The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Contempt undimmed

Posted on June 28, 2017 by

Last week the walking monotone drone that is James Kelly MSP lodged a motion (an inescapably appropriate term for his output, it must be said) at the Scottish Parliament instigating his private members’ bill to repeal the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act, having announced his intention to do so in February after putting together a ludicrously bogus “consultation” on the subject last year.

As ever, Kelly trotted out a mixture of baseless assertions and flat-out lies about the Act in support of his move, because apparently the most pressing issue currently facing Scotland, in the view of Scottish Labour, is that bigoted thugs must once again be free to sing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood, or lionise murderous terrorists, at sporting events without fear of prosecution.

The Scottish media, which loves nothing more than selling papers off the back of juicy tales of sectarian hatred and violence, dutifully backed him up, as it always does.

The Sunday Herald ran a particularly despicable and hyperbolic piece full of appalling mistruths by some abysmally dreadful idiot, which made not being allowed to bellow malicious songs about religious slaughter at a football match sound like the gravest affront to human civilisation and liberty since the Holocaust.

The paper’s headline described the Act as “the Government’s most despised folly”, which we already knew not to be true. Poll after poll after poll has shown the Act to be overwhelmingly supported by an enormous majority of the public, spanning literally every single political and demographic boundary. It is in fact very probably the most universally popular piece of legislation any Scottish Government has ever passed.

But in fairness there hadn’t been a new poll on it for a while, so just to be sure, when Kelly made his announcement in February we (via Panelbase) asked the public yet again to make sure that we were right up to date with the feelings of voters.

This time we phrased the question in line with Kelly’s demand for repeal. The results were about as surprising as you’d expect.



The poll found continued unequivocal public support for the Act, by a more than 2:1 margin – bigger than the gap between Remain and Leave in the EU referendum. Excluding don’t knows the result was a landslide 71-29 in favour of the Act.


Men supported keeping the Act by almost 2:1, and women by over 3:1.


The wealthier ABC1 demographic were almost 3:1 in favour of keeping the Act, while the blue-collar C2DE group backed it by over 2:1. (Excluding don’t knows, the C2DEs who still make up the majority of match-attending football fans were 68-32 in favour of keeping the Act.)


Every group in this category backed keeping the Act by at least 2:1, and in the case of people in Scotland born in the rest of the UK, by over 4:1.


Yes voters backed the Act by 3:1, while No voters supported it by more than 2:1.


Remain voters support OBFA by almost 3:1, Leave voters by almost 2:1.


Every single opposition party is going directly against the wishes of its own voters in backing Kelly’s repeal bill. Tories want the Act kept in place by a margin of 16 points, Labour voters by 21 points, and Lib Dems by a massive 55 points – more even than SNP voters.

All these margins are higher than that of the “decisive” independence referendum, but all of a sudden they don’t want the result respected any more.


The usual last desperate squeal of anti-OBFA campaigners when presented with incontrovertible poll evidence of the Act’s popularity with the general public is to protest that only the views of football supporters should count, as though the rest of society should just meekly put up with sectarian hatred in their streets unless they enjoy the sport.

But that argument is as useless as the others. Football fans actually support the Act by a margin of approaching 2:1, just like everyone else, while people who DON’T like football back it by almost 4:1.

(The combined results for all football fans come out at 32% for repeal and 56% for keeping the Act, 12% don’t know. Excluding the DKs it’s 63-37 in favour of the Act, with only “Rangers” supporters evenly divided.)


So let there be no doubt. Everyone, whether in the opposition or the media (which has a view of the Act that’s startlingly even more uniform than its hatred of independence – not a single columnist we’ve EVER seen has penned an article in support of OBFA), committed to repealing the Act is flying in the face of public opinion.

Parties are contemptuously dismissing their own voters, and papers riding roughshod over the feelings of their own readers. An unholy alliance of quinoa-munching “free speech” liberals (most of whom would never be seen dead within 400 yards of a football ground), knuckle-dragging bigot scum and cynically opportunist politicians are telling the vast majority of Scotland to go to hell, purely so that they can try to score a meaningless point against the SNP.

We can think of nothing more incongruous in the modern world than sending out a message that says Scotland is willing to openly tolerate previously-outlawed hatreds again, or more reckless, or more depressing.

We already know that the Tories are trying to drag the country back to the 1950s, when Catholics (and every other kind of minority) knew their place, and we know that Labour will blindly do ANYTHING that they think might hurt the SNP. What the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are thinking, though, we can barely begin to imagine.

