish100 says:

    Rock your up late. Past your bedtime son or you abroad escaping Brexit? Lol

  133. Cubby says:

    Tobias Elwood Tory MP Minister for Defence on newsnight tonight making a big noise re Britain having to get back to good old fashioned British values. That we would be invading countries, killing people and stealing their resources in nearly every part of the globe. He says kids need to know right from wrong. It’s simple – voting Tory is wrong because they are monsters. Invading and colonising countries is wrong.

    It’s like the Mafia saying they are fed up with crime.

  134. Andrew Gordon says:

    Just sat and watched Scottish Question from HOC.
    What a f*****g disgrace David Mundell is.
    The whole travisity of this interaction with the UK parliment just shows the utter contempt there is for Scotland.
    I have no time for the speaker of the house but surely he should be able to call out blatent lying in the house.
    What i listened to was blatent lying, this surely breaches the rules but oh no its Scotland we are discussing so lying is the norm.
    Unfortuneatly this is never broadcast in primetime, surprise surprise people might get the wrong idea, i am running out of stuff to say as i am so exasperated after listening to tnis garbage and none of our elected officials getting a chance due to English and Scottish tories talking pish.
    Sorry for my spellkng, not my stong suite.
    FFS can we just run our own affairs

  135. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Craig Murray posted a link to this via Twitter.

    Powerful stuff about the Guardian, Assange, and a whole lot more.

  136. Cubby says:

    Are Scots even capable of smiling?

    I’ll be smiling for a long time when our representatives terminate the Treaty of Union 1707 and I never have to hear another bloody tractor of a Scot Britnat Tory say our precious Union.

    The Treaty of Union is an international bi partite Treaty. It can be terminated at any time by either party to the agreement for any reason or none at all. Who can terminate it – the representatives of either Scotland or England.

    Of course if Scotland was really costing England £15billion per annum do you not think the English would have terminated the treaty a long long time ago. On the other hand as the English are actually ripping of Scotland to the tune of Billions every year the question has to be why are our political representatives not terminating the treaty. ( l look forward to an appropriate admonishment from Mr Peffers)

  137. Thepnr says:


    See when you and exactly 50% of Scots decide the Treaty of Union should be terminated I’ll smile too.

  138. Cubby says:


    Your verbal diahorrea has got out of hand tonight. You can get a remedy at your nearest Pharmacy.

    What a way to make a living. Spouting out crap everywhere.

  139. mike cassidy says:

    Thepnr 11.01

    Only persuasion of those that voted No or were undecided in 2014 will win the day, anything other way is fanciful thinking.

    Do not forget the newly enfranchised.

    That’s four years of young Scots and counting.

  140. Thepnr says:

    @mike cassidy

    Fair point though I assume like in 2014 a majority of them will be Yes voters. Likewise we may have lost more No voters than we have Yes through demographics.

  141. mike cassidy says:

    Re my post on the newly enfranchised at 12.21

    By pure coincidence

  142. Cubby says:


    You got in there fast before Mr Peffers.

    I don’t think 50% of Scots decided to authorise the treaty in 1706/7.

    Perhaps we should dispense with political representatives and have a referendum for every decision. Let’s have a referendum to decide if we want to decide everything by referendum.
    Problem – who decides the rules/ process/ success criteria for this initial referendum. Let’s have a referendum to decide who should decide. Wait a min who ……………

  143. Thepnr says:


    That’s my point, Scotland allowed others to make that decision for them in 1707 which was a big mistake and “others” shouldn’t get to make that decision now.

    Only we the sovereign people of Scotland will make that choice, nobody else.

  144. Cubby says:

    Brexit no thanks – Independence yes please.

    My personal message to my representatives in Holyrood and Westminster.

  145. mike cassidy says:

    Oh, look!

    The perfect Christmas present for all the trolls in your life.

    And its only 44 pages long.

    That’ll give Rock another number to play with.

  146. mike cassidy says:

    The Herald’s exclusion article archived.

    With friends like that …!

  147. geeo says:

    Thepnr says:

    28 November, 2018 at 11:47 pm


    That’s simple you join in the marches, get active, send them an email. You decide, you know better than me how YOU can let them know.

    But its not that simple.

    Unless a majority turn up at the march, how do our political representatives know a MAJORITY want indy?

    How did we get 2014 indyref ?

    A. We voted for a POLITICAL PARTY with an indyref as a manifesto pledge.

    That party WON the Election.

    But to have a representative MAJORITY of Scots, we also needed a MAJORITY of MSP’s to ratify it.

    It was purely incidental that majority was passed by one party winning 65 seats in 2011.

    In 2016, we elected the party with a heavily and precisely caveated manifesto pledge, to hold an indyref.

    That STILL required a MAJORITY of MSP’s, as in 2011 so the referendum was fully representative of ALL Scots.

    We won that endorsement by 69 – 60 but this time it took TWO parties votes.

    So there we are, WE the Sovereign Scots, have Instructed our political representatives to HOLD AN INDYREF (as all caveats were met in full.

    Nobody is disputing that.

    It is an absolute reality.

    My point is, and always has been this, and frankly, I am struggling to find the difficulty or folks to understand it….

    What do we do if WM tries to say NO we cant have one ?

    And the answer is not to go on a march, since we already established that we have already mandated our representatives, to act on our behalf to hold an indyref.

    Clearly, since our representatives already have our instruction to Act re:indyref, they are also charged with delivery.

    Therefore they are entitled to FORCE the issue by ALL AND ANY LEGAL MEANS on our behalf.

    Threatening to dissolve the Union at Holyrood as a PROTECTIVE measure, and passing the question on to the People seems perfectly reasonable use of leverage to me.

    What else are we meant to do ffs ??

    What is the point of having politicians if they are not there to represent us ?

  148. Thepnr says:


    Our politicians not only represent “us” they represent all Scots. So get 50%+ of the vote in any election and that is as good as a referendum. I’d go along with that.

  149. Cubby says:


    I think you are missing the point. In 1706/7 the representatives were not elected by the sovereign people of Scotland. As per one of your posts re no voters they are represented by their political MPs and MSPs and of course complete control of the media. Is complete control of the media acceptable democracy.

    The current Brexit shambles is a direct result of a people’s vote / referendum.

    Who decides termination of the treaty should only be by a referendum? When was thepnr mandated to make such a decision and by what authority/process. Did the sovereign Scots vote for you to decide? I must have fallen asleep when the Scots by a majority in a referendum said that they could only terminate the Treaty by a referendum. Did they say it had to be once in a generation? Did they define a generation?

    The vast majority of decisions are taken by politicians with a minority vote. Iraq war – no referendum.

    Did Thatcher have a referendum asking sovereign Scots – lay waste to Scotland YES. NO

  150. Thepnr says:


    When was thepnr mandated to make such a decision and by what authority/process. Did the sovereign Scots vote for you to decide?

    And just who gave you authority to decide otherwise? hahaha

    Are YOU scared of a referendum?

    If so please explain why otherwise I might be tempted to think that you’re just stirring the shit for your own reasons whatever they might be.

  151. boris says:

    Chamberlain 1895:

    “The English press is the most insufferably arrogant, generally ignorant, the most passionately one-sided and narrow-minded in its judgments that I know; it is the universal bully, always laying down the law for everybody, always speaking as if it were umpire of the universe, always abusing everybody all round and putting party spirit in all its judgments, envenoming thus the most peaceful discussions. It is this and this only which has made England hated all the world over.”