May the wretched consequences of this spite-driven insanity land squarely on all of their heads like the jagged wreckage of a broken chair hurled from an upper stand.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 29 06 17 14:07

    The ‘offensive’ football act. – Dreams of Independence

309 to “Contempt undimmed”

  1. Fergus Green says:

    This vote will split along party tribal lines. Its about a bloody nose for the SNP, regardless of the cost to society. Hopefully the Greens will have the decency to – at least – abstain.

  2. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Hopefully the Greens will have the decency to – at least – abstain.”

    The Greens are committed to voting with Labour and the Tories on it.

  3. Gary45% says:

    Stu, your last two lines sum it up nicely.
    Unfortunately “the shortbread media” will make sure the SNP gets the blame if the knuckle-draggers kick off again.
    Scotland “the only country that can shoot itself in both feet”

  4. Stoker says:

    Rev wrote:

    “As ever, Kelly trotted out a mixture of baseless assertions and flat-out lies about the Act in support of his move, because apparently the most pressing issue currently facing Scotland, in the view of Scottish Labour, is that bigoted thugs must once again be free to sing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood, or lionise murderous terrorists, at sporting events without fear of prosecution.”

    Spineless bastards such as Kelly and Colonel Gadaftie are the lowest of the low. It is my sincerest wish that these retards promoting sectarian hatred for their own self-serving interests are heavily visited upon by the hatred they promote. I’d LLF!

  5. Iain says:

    What on earth is the media’s objection to the legislation? All the evidence indicates that it is not widely disliked. I have never come across anyone at a match, anyone interested in football, even discussing it, far less criticising it.

    If James Kelly thinks that it criminalises innocent people, he must regard unpleasant thugs as civil company. And this is a clear indication – if we didn’t know already – that the Sunday Herald is true to its owners’ political loyalty and has just been pretending to support independence as a marketing strategy. Why else would it publish falsehoods which are prejudicial to the SNP?

  6. Free Scotland says:

    Time for a boycott of the Sunday Herald in this house.

  7. Doug Daniel says:

    Perhaps something to keep in mind when those in the Yes movement who want it repealed claim to know the answer to winning IndyRef2 and try to tell the SNP how it should recover from recent setbacks…

  8. HandandShrimp says:

    I recall all too well when Lennon was getting bullets in the post the very same media whining hysterically “Oh the Humanity won’t somebody do something?”

    Somebody does something and they all immediately start whining hysterically “Oh the Humanity…..etc

    James Kelly is a tube but that is no excuse for others to follow him is his penguin waltz of stupidity. On the other hand I never go to football matches any more precisely because the atmosphere is so unpleasant. It makes no difference to me.

    However, they will have a hard job convincing anybody that it is SNPbaaad if the same crap kicks off again. That said, Pedro has made Rangers an almost entirely Catholic team so it will be kind of pointless singing sectarian songs on either side of the divide.

  9. Clydebuilt says:

    “if James Kelly thinks” . . . . . He doesn’t!

  10. James Barr Gardner says:

    The unionists are now on a sinking ship holed by a DUP mine they steered into, what an act of gross incompetency.

    They’re now and have been trying to salvage the ship, so they are throwing everything overboard, that includes, democracy, morals, honesty, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Muslims, Catholics, single mothers and their children, disabled, wheel chairs, poor people, pensioners and many others, then YOU will be overboard, not one of them!

    But it’s not the ship they are really trying to save it’s their own fecking selfish cowardly lives and their ill gotten gains.

    So much for the vaunted british values, UK democracy is a total SHAM, the system is totally corrupt and now beyond repair, with Independence Scotland can start afresh and deliver true democracy!

  11. Chick McGregor says:

    The results for Scots born elsewhere is interesting to me as I feel it helps to substantiate a theory of mine, that sectarian imprinting occurs at a very young age.

    Arrested infancy rather than arrested adolescence.

  12. Tinto Chiel says:

    The facts which you have laid out here seem beyond Kelly’s comprehension, along with everything else. I was shown Findlay’s article in the Sunday Herald (?) and despaired too.

    I go to all my SPL team’s home matches and behaviour from both sets of fans is usually civilised, apart from the occasional outbursts from The Usual Suspects. There has been a marked improvement generally in crowd behaviour and match-day atmosphere.

    But why listen to supporters when you want to oppose the SG on anything it does?

    As you say, the “liberal” complainers will rarely have been inside a football ground with The Polloi to know the reality of crowd behaviour.

    Didn’t you once have an article on Virtue Signalling, Rev?

    And you’re supposed to be having a healthy holiday from all this……

  13. Macart says:

    No. They really don’t give a shit about the rest of us.

  14. dramfineday says:

    That last sentence…..hear, hear (or should that be read, read?). Brilliant.

  15. Thepnr says:

    Anything that makes the experiences of the majority of the population more enjoyable and less fraught with danger or even just unpleasant experiences is a good thing.

    For this reason OBFA must remain, the reason the opposition oppose it is simply to bleat about the SNP once more and toady up to their their Unionist pals. Same old same old.

    I hope the SNP stand firm on this, maybe some amendments are in order but overall OBFA should remain part of Scottish legislation. I haven’t a clue what Patrick Harvie and the Greens are thinking about if they are opposing this.

  16. Brian Powell says:

    Do the Greens or the LibDems have an alternative?

  17. The Dude says:

    The only major thing I hate about the OBFA is that it focuses on football exclusively. I now live in Edinburgh, and the rugby fans (particularly the Welsh, for some reason, who seem to be the absolute worst extreme of the boorish drunken moron contingent) are an absolute nightmare when they come thundering through the place.

    Either scrap it and use existing laws (like breach of the peace, etc) to reinforce things across the entire public, or expand it to include all sports fans (and also folk going to concerts – anyone who was living near Hampden when Take That were playing will still be suffering from the resultant PTSD, I imagine).

    That’s the problem with the OBFA. Not the basis under which it was envisioned, but the fact it targets one specific section of society (which more often than not is working class punters). If a rugby fan sang a certain song in a pub watching the rugby, no issues, but if a football fan in a pub sang the same song while watching the football, they could potentially be done for it. Anyone who doesn’t think that’s ludicrous is a bit blinkered at best.

  18. K1 says:

    So sick and tired of these stirring bastards whose sole intention is to take us all back tae the days when ye ran hame from school at 4 o clock, as a five or six year old in fear of yer life cause the running battles between the ‘proddy dogs’ and ‘cafflick rats’ of which by accident of birth you were ‘tagged’ became the defining aspect of your existence at that age, and if ye wanted tae survive ye learned tae run like the wind tae the safety of yer close.

    Fucking sickening that people like James Kelly have ever been elected tae office, he is a disgrace to the parliament and for all the reasons you observe, he does this only to ‘score’ against the SNP. Despicable piece of shit disguised as a human being. Him and his ilk won’t be happy till they reduce Glasgow tae a war zone, because it is chiefly the west coast and the people of this city in particular, who literally have to suffer the fall out as people like James Kelly promote a return to sectarian values as espoused by ‘fitba’ thugs.

    So….tired of this.

  19. Brian Powell says:


    I believe Kelly was a List MP, nobody elected him.

  20. Dr Jim says:

    What’s next for James Kelly and the Sectarianist populist parties under Grand Poohbah of the OO and Colonel Blimpy Ruth Davidsons leadership as they wage their crusade of bigoted stupidity against, well us really because that’s who all of this affects no matter which football team or religion you might share
    This Act was another tool in the box for the police to use against the Nutters who let’s face it are only united in their hatred of everybody who’s not them

    What kind society and country are we that can’t be moved on from the position of demanding that hatred of others must be legally upheld and enforced by defeating the SNP Government who voted for such behaviour to be outlawed and sticking two fingers up to the ELECTORATE who voted for that government on the basis they were an anti sectarian party

    Ruth Davidson, Kelly, and the rest of these bigoted louts must be shown up for what they are

    SCUM!!….. Sectarian Conservative Unionist Monkeys

  21. Robert Graham says:

    Any Mischief will do ,if it isnt the endless FOI requests , its anything to gum up the works , like a wee dug nipping at yer ankles just a bleedn nuisance , The only difference being in this we bit of contrived picking away at legalization could do real harm , as with any Act sometimes it dosent work exactly first time thats when a reappraisal can fix problems , but the honest intentions of this Legislation should not be dumped to prove a point, thats just being Petty but then again we are referring to scottish Labour , Petty & bloody useless is their game .

  22. David says:

    If the act has such support then sure someone could start a petition. Could include a statement to remove all support to any politician, party, organisation or publication that supports the repeal of the act.

    Reality is that the act will be scrapped and at first instance of something happening will be the fault of the SNP. Life in Scotland is, if anything, predictable.

  23. sassenach says:

    It astounds me that the Greens will be prepared to vote with the bigots on this matter, what are they thinking about. Has Murdo (WATP) offered the Greens season tickets to Ibrox?