  152. geeo says:

    Hold on Thepnr…

    50% vote share in a WM general election is how you believe the Treaty of Union can end ?

    In 2015 the SNP took 95% of seats on just about 50% or the VOTE.

    So you are now setting a 95% of WM Scots seats target, as your indy benchmark ?


    2017 GE : SNP 35 SEATS = 36.9% vote share.

    2015 GE : SNP 56 SEATS = 50.0% vote share.

    2010 GE : labour 41 SEATS = 42% vote share.

    2005 GE : labour 42 SEATS = 39.5% vote share.

    2001 GE : labour 56 SEATS = 43.3% vote share.

    1997 GE : labour 56 SEATS = 45.6% vote share.

    I could go on but frankly, 50% has NEVER been achieved outside of combined Unionist coalitions pre 1955.

    No single party other than the SNP in 2015 has ever won 50% or the vote share.

    And THAT is the criteria you want to use ?

    You surely want to rethink that idea.

  153. Thepnr says:


    No I don’t want to rethink that idea in fact I should have added that only 50%+ standing in an election specifically on an Independence ticket would count.

    I wouldn’t care how many parties that took so you could add together the Green Vote and the SNP for example if they both clearly stated that a vote for them was a vote for Independence.

    That’s another way of ensuring that you have the majority of sovereing Scots votes. Without majority support Independence is not possible.

    Why would anyone and that includes you and Cubby want it to be any other way? That’s what I find difficult to understand.

  154. Cubby says:

    thepnr @1.23am

    Sorry but not stirring any shit. No one gave me any authority just the same as you – unless you are an MP or MSP.

    The difference between our positions is that you are of the opinion that it must be a referendum. I am not. No I am not scared of referendums- A pretty silly question. Not convinced of the merits of them but if our political representatives decide that is the case then that is what I am arguing for. You are arguing that it has to be a referendum whether or not the political representatives think it should be otherwise.

    Does this help clarify my reasons. Just putting my case forward.

  155. Cubby says:

    “Without majority support independence is not possible”


  156. Thepnr says:


    “Without majority support independence is not possible”


    I think the answer is obvious, just who would be Independent?

    Clue: It wouldn’t be the Scots.

  157. Thepnr says:

    Something else to mull over. What percentage of support from Scots are required then in order to become Independent?

    Is 45% the minimum?

    How about 40% or even 35% would any of those figures be acceptable in order to be able to govern in an Independent Cubbyland?

  158. geeo says:


    Fancy checking how many Scottish GE results since EVER (2015 aside) would have carried indy support over 50% ?

    Apart from the utterly freakish 2015 election ?


    You are trying to back a horse that, rather than have 3 legs, but was infact stillborn.

    Yet again you completely ignore that i never ever claimed the primary choice would/should NOT be a majority plebiscite win.

    I merely suggested a protective dissolution caveated by a Holyrood run plebiscite, would be a perfectly ok option, and as such, satisfies Scots Law and our sovereign will.

    I shall try again.

    Scotsgov requests a S.30.

    Treeza say : “GTF”

    According to you,we say “ok” and sit on our hands until 2021 GE at WM and hope to achieve a repeat of an actually once in a lifetime/history event, namely that 50% vote share.

    WM has subjugated Scots Law

    WM has subjugated Scots Sovereignty.

    WM has told Scotland No S.30.

    WM will ruin the Scots economy by brexiting us against our will.

    “Wait till 2021” aint going to cut it.

    If SNP let the above happen, they will be nearer 15 % of the vote never mind 50%.

    C’mon….really ?

  159. Kangaroo says:

    FYI of non history buffs.

    Mary Queen of Scots was great granddaughter of Henry 7 of England
    Elizabeth 1 was daughter of Henry 8 of England and Anne Boleyn.
    There was a question mark over this marriage as it was under Church of England as Henry set up his own church to enable him To Mary Anne Boleyn. Thus the English Catholic’s considered Elizabeth a bastard and therefore not a legitimate heir. Hence in their eyes Mary Queen of Scots had a better claim to the English throne.

    Elizabeth’s spies lured Mary into sending secret letters to Philip of Spain to assist her escape from prison. When she was beheaded this gave Philip his excuse to gather forces and launch the Spanish Armada in 1588.

  160. yesindyref2 says:

    I’m with you, but the 50%+1 vote in an election should be a last resort, if a referendum isn’t “allowed” by Westminster, and if a ScotGov attempt to go ahead anyway is challenged successfully in court. There is no such thing as an illegal referendum, unless the ScotGov attempted to go ahead AFTER it had failed in court – the Court of Sessions that is. The ScotGov is perfectly entitled to try to hold one, same as the EU Withdrawal Bill – even if that does lose out.

    A weaker alternative is for an SNP majority of SNP MPs, but without that popular 50%+1 number of votes) to go for UDI on the sole conditiojn it was for an Indy Ref, that having been denied in other ways.

    That’s where I see democracy – and self-determination. The only alternative is a signed petition, probably with actual signatures and full verifiable addresses.

  161. Kangaroo says:

    geek @2:26am sorry to disturb the thread. There appears to me to be two different subjects being discussed at the same time.

    Re: Indy
    The discussion seems to have got stuck on whether there is another way out of the Union other than a referendum. IMHO there is, that was the purpose of the Scottish Continuity Bill and its subsequent Supreme Court(SC) challenge. To answer the question of legality the issue of Sovereignty must firstly be considered by the SC. Judgement due by end of Oct 18. They seem to be having difficulty coming up with a fudge which will stand up to scrutiny when challenged at the European Court of Justice. At least that is my take on it.

    See my post here @4:19am

  162. Kangaroo says:

    Apologies geek should have been geeo

  163. yesindyref2 says:

    Some observations, and it’s obviously personal opinions.

    1). Unionists like to bring in Quebec and Catalonia, but they are not Scotland. It’s not that Scotland is unique, it’s that Scotland is not the same, constitutions are different, legalities are different. They do this to distract and confuse, and provoke anger.

    2). UDI also often rears its head, and both sides do this. I’m a little puzzled frankly why Unionist agitators or agents provocateurs should do so, as there are and have been legal and accepted UDIs, and those Unionists are playing with fire. In the correct circumstances, UDI could stick, and potentially fairly quickly in the case of Scotland which is of high strategic value – as in the GIUK and Arctic. The correct circumstances do not yet exist, and may not exist at all.

    4). There’s also talk about “tanks on the streets”. Well, I really can’t see that happening. Scotland and the UK operate on a Rule of Law, and the UK is not just a member of the UN security council, it is a key member of NATO. Can you imagine the embarrassment for both, if the UK was retaining control of Scotland by military occupation? Let alone the huge weakening of NATO, and the weakening of the defences of the North Atlantic, North Sea, Baltic and Arctic. It’s about as likely as Theresa May discovering she has a heart.

    3). There is no number 3. Ho hum.

  164. Kangaroo says:

    Re: Difference between a Country and a Kingdom

    For Monarchy see Civilian Dictatorship

    A Country is an area of land usually under the control of one of the Forms of government.

    Historically Scotland and England are Kingdoms.

    In England the people are Subjects and you have Her Majesties Navy etc which underlines the legal situation.

    In Scotland due to the Declaration of Arbroath, the Claim of Right etc the Monarch was our protector and the people are Sovereign.

    Fundamentally the two Sovereignties are distinct and cannot be merged due to their differing styles.

  165. sandy says:

    WM is, purportedly, the UK parliament. Doesn’t that make EVEL illegal. Am I right in saying that no parliamentary vote was taken on this issue?

  166. yesindyref2 says:

    A good article in the Record about May’s Osborne style visit.

    I feel a concensus here – we and they don’t like May’s Brexit, and we don’t like her, nor do we like Mundell: “The Scottish Secretary David Mundell tagged along on the visit to Bridge of Weir”.


  167. Ken500 says:

    GE turnout 50/60%. Voting for 3 or 4 parties. Winner gets less % of the vote. 27% can be a landslide. No 16 years+ voting. Or migrants.

    Referendum (Scotland) 16 year old/migrant voting. 85% turnout. Possible to get 50%+ share of the vote. YES/NO.

    Migrants voting NO to stay in the EU. If they had voted YES etc ?

    EU Ref – No migrants or 16+ voted. Or the results could have been higher to Remain.

  168. Petra says:

    @ Toby says at 10:41 pm … ”Petra – The Bernard Ponsonby interview on STV news at 6.00pm was not shown on the following ITN news, nor news at 10. Instead, all that was heard was May’s usual pre-prepared obfuscation. No one else in the UK, aside from those of us watching the the STV evening news, will have seen her ‘train wreck’ of an interview, on her flying visit to the leafy suburbs of Renfrewshire. Hope someone with more IT skills than me can get the full interview out to a greater audience.”..

    Ponsonby got right into her ribs (on 6pm news). No doubt STV were given their orders to edit that part. Seems that’s the name of the propaganda game in Scotland, Toby.


    ‘Scotland has only one route out of this calamitous Brexit mess.’

    …”Scotland has only one safe route out of this mess, and that’s by voting for independence in another independence vote, whether that’s a referendum or a plebiscite election.
    The time for that vote is the second that we can be certain that there will be no early Westminster General Election or no second EU referendum. If Scotland wants political stability and clarity, we won’t get it from the morally and intellectually bankrupt UK. We have to build it for ourselves.”


    ‘Yes movement gears up for nationwide St Andrews Day celebrations.”


    ‘JK Rowling just nailed the argument for indyref2.’

  169. Petra says:

    ‘Two SNP politicians make global list of ‘100 future leaders’.’

    …”While Black and Yousaf were not in the top 20, no other UK MPs or MSPs made the list.”..


    ‘Are 547 000 000 outdoor trips, up 38%, helping to reduce obesity in Scotland?’


    ‘Should the National have denied the BMA the chance to spread anxiety about NHS Scotland?’


    ‘Reporting Scotland’s obsession with NHS targets undermined by BMA study.’


    ‘Conservative Party could face electoral defeat on 1997 scale over Brexit, former Tory minister warns.’

  170. Petra says:

    ‘Two SNP politicians make global list of ‘100 future leaders’.’

    …”While Black and Yousaf were not in the top 20, no other UK MPs or MSPs made the list.”..


    ‘Are 547 000 000 outdoor trips, up 38%, helping to reduce obesity in Scotland?’


    ‘Should the National have denied the BMA the chance to spread anxiety about NHS Scotland?’

  171. Petra says:

    ‘Reporting Scotland’s obsession with NHS targets undermined by BMA study.’


    ‘Conservative Party could face electoral defeat on 1997 scale over Brexit, former Tory minister warns.’

  172. Breeks says:

    I don’t accept the argument that a democratic mandate is a vital necessity to secure before you can enact Scottish Sovereignty, nor for that matter, declare the Union Treaty breached.

    Yes, of course, such action is greatly legitimised if it is backed by a popular majority, but that democratic majority is the clear loser in the proverbial chicken and eggs scenario over which came first. If you have Sovereignty, the power to make a democratic decision is yours. If you are not sovereign, then whoever is sovereign can overrule your democracy. Fact. Be in no doubt, if you could only rescue one from a burning building, save Sovereignty first every time. Democracy is insured.

    There is actually a parallel conundrum about whether Sovereignty established by invasion, bloodshed or conquest is actually a legitimate sovereignty. But by conventional and literal definition, if you cannot repel your invader or defeat their power, then they are indeed sovereign over you.

    But Scotland is different. Scotland is not “conventional”. Scotland’s 14th Century Sovereignty broke the rules of convention because it’s permanence occurred in a world where Sovereignty was inconstant, contestible, and winnable by force. Sovereign legitimacy came from the defiance of anybody to defeat the claim. But suddenly, up springs the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath, and especially once formally recognised in 1328 by the Good Lord’s eyes and ears on Earth, his Holiness the Pope, (and England’s Dowager Queen Isabella too), Scotland had a different type of sovereignty altogether, and a sovereignty which could not be taken from the people of Scotland by force, duress, or any corrupt endeavour. We Scots, by our ancient and undisputed Constitution could not be, and cannot be stripped of our sovereign birthright.

    Conquest might defeat us militarily, but couldn’t lay claim to legitimate sovereignty.
    Corrupt monarchy could not dispense with Scotland’s Sovereignty because it was not theirs to dispose of.
    Intermarriage, heirs to the throne or breeding dynasties could not alter or diminish Scotland’s Sovereignty.
    Scotland’s popular Sovereignty was, and remains, “ruler proof”. If the people of Scotland are sovereign, nevermind how we ourselves interpret that, by literal definition, it’s means NOBODY is sovereign above us, and anyone claiming to be sovereign over us does so WITHOUT Constitutional legitimacy.

    It does not take a democratic majority to “legitimise” testing of a false Constitutional claim over our Sovereignty. The claim of Sovereignty is a binary issue – either somebody is sovereign or they are not. It is an absolute condition. All that needs to be done is to test the fallacy in law and expose its illegitimacy and the claim is defeated.

    HOWEVER, yes, I might be persuaded that this Constitutional Sovereignty which we know we have, does not lead the charge to defeat the Union, but rather, it should learn from Northern Ireland’s Backstop arrangement. Recognition of Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty should be our own Backstop and ever present precondition wherever we have dealings with Westminster. But it should be clear and understood by all that our Scottish Backstop is not being implemented solely to accommodate democratic sensibilities, but should common purpose not be agreed by consensus, then the Scottish backstop overrules all ephemeral opinion.

    It is in those circumstances described above that I am personally resigned to the process of opinion polls and IndyRef discussion, but ultimately, and being honest, I have more faith in the Sovereign Backstop than I do in a timid and ponderous shuffling of feet towards the reluctant “least worst” option of Independence. I just don’t get it. It is an unfathomable strategy to me.

    Even bending over backwards to accommodate political discourse and consensus via popular persuasion, I simply cannot understand why the SNP, a political organisation which sets out to restore Scotland’s Constitutional Independence and Sovereignty seems so clumsy, inarticulate and frankly “lame” when it comes to promoting the narrative of Scotland’s legitimate Constitutional Sovereignty.

    You don’t have to press the red button, but where is the sense in denying you have the red button ready to press?

    We don’t have to assert our Sovereignty (though why wouldn’t we?) but where is the sense in allowing Westminster’s claim of Parliamentary Sovereignty to pass unchallenged? We need only look at Brexit to see what happens.

  173. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Just how much today’s media is trapped inside the London/Westminster bubble has surely seldom been emphasised as much as by an article, by Aditya Chakrabortty in today’s Guardian.