    I did have some respect for Harvie, but on this matter he has blown any respect I had out of the water.

  24. Brian Powell says:

    A List MSP

  25. K1 says:

    Precisely Brian, but nonetheless ‘elected’ through the legitimised voting system that we adhere to.

  26. jfngw says:

    What these four parties are now voting for is their support for offensive behaviour and sectarianism on the terraces (not sure there is really terraces anymore with all seater stadiums). So when you hear it on the TV next season just remember who to congratulate.

    Ignore the journalists they want this sort of thing, it spices up their stories. Just the same as when you see them salivating at the prospect of a war. Most of them seem to have no morals.

    It would be more useful if the Greens or Libdems could produce an amendment of what changes they want to the legislation rather than scrapping it. Anything rather than backing up the dimwit show-boater Kelly.

  27. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    ‘Is that bigoted thugs must once again be free to sing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood, or lionise murderous terrorists, at sporting events without fear of prosecution.’

    Actually, this Act is not about sporting events. You will not be charged under this Act should you sing about being up to your knees in Fenien blood, or lionise murderous terrorists at a rugby match, or shinty match, athletics meeting, or amy other sporting event. Only at football.

  28. jfngw says:

    I think I should clarify my post at 2/;27pm, I use the term dimwit show-boater regarding Kelly after having dealt with him as he was once my MSP, still there even after we rejected him last year.

  29. K1 says:

    Football ‘is’ a sporting event. Many of these ‘events’ take place. Football matches are sporting events?

  30. Breeks says:

    Can we not just bring in an Offensive Behavior (Politician) Act?

  31. K1 says:

    😉 Breeks

  32. jfngw says:

    @Peter.Edinburgh 2:29pm

    Good point, maybe it should be expanded to all public events rather than just football. Although their would be a lot of band members needing to learn new tunes for their summer walking extravaganzas.

  33. Cuilean says:

    Kelly is a catholic. His brother, Tony Kelly, I think, is a Sheriff, who must see first hand, the results of football violence. I therefore find it a complete enigma why Kelly wants us all to return to sectarian divides like Norn Ireland.

    It may be that it is not, primarily, against the SNP but founded by Kelly’s severe distrust of the Scottish police.

    Perhaps kelly or his brother, the Sheriff, was wrongly arrested by ra polis and given a doin for their lip? The Sheriff certainly made his name (and Scottish Legal Aid Board money) championing prisoners rights regarding slopping out cells. Who knows. But I suspect the Kelly family’s greatest antipathy is to ra polis and secondly, the SNP. It’s bizarre, though, however you look on it. I’m also not entirely sure if Kelly the Holyrood dolt is brother of the Sheriff, but I am sure I read that somewhere. I’m sure someone out there will confirm.

    But the press coverage on this is truly dystopian. It would be as if the South African press suddenly wanted to re-introduce apartheid despite the vast majority of South Africans thinking that they were all completely off their rockers. But that’s dystopian North Britain for you. You vote ‘No’ to indy and you get to live this type of small-minded, parochial shit forever.

  34. Ian McLean says:

    For anyone in doubt about the “Billy boys” adulated in the traditional ditty, this may be enlightening:

  35. Breeks says:

    All joking aside, between Theresa’s DUP, Panzermooth’s Orange Zest with military overtones, and Labour’s taste for sectarianism, we seem to be giving these arseholes the credit of just being idiots who don’t know what they’re doing, but when you add in the “dark money”, and cynicism behind Theresa’s General Election to smash the SNP, the whole picture begins to take on a gravely sinister perspective.

    These shameless imbeciles are picking the scabs of sectarianism in Scotland, agitating hatred and division, and are wilfully malevolent in doing so. We need to find a bigger stone for creatures like Kelly to crawl under.

  36. mogabee says:

    Peter Edinburgh

    People do not sing sectarian shite anywhere else except at certain football grounds. Just in case you were confused on that score!

  37. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    So Holyrood doesn’t have a multiple mandate for instigating indyref2 (quoth the Unionists) and must pay attention to the polls, the tea leaves, and whatever else Ruth Queen of Scots [bigots sub-dept.] happens to next choose.

    But Labour [idiots sub-dept.] Kelly’s repeal, if passed there, must be respected.

    Because the polls say so…


  38. Jim says:

    Erm, perhaps I’m reading that incorrectly but it would appear that 60% DISAGREE with the Act. Am I missing something?

  39. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Mogabee, it wasn’t me that memtioned sporting events. I am just pointing that, should someone sing one of these sings at any other sporting event, other than football, this Act will not be used.