    The article is focussed on Labour’s John McDonnell, but, might just as well be about the SNP and the case for Independence. This is never better emphasised than in the final paragraph, in which Chakrabortty writes:

    “The civil society that helped previous generations of Labour politicians generate those ideas is much thinner now. The Greater London Council, in which McDonnell began his career in politics, was once an incubator of alternative political ideas. But Margaret Thatcher did for the council and flogged off its base, County Hall. A similar decline and shrinking has befallen many of the other institutions that could foster alternative visions of society, from the unions to even the BBC. All of which means that, if McDonnell and his colleagues are to try to repair the damage that has been done to this country by austerity, and before that by the Thatcherite thugs, they will need more than the Labour party. They will need a full-blown social movement.”

    Here in Scotland, thanks to the SNP, we still have a vibrant civic society. The Scottish Parliament is our equivalent of the Greater London Council – and with the Tories’ notions of “taking back control” after Brexit, it seems clear that May and her little elf Mundell would not hesitate to shut Holyrood down in an instant.

    I think, however, where it comes to Scotland – the BBC’s “alternative visions of Scottish society” are somewhat Londoncentric.

    However, for Scotland, the hope is in the final two sentences of the paragraph, because, one thing which Scotland has, which London and England as a whole lacks is a full-blown social movement – the Yes Movement.

    Westminster, particularly the Tories, will fight hard, and they will fight dirty to hang onto Scotland – they dare not lose us. But, together, even allowing for the diehard Unionists among us – Scotland can win and be Independent once more.

  174. Luigi says:

    yesindyref2 says:

    29 November, 2018 at 5:48 am

    “The Scottish Secretary David Mundell tagged along on the visit to Bridge of Weir”.

    Aye, I thought the invisible man, he who has not resigned yet, would crawl out from under some stone at the last moment. An opportunity to kiss his leader’s backside was just too good to miss. 🙂

  175. Nana says:


    Patrick Grady mp says
    Trying to sell her shambolic deal, the PM is in Scotland today, but people will not forget the utter contempt with which she treated Scottish voices and institutions.

    May invades Glasgow today but bans the only Scottish Newspaper that backs independence.

  176. Nana says:

    The BBC are being played by secretive ultra-right think tanks funded by shadowy corporate interests. Why do they invite the ‘IEA’ on to advocate privatising the NHS when neither we not they know who (private healthcare? big pharma?) funds them?

    Oil and gas recruitment ‘on the rise amid renewed confidence’

    “It is outrageous that devolved administrations need to spend resources to shield people from UK Government policies, the United Nations poverty envoy has said.”
    Someone tell the Leonard fella

  177. Nana says:

    Best question at today’s PMQs came from @DougChapmanSNP when he asked Theresa May “what lessons she had learned from Brexit, so that negotiations can be smoother, when Scotland dissolves the union?”

    How Scotland’s science minister aims to protect research from Brexit

    1/ A few points about what to look for in this Advocate-General (AG) opinion coming next Tuesday.

  178. Nana says:

    Ex Tory minister tells me Attorney General’s advice is that it is virtually impossible for the UK Government ever to get out of the Irish backstop ‘and this is bigger infringement of parliamentary sovereignty than membership of the EU because EU law can be changed more easily’

    Brexit: a loss of nerve

  179. orri says:

    May’s attempted putdown of Sturgeon will probably be blamed on a misquote when it’s pointed out just how it shows an elitist mindset.

    MPs don’t have to debate non-MPs. So that’s all is plebs telt. Including those who vote for parties other than the SNP such as the Conservatives themselves.

    If there’s even a hint at popular support for a People’s Vote and one that includes revoking A50 then telling voters MPs are above their representatives seems a great way to ensure it happens.

  180. Robert Louis says:

    Some interesting comments here overnight, but one thing keeps popping up, and I really, really wish the SNP would publicly and continually stamp all over it at every opportunity. It is this, so often I see people saying ‘without a section 30 a referendum isn’t allowed. This is not true. In Scotland, their is no such thing as an illegal referendum. Westminster can say any old sh*te it wants, but the fact remains, their is no such thing as an illegal referendum in Scotland. Additionally, even if you want to pander by London’s rules, holding a referendum is NOT a reserved power.

    The second important point, is this, I just cannot fathom why some indy supporters seem to be obsessed with raising additional NEW barriers to Scottish independence. Wind the clock back 15 years and you will find that NOBODY was saying indy can only happen if their is a referendum. NOBODY. The accepted route was a majority of pro indy MP’s to Westminster. This was NEVER under question. It was an accepted FACT. Now we are having indy supporters come up with all kinds of convoluted’reasons’ why Scotland ‘cannot’ become independent. To my mind, such things are genuinely akin to the Scottish cringe. We must ‘seek permission’, seems to be the thing.

    If the SNP/Scotgov do not take advantage of the current political mess to get independence, then they are simply not worth voting for (and I have said that before). Much as I think NS is a good performer, I totally cannot understand the ‘nicey, nicey’ approach to Westminster. Still, after what is actually being done to Scotland and the utter contempt and daily insults, the SNP are still chasing a ‘compromise’. It is hardly f***ing surprising they are being ignored. If I was Theresa May, I’d ignore them too.

    Scotland doesn’t need permission to end the treaty of union. Neither does England (and do you realy think that if they did, they would endlessly witter on about referendums and percentage vote shares etc..????) People in the indy movement should stop creating artificial barriers, out of thin air. Seriously, Tories and unionists must be laughing their socks off.

    Over a year ago NS called indyref2. She was ignored by London when requesting a section 30. She went very quiet and just let it pass. THAT alone in a major reason why she is being ignored. And it’s time that some in the Scottish government sniffed the freaking coffe, accepted that, and just got on with it, instead of wittering on constantly about ‘compromises’. Seriously, it is abundantly clear that NOBODY in London gives a flying f*** about compromises from the Scotgov. To keep banging on about it, is just starting to look pretty ridiculous.

    Brexit has almost happened and still we are sitting waiting around ‘to wait and see…’ Why not just do that for the next twenty years???

    A helluva lot more fight is needed, and a helluva lot less of the ‘nicey, nicey’ , ‘let’s all compromise and play nice’ approach is needed. Westminster does NOT do compromise. It doesn’t do ‘nice’. Indeed they sit back and laugh at NS being so ‘nice’ to them.

    Anyway, the point remains, their is no such thing as an illegal referendum in Scotland. And for heaven’s sake, is it not about time, the SNP and Scotgov started saying such things loud and hard in TV interviews etc.

    Repeat after me, ‘Scotland does not need the permission of England or Westminster to end the treaty of union.

    For two years, we have been told, we must wait, and that NS ‘has a plan’, yet at every opportunity, every turn, backed away from tackling the issue.

    After the vote in Westinster on this current deal in Dec, we need action, or NS is in serious danger of becoming a tired joke. The people of Scotland voted to stay in the EU. Not the CU and SM, but the EU. The SNP have no mandate to vote for, suggest or accept anything else. They DO have a mandate to call a referendum. It is time they did.

  181. Nana says:

    You know Theresa May has done something pretty shady when these two agree on something!

    Awards for failure

    Output from British factories declines for fifth consecutive month

    Brexit: UK economy not ready for no deal, Mark Carney says

  182. Macart says:

    @Socratese Macsporran

    Pretty much.

    Scotland isn’t a country to these individuals. It isn’t a population, a democracy, an opinion. It’s a resource and an asset base. Some assets on site? More disposable than others, but all ultimately usable for better… stuff and people. Wasted on us frankly. Also makes jolly good holiday destination for shooting furry critters.

    Yesterday was an appalling insult by May. It really was lip service to anything approaching democracy or even common courtesy. A marketing gimmick for selected media only and sod the population and peoples of Scotland.

    Not for very much longer.

  183. Macart says:


    Glad to see Mr Carney keeping up to date in the Who knew (?) statements over the UKs preparedness for Brexit. (HINT) It isn’t.

    People aren’t ready for this Nana, nevermind businesses. Any Brexit at all is going to cause considerable hardship to huge swathes of society and there may still be time and opportunity for UK gov to avert. Yeah, I know, the likelihood is slim to non-existent, but it is still there and should be explored if at all possible.

    I think most of us have read the articles (thanks to you) on UK treasury’s reports. More than a few will have at least perused Scotgov’s assessment of Brexit t’boot. This is going to hit hard and hurt.

    Hoping the pro WM policy gonks are having a read this morning. It’s not too late to put people before party.

  184. Frank Gillougley says:

    A view from Blackridge in Union Jack/Orange county, West Lothian. I haven’t posted for ages because its all been said, really. Living in the middle of nowhere does allow me a perspective though and its this:

    Among the plethora of detail and endless political machinations, I think that THE POLITICAL NARRATIVE HAS CHANGED over the last 4 years since 2014 to a solid realisation and substantial groundswell (naw, you dont say…) that SCOTLAND IS A COLONY.

    I feel strongly that this fact (among all the blanket propaganda and daily brainwashing by the UK) has to be continuously used as a POSITIVE reason by the YES movement in any forthcoming election/referendum in order to attain independence. The simpler the message the better. SCOTLAND A COLONY, VOTE YES FOR AN INDEPENDENT NATION (sorry rev – no sloganeering, I know but it just illustrates my point)

    The sight of that weasel Mundell hanging onto her coat tails yesterday was straight out of a game of thrones episode. This 3 hour visit to a colony wouldn’t be taken seriously in any other walk of life, and is just patently ABSURD.

    Ironically, I’m glad the National was excluded. We are separate. To see Scotland from the perspective of a colony changes someone’s viewpoint substantially as to the smokescreen and political irrelevance of UK politics. I believe that the weak ‘no’s’ can be assisted in coming to change their judgement by being shown this political reality loud and clear and for this fact to be stated and re-stated so that the word ‘colony’ becomes part of the realpolitik.

    Ther, that was my only observation and strong feeling over the recent weeks.

  185. Nana says:

    Morning Macart

    I see Mogg has been telling Carney how very wrong he is and that he is scaremongering and how no one should listen to him.

    Instead we should listen to the Mogg, this from a man who needs his nanny to tell him when it’s time to go to the lavvy 🙂

  186. Brian Powell says:

    The press, BBC and opposition politicians in Scotland are trying to play Brexit as if it were a General Election.

    In General Elections promises made might be upheld or not, but once it is past it’s ‘kind of carry on as usual’.

    Brexit is absolutely real and the effects are absolutely real and devastating for all the ordinary people of Scotland.

    As frustrating as it is that many still don’t react to what is happening when it comes to the press, BBC and LibLabCons, their utter corruption and dishonesty is criminal.

  187. Dorothy Devine says:

    Aye Nana, but no slouch on where to move his investments.

    you have to laugh at the coverage given the demented wummin’ and her revolting entourage for a 3 hour jaunt to Scotland in ‘secret locations ‘ with a tiny wee staff – presumably well paid to not rock the boat.

    One of my favourite photos before our referendum , was one of D.Cameron attempting to look normal /relaxed/ man of the peepul in the porridge factory – the expressions on the workers faces are more than a tad ‘scrutable’!

  188. Ken500 says:

    It is absolutely appalling what the Torues are doing. They could not make a bigger mess. Sanctionig and starving people. Making people poorer. Just disgraceful. Labour are useless. May could have been voted down in Sept 2017 Evel vote. The LibDems did not even turn up to vote. Corbyn does not turn up to vote. Disgusting.

  189. Nana says:

    Morning Dorothy,
    If I recall he moved his investments to Dublin pretty damn quick.

    As for BigT, she was in and out of Scotland like a does of salts!

    All that was needed from the footage of the ‘entourage’ was the Benny Hill theme. Blimey there’s a wealth of stuff waiting for Spitting image to make a comeback.

  190. Nana says:

    dose of salts!

  191. Nana says:

    Talk of the devil. Liason committee on now, questioning BigT

  192. galamcennalath says:

    Nana says

    More and more the evil underbelly of the far right is being exposed. It’s all tied together and coordinated world wide. Their modus operandi is ‘think tanks’ which spread misinformation and build warped public opinions.

    I have absolutely no doubt that Brexit is their doing.

    And remember guys, if this ‘organised criminal activity’ believes Scottish independence is a threat to their world order, we will have them to contend with! We probably already have them involved.

    The movie documentary, Greedy Lying Bastards, is an excellent expose of right wing think tanks in the US and how they operate. It’s about climate charge denying propaganda specifically but a whole raft of other issues are totally intertwined like fracking and tobacco. They same organisations and money are behind all sorts of pro far right ideas.

  193. Macart says:

    @Nana & Dorothy

    Mogg wants to remodel the economy. He wants to remodel society to suit his idea of the ideal economy. He wants the low tax, low wage, no workers rights, low regulation, services oriented, Singapore of the north. Several fairly obvious problems with that, but the biggest problem being all those pesky human beings who’ll suffer to achieve his wet dream.

    True, he and those who think just like him don’t really worry overmuch about the well being of populations. Can’t make the perfect omelette without breaking a few eggs and all that. How and ever, it’s what they’re aiming for and it’s what they’ve always been aiming for. Primarily the ideology of such people is survival of the fittest and a biblical sense of self entitlement. They are ruthless, cold and driven.

    Brexit was never about UK sovereignty. It was about the exercise of power. It was about naked greed. It was about using an extremely ruthless ideology to achieve a desired end at the cost of people’s rights, their livelihoods, life chances and lives. A desired end that will only ever benefit a small demographic. Mr Mogg typifies that demographic.

  194. Cubby says:

    Britnats lie and they lie all the time.

    The big liar in chief the Maybot is on TV right now lying her head off in front of a HoCommons committee. It’s clearly in the Tory genes – if in difficulty just lie.

  195. Ken500 says:

    Drug/drink rehabilitation needs to go back to the SNHS. Away from social care and the unionist Councils, Health Boards, except Grampian, funded proper primary care and proper drink/drug ‘total abstinence’ proper rehab counselling. ‘One chance’?

    The unionist Councils do not care. They build shops, offices and hotels. Instead of funding essential services. When there are shops, offices sitting empty and underoccupied hotels.

    Councils sitting in £Billion HQ for 70 councillors. When schools are overcrowded. Class sizes too big and new schools not being built. Or building £300Million Conference centres. Instead of schools and affordable houses. The unionists are a disgrace. Ruining Scotland.

    Grouse Beater is one of the best writers in Scotland. The unionists are opportunist liars,

  196. jfngw says:

    I remember seeing a documentary about David Bowie (1970’s) and how he would write lines of text then select them at random to create a song.

    Just realised that seems to be the technique being used by the May team, just write sound bites throw them on the table and select them randomly.

    Unfortunately they seem to have sent her into a TV interview at STV without priming the presenter to ask questions that fit this randomisation technique. Missed the interview but I suspect we were treated to the May glazed eye look.

  197. Iain mhor says:

    @geeo @28/11 9:26pm
    Hi, no thats not what I was saying.

    I was saying that should the Treaty be ended/ become null and Scotland find itself “Not in the Union” therefore “technically Independent” or via any other legal means of declaration find itself outwith/no longer in the Union and Independent; then it is more than likely a referendum to confirm that Independence as permanent would be required.
    People may vote against and thereby require either a new treaty of union/ the abolition of Scotland the nation – or hopefully confirm her Independence.

    It would be either a confirmatoey referendum after the Treaty had failed, or the SNP government would, in the interregnum, have to move swiftly to seal Scotland’s Independence by international recognition and do so in the face of an absolute onslaught trying to deny that “technical” Independence as undemocratic whether or not it was technically or legally valid.

  198. frogesque says:

    @ jfngw 9.38

    It was dire! May repeating the same old bollocks and not answering the question about how the Chancellor had a position on Brexit making us all porer.

    Think it’s on ‘tube somewhere but really I wouldn’t waste your time looking.

    Pissing with rain here in Fife but I’ll still be out with a flag even if it’s just a wee while. Need to do something constructive!

  199. Ken500 says:

    May is negotiating a ‘deal’ that means. 11 month visas. They use people then chuck em out. So they can’t make 5 year residential qualification. It will mean more red tape, bureaucracy and expense for businesses. Less trained workers.

    The UK/US illegal wars caused the worst migration crisis in Europe since 11WW. It is European countries that have to deal with it. Costing £Billions. Then the UK/US complain about migration. It is their policies in the Middle East which have caused the trouble and unrest. The Balfour Agreement.

    Britain and France (US interests) carved up the Middle East and refused the people the vote. They made lots of broken promises. Reneged upon. Despite promising the vote for fighting with the Allies. UK/US and France caused uprest and took the people’s Oil and resources. Supporting apattheid States and absolute despot monarchies. Policies which would not be tolerated in their own countries. Lying hypocrites.

    Imagine is all the £Trns spent on illegal wars and weaponry had been spent on trade, aid and helping people. What a better place the world would be, Scotland can make that happen by voting for Independence,

    The unionists had better stop sanctionig and starving people, now. What a bad world they are building.

  200. Petra says:

    Thanks for the links Nana.

    I was pleased to see that individuals south of the border (whatstheirnames?) see barring National reporters from the Big T visit as “an own goal.” They go on to say that it will lead to the story being reported on the radio and television little knowing that the media in Scotland bars the National too.


    I’ve often wondered why the biased BBC doesn’t seem to suppress information when it comes to reporting on the critical situation in relation to the NHS and Social Care in England. You know in the way that they try to cover up just about everything else. I’m now beginning to suspect that their objective is to drip feed dire information to the general public in support of NHS privatisation.


    Here we have Ross Greer questioning BBC executives as to why they afford the Institute of Economic Affairs (IES) a platform. The IES that’s pushing for NHS privatisation. The BBC executives full of bullsh*t, as ever.


    And open democracy highlighting how the IES is infiltrating schools, and in doing so trying to influence young minds, with the contents of their free magazine.

  201. mike cassidy says:

    Robert Louis 8.11

    ” Wind the clock back 15 years and you will find that NOBODY was saying indy can only happen if their is a referendum. NOBODY. The accepted route was a majority of pro indy MP’s to Westminster. This was NEVER under question. It was an accepted FACT ”

    Genuine question.

    Why did we end up with a referendum then?

  202. Ken500 says:

    Rees Mog gets £44,000 a week from a Hedge Fund. His mother got public funds to renovate a manor houses. May husband works for a Hedge Fund profiting from selling weapons and illegal wars. They are so out of touch it is unreal. Boris Johnston is a lying criminal.

    This mess has been caused by Tories fighting to be PM. Most of them would not last a month. May will soon be gone. If there is any justice. EU matters brought down Thatcher. Along with the rest of her ‘policies’. Starving people. Interest rates at 15%, inflation up to 25% Unemployment average 18% The only place it was under 10% was London S/E. Riots and violence in the streets. The miners abused. The Poll tax. NI troubles, The Tories are going the same way.

  203. Ken500 says:

    There is a difference between GE and Referendums. Not three – four parties voting. Splitting the vote. Higher turnout in Referendums. Different catagories voting. Scottish IndyRef. 16+ year olds. + Migrants. Referendums YES or No. easier to get 51% majority. Not D’Hondt. The loser wins.

    Why did some dafties vote NO?

  204. call me dave says:

    Morning all.Five shops to find The National this morning.

    Each shop by coincidence had the ‘New European” on sale instead. Shurley schome mistake says partner as I cry foul.

    Went to W H Smith as a final resort and got one. Funny that.


    Two peanuts walking by on the pavemeent. One was assaulted!

    🙂 My granddaughter’s joke from yesterday.

  205. galamcennalath says:

    Macart says:

    Mogg wants to remodel the economy. He wants to remodel society to suit his idea of the ideal economy. He wants the low tax, low wage, no workers rights, low regulation, services oriented

    Yup, that what the far right Brexiteers wanted. They dressed it up in other issues like English nationalism and immigration and persuaded a load of gullible ‘turkeys’ to vote for ‘Christmas’.

    But the subterfuge has been obvious, has it not? Apparently not for many.

    Well, preventing it being obvious to too many voters has been the mission of the loyal establishment media.

  206. Nana says:

    BBC news just reported
    The financial loss to the UK due to BREXIT, is equal to the hit loosing Scotland would be.
    Hope someone recorded it folks
    Subsidised my arse

  207. Robert Peffers says:

    @Cubby says: 29 November, 2018 at 12:30 am:

    … Let’s have a referendum to decide who should decide. Wait a min who …… “

    Ah! Now there you have discovered just how wise the Declaration of Arbroath really was. It is the reason that several World states used it as the basis of their constitution – including the American Declaration of Independence from Westminster.

    The Declaration of Arbroath not only declared that the Kingdom of Scotland was an independent kingdom, it could just as easily declared Scotland a republic or just declared Bruce as a sovereign monarch. What it did was very far seeing and astute.

    It retained the monarch, (as the Westminster parliament also did later in 1688), but the Declaration of Arbroath only retained the monarch as the non-sovereign protector of the people of Scotland’s leader and protector of the people’s sovereignty.

    We see the folly of the Westminster decision to retain the monarch as legally sovereign but having to legally delegate their sovereignty to the Parliament of the Kingdom of England.

    Which is why we now face, (what is wrongly claiming to be the de facto parliament of England), using that legally delegated royal sovereignty to drag the United Kingdom out of the EU.

    May and co. are abusing their illegally claimed sovereignty to drag Scotland, N.I. and Gibraltar out of the EC. If England had followed Scotland’s lead the people would have the final say via a referendum to throw out May and her Tory Government and replace them, and/or the current monarch and replace them with the people’s choice.

    The Abbot of Arbroath was a very wise and far seeing person, several centuries before his time.

  208. Petra says:

    Thanks Nana. Brilliant. Someone fairly slipped up there.

  209. Nana says:


    Someone is getting their knuckles rapped for that slip up 🙂

  210. Macart says:

    Just been looking at how Scotland’s media greeted the news of the door being slammed in the National’s face…

    They didn’t cover themselves in glory tbh and probably not their finest hour. Next time one of them has a gripe about being slapped by the SNP, criticised by independent journalists, denied support by the public as their titles die off?

    Might be folk’ll remember how they rushed to offer support to some of their fellow professionals yesterday. (HINT: they didn’t)

  211. Robert Peffers says:

    @Cubby says: 29 November, 2018 at 12:30 am:

    ” … I don’t think 50% of Scots decided to authorise the treaty in 1706/7.”

    You got that right too Cubby. The People of Scotland in 1706/7 were not enfranchised to vote. Only the aristocracy and commoner land owners formed the Members of Parliament.

    The common people were not given the vote until:-

    “The Representation of the People Act 1918 was an Act of Parliament passed to reform the electoral system in Great Britain and Ireland. It is sometimes known as the Fourth Reform Act. The Act extended the franchise in parliamentary elections, also known as the right to vote, to men aged 21 and over, whether or not they owned property, and to women aged 30 and over who resided in the constituency or occupied land or premises with a rateable value above £5, or whose husbands did.

    At the same time, it extended the local government franchise to include women aged 21 and over on the same terms as men.”


  212. Macart says:

    @Nana and Petra

    OOFT! That’ll leave a mark. Quite the admission and folks should pay that clip a visit.

  213. Footsoldier says:

    The Herald gives the The National ban decent space so no complaints there.

    It is quite mind boggling the the PM and her advisers could not see that a ban would create adverse publicity. This is the same lot who are carrying out EU negotiations. No wonder it is a mess.

  214. Nana says:

    What he says

    If the Union is so good why would the largest partner cover up this to the second biggest partner In It. Surely in any relationship whether It be marriage or a Union of countries. Trust Is the most important thing & stealing from one of the partners Is no, no.

  215. Nana says:

    Nicola says in reply to Alberto Nardelli
    This is not good news for Scotland, given our real need to attract skills and talent to work here. Another tangible example of Tory ideology actively harming Scotland’s national interests.
    see here

    That’s all for now

  216. galamcennalath says:

    Footsoldier says:

    PM and her advisers could not see that a ban would create adverse publicity

    At this point in her history, Scotland truly blessed to have so many utter incompetents on the opposing side.

    Firstly, they alone are one very good reason why Scotland needs out of this so called union. But secondly, they are so ham fisted that any attempt they make to counter the cause of self determination is liable to backfire on them.

  217. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Mike Cassidy

    You asked: Why did we end up with a referendum then?

    It seems quite straight-forward to me:

    Majority in Holyrood in favour of a second Independence referendum, and a successful Holyrood motion calling for this – Strike One.

    Majority of Westminster MPs from Scottish constituencies in favour of Independence – Strike Two.

    Majority of the electorate in Scotland who voted in Indyref2 in favour of Independence – Strike Three.

    Westminster will try every trick in the book to prevent Scottish Independence, with this triple lock, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

    And the final clincher, a majority in favour of Independence reinforces the fact the people of Scotland are sovereign and Independence is the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

    We are gone, and they cannot stop us. Anything less, they will try to.

  218. Cubby says:

    Brexit is like removing the whole economy of Scotland from the UK says a BBC analyst. They are going to be in a terrible state when it’s Brexit and losing Scotlands economy.

    The English have gone mad and the Britnat Scots who want to follow them like pathetic creatures going on like golum about their precious Union need their heads examined.

  219. Proud Cybernat says:

    The so-called ‘Precious Union’ isn’t “precious” at all.

    But the oil is.

  220. Cubby says:

    Bloody hell SKY News actually showed the National front page.

  221. Cubby says:

    Call me Dave @10.23am

    I think we all need to email all these organisations who do not stock the National and ask them to explain why they do not stock a newspaper in Scotland printed for the people of Scotland.

    This smacks of Britnat discrimination.

  222. Cubby

    Aye and the BBC Scotland review of the papers says under the photo of the front page that the National ‘claimed’ that they had not been allowed into the meeting.


    So Scotland is worth £200 billion to the UK economy – that’s quite an admission!

  224. call me dave

    Stopped at a Tesco in South Lanarkshire where the National is usually well hidden under the Morning Star and P&J.

    Searched and there was no National, the headlines must have been too critical this morning.

    Yoons be mad.

  225. call me dave says:

    The National…shortage.

    I have been getting The National since day 1 without any real hassle and maybe I’m paranoid but today hmmm! might not have been coincidence.

    My partner rolls her eyes as I press the keys but … well… but I’ve seen ‘Three days of the Condor’ 🙂


  226. Cubby says:


    You started to go down the road of insults ” cubbyland” a sure sign of losing the argument. I thought I would let you reflect on the fact that you said a 50+1% vote in a GE is acceptable. Do I have to point out that a GE is not a referendum. Different voting populous. Therefore you have, even if you do not realise it, accepted a referendum is not the only route to independence. That was my point from the beginning.

    I believe I have demonstrated that Westminster carries out many major changes on a minority vote – sending populace to war on an illegal basis is a pretty major decision.

    thepnr@ 2.08am

    “Without majority support independence is not possible”

    Your answer is no answer. I suggest what you really mean is desirable (in your opinion) rather than impossible.

    A few decades ago a majority of SNP MPs was accepted as the standard for independence. How did this change to – it has to be a referendum – who took this decision and what was the decision making criteria behind it. If we do not understand how this changed what is to stop it from being changed to it has to be 65 % majority in future.

    Britnats have already shown they will try to change/ break the rules in any way that allows them to win.

  227. Cubby says:

    Proud Cybernat@11.36am

    Absolutely spot on.

  228. Jack Murphy says:

    Thanks Petra saying at 10:51 am:

    ” Thanks Nana. Brilliant. Someone fairly slipped up there.

    No surprise—May and her Tories doing what their pal Donald Trump did last week banning a [CNN ? reporter ]. 🙁

  229. Golfnut says:

    @ Cubby

    I believe it was voted through at a SNP annual conference, possibly they believed at that time they would not win a majority of MP’s at Westminster. In other words its Party policy rather than constitutional law. I’m happy to be corrected if that’s incorrect.

    The option for using a GE is still open to them, which is why our media continually bang on about a referendum.

  230. geeo says:

    Tricky dicky, the bouncing buffoon, shouting about “SNP controlled Falkirk Council”

    He ‘forgot’ to mention what his party did recently, in cahoots with their tory chums to take control of the Executive Committee at the Council at Falkirk.

    Handily, here it is….

  231. K1 says:

    Thanks Nana, that honest reporting and vox pops from cnn is about as close to reporting of how we all feel than anything we’ll ever see on British msm.

  232. Golfnut says:

    @ Jack Murphy.

    Sounds good but the figures used are from Treasury sources, that would be the same estimates used for GERS.
    Norway is probably a good indicator for Scotland’s GDP, currently sitting at around 400 Billion USD.

  233. schrodingers cat says:

    mike cassidy and pnr

    my S.O. and I did the calculation on the 19th sept 2014. roughly 50k over 65’s die each year and 50k new borns in scotland. using a 70% yes/no split for 65+ and 16+ we calculated how long it would take for the 55% to become a minority.

    ssince then, i came across another stat we didnt know about, 50k of our youngest and brightest LEAVE scotland every year for greener pastures

  234. Thepnr says:


    I apologise for the stupid Cubbyland remark, it’s no way to win an argument. I should know better and be able to disagree without stupid insults.

    I’m sure we’ll continue to disagree even on other topics in future. I’d hope to keep it civil, so apologies.

  235. Cubby says:


    Your a gentleman thepnr. We all fall into that trap.

    I know your heart is in the right place from reading your other posts. I just don’t know how we got to the current position that a referendum is it it full stop. You are entitled to your position that a majority vote is necessary but has Britnat propaganda pushed us down the referendum road so that it is easier to manipulate. I don’t know just asking the question.

  236. Cubby says:


    I believe golfnut @12.43pm may have answered my question. If golfnut is correct then it is SNP policy notthing else that says it has to be a referendum. SNP policy can of course be changed.

  237. Breeks says:

    What an utter sham.

    Both May and Corbyn squabbling like children about a public debate on Brexit when the public don’t have a say anyway. It is MP’s who will vote for May’s deal or reject it, so precisely what is the point of this PR stunt anyway?

    And when it comes down to it, what “deal” are they actually discussing? The only deal has been May’s capitulation in agreeing to the principle that the terms of any future trade deal will be dictated by the EU. Negotiations of the actual haven’t even begun yet. And given that all 27 EU Nations, 28 Nations if we get our arse in gear somyou count Scotland, will have a sovereign veto on any Trade Deal, it seems highly premature and speculative to pass any verdict on how the UK’s economy is going to find itself in the years ahead.

    There is STILL no objective narrative about Brexit ongoing and the so called media is an absolute disgrace and abysmal failure. The media shit show continues unabated.

    Far from jumping up and down to be included in this circus performance, I would much rather see Nicola Sturgeon making a Phantom Power film about Scotland’s Brexit betrayal, the lies and disinformation debunked, the ACTUAL ramifications for Scottish businesses across all sectors, the Constitutional subjugation which Theresa May’s Brexit physically constitutes, and finishes off the program with a Constitutional walkthrough taking Scotland from where we are now to our Independent destiny. GET EUROPE TO PARTICIPATE. Discuss ACTUAL preambles as they relate to OUR Scottish definition of sovereignty. Get Michel Barnier to tell us what he hasn’t been allowed to tell us so far.

    That I would watch. A bit part in Theresa and Jeremy’s Punch ‘n Judy Show? Meh. I can honestly do without it. If it’s on BBC Propaganda Channel, or ITV for that matter, it’s fair to say I won’t be watching that crap anyway.

    Come on Nicola. FFS raise your game! Turn the fkn screw and don’t stop until we are safe inside Europe and watching Brexit through binoculars.

  238. Thepnr says:


    What’s important in my opinion is that at the end of the day we become an Independent country. How we might get there and what we do afterwards are always going to attract different opinions.

    That’s healthy enough I would think in a democracy and at least Scots will always get the government and policies they voted for once we’re Independent unlike now.

    Tense few weeks coming up and we might be coming to the crunch. Nerves getting frayed LOL

  239. Cubby says:


    In some of your overnight posts and at other times you refer to Scotland making a UDI.

    Definition: a Declaration of Independence made by a dependent state without the assent of the protecting state.

    I suggest to you that Scotland is not a dependent state. This can never be Scotland. As legally Scotland is an equal partner in the Treaty of Union then terminating the Treaty is just going back to the previous status – An independent Kingdom.

    This notion of UDI for Scotland and it being illegal and all that crap is just more Britnat pervasive propaganda that creeps into everyones minds.

    Of course if my post is claptrap I’m sure Mr Peffers will quickly explain why but yesindyref2 please feel free to do the same.

    Therefore UDI in any circumstances does not apply to Scotland. It also does not apply to England. Wales probably.

  240. Boudicca says:

    Robert Peffers @11.20
    Thank you for clarifying that.

  241. Jack Murphy says:

    Broadcasting Scotland

    “Join us for First Minister’s Questions, live from the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood.”

    If you’re in a hurry the FMQs begin at 25:40 into the piece.

  242. Petra says:

    @ K1 at 12:48pm ……. “CNN video.”

    Great to hear the guy with the English accent saying that he voted No in 2014 but will definitely be voting for Independence next time round.

  243. yesindyref2 says:

    Sure. I’ll give it a try. I start at a point after all the arguments about our Sovereignty, but from the point of view of people and countries outside of Scotland, or even the UK as a whole. In other words how the rest of the world sees it – and how they treat it.

    Our Independence, even if achieved by a section 30, an Edinburgh Agreement (even one legally watertight – there’s an article on SCFF from 2012 discussing the 2012 one), and a YES vote in a referendum, our Independence STILL has to be accepted by the international community (laughs cynically at that word).

    Generally this is the World Bank, IMF, UN, and then countries, the US used to be the most important and probably is, for us the EU countries as well. Get these and just about everybody else accepts it.

    The problem is that the World Bank, IMF, UN and every country are primarily political. And that means they’ll do what is politically acceptable, not neccessarily what is legally correct.

    So what recourse do we have? Well there’s “International Law” which is really no such thing as there is no World Government, and the ICJ (International Court of Justice) which is also no such thing really as firstly there is no World Government again, no actual International Law, and thirdly countries only recognise it if it’s convenient for them. Yes, it does work at times, others it don’t.

    So the thing is to make it as easy as possible for all of the above to accept our Independence, and as hard as possible to deny it. Legality, history and “reality” is very secondary to that. That’s the cynical truth (IMHO).

  244. yesindyref2 says:

    I forgot WTO in that list of course, strangely enough 🙂

  245. Golfnut says:

    @ Yesindyref 2

    Of all the Countries, Kingdoms, Provinces and Islands that have become Independent, just how many of them were actually in a Political Union, signed by 2 equally sovereign states. That the Articles of Union are contained in a formal international Treaty. Signed and agreed by both parties and ratified by both their respective Parliaments.
    What is totally wrong, and I am as guilty as any, that we continually refer to Independence rather than what it is, The dissolution of the Treaty of Union. Our partner, because that is our legal position, in this Union has currently been displaying for all the world to see a complete lack of respect towards Scotland and its people. The UN has already passed judgement on westminster, by acknowledging that Westminster treats Scotland as if it was a colony, a tacit recognition that it is not.
    That we have justification for ending this Treaty is incontrovertible. The sheer malice directed at Scotland by the so called UK gov, Parliament, and media is there for all to see.
    I believe China has said, ‘ Britain is a small island, Scotland is the home invention ‘ I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they were not the first to acknowledge Scotland. The quote might be slightly wrong, but you get the gist.

  246. yesindyref2 says:

    Well, I’ve posted similar to what I wrote before a few times, and apart from wondering who will be the first to recognise Scotland, have kind of mentioned that they’d likely give themselves an advanatage in a big brave new market, a place in our hearts.

    Hint hint …

  247. Rock says:

    Kangaroo says:
    29 November, 2018 at 3:35 am

    “A Country is an area of land usually under the control of one of the Forms of government.”

    The United Kingdom is an area of land under the control of the Westminster based government.

    Notwithstanding Robert Peffers’ shite.

  248. Cubby says:


    Theres one person who is an expert in verbal diarrhoea. Rockshit.

  249. Golfnut says:

    A country is defined by legal jurisdiction, Scots law defines Scotland’s borders. Treaty of Union Articles, subsequent Acts of Union ratified by both Scots and English Parliaments. Wales and Berwick Act 1746, and if you require international recognition, Lockerbie bomb deemed to have detonated in Scottish airspace therefore subject to Scots law.

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