    And i am assuming that there id be some form of legislation that can be used to charge someone singing offensive songs at other sporting events,already avapilable to authorities?

  40. Big Jock says:

    What we are seeing from Labour is the divide and rule tactics of old. They need Scots to hate each other in order to stop them taking control of their own nation. It’s the last act of a desperate knuckle dragger to try and reinvent the troubles of Scotland’s past.

    We moved on in 2015. Scotland got behind the SNP and the majority of moderate Scots hate the Orange Order and Rangers FC’s dark sinister followers.

    He is a pathetic weasel of a man. He would rather bring violence back to the streets than have the animals locked up. Divided Scotland means WM rule forever and he knows this.

    Welcome to the real unionists the Scottish Labour Party.

  41. K1 says:

    Peter, jfngw responded to your ‘now clarified’ point (see below), this sectarian pish is related to ‘football’ because it’s at football matches where the ‘offensive behaviour’ is taking place, there is hardly a need for this to apply to other ‘sporting events’ as these types of ‘songs’ and behaviours are not generally a part of a nice day out at the curling, tennis, rugby, golf, are they?

    The clue is in the title of the act the OBFA. Cause it’s the football matches where the offensive behaviour ’emanates’ from.

    jfngw says:
    28 June, 2017 at 2:40 pm
    @Peter.Edinburgh 2:29pm

    Good point, maybe it should be expanded to all public events rather than just football. Although their would be a lot of band members needing to learn new tunes for their summer walking extravaganzas.

  42. Liz says:

    And Patrick Harrier has just confirmed he and his lot will vote with the brainless Kelly.

    Any green members oh here who disagrees shold email your MPS.

    Never again will I give any vote to the greens at any election

  43. Az says:

    It seems to me that probably even James Kelly MSP himself, knows that the OBFA is a done deal and won’t be stopped. It’s not that he gives a toss about it, I believe. I can’t picture a man called Kelly wanting to sing We Are The Billy Boys frankly, yes I know the Other Lot have offensive songs but the truth is I don’t know the words…

    Anyway, to me this is minutiae – it’s utterly irrelevant to the day-to-day running of Scotland. The day job. The Act is law, and no serious person wants to change it. This is simply an attempt to distract from the day job, and make otherwise impotent MSPs feel less so.

    Sometimes wish the SG would deploy a strong attack on this type of nonsense. What right-minded person believes this topic should be revisited? Move on Kelly, if you can roll yourself over enough in that gutter to look up and see the stars. Idiot is a perfect description. Idiot Kelly MSP (Mad Sectarian Pwick)

  44. Liz says:

    Predictive text Harvie not Harrier.

  45. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    K1, and again, it was not me that first used the words sporting events.

    This Act is not applicable to sporting events other than football.

  46. Petra says:


    BBC news showed Ian Blackford confronting May at PMQ’s in relation to Mundell’s broken promise about the DUP / money. He got no straight answer from her of course but the camera panned round to show Mundell sitting laughing. I reckon that many in Scotland would be really scunnered by that sight. More than anything I’m surprised that the BBC didn’t do their usual and edit it. I’m wondering now if he’s being set up to be unseated by Davidson’s mate Ian Duncan?

    There’s a really interesting article in the Guardian entitled ‘Who paid for the leave vote.’ I’m on my IPad so can’t post it. If it hasn’t been posted already maybe someone else on here could do so.

  47. K1 says:

    And it was me again who said to you immediately after your first comment Peter:

    ‘K1 says:
    28 June, 2017 at 2:32 pm
    Football ‘is’ a sporting event. Many of these ‘events’ take place. Football matches are sporting events?’

    What’s your point then?

  48. K1 says:

    Aye Liz, knew who you meant, I simply don’t understand why the greens would support this?

  49. Robert Roddick says:

    I shall be watching with interest for those who vote for this stupidity brought forward by a class 1 moron. In his earlier attempts he boasted of having 3,000 odd signatures. On any given weekend when his favourite teams are playing there are around 50,000 to 100,000 football fans most of whom I believe from experience are in favour of the current legislation. Those who are not must ask themselves a few questions. That includes any MSP giving consideration to voting with Kelly.

  50. Abulhaq says:

    This man must have elephant dung for brains. What country allows sectarian hate songs at football matches and considers it just good sport? Orange lodgers and Rangers supporters clubs with their fetishistic attachment to the Union flag and the pernicious colonial system it represents need no encouragement from Labour deputies scoring points against the SNP.

  51. jfngw says:

    @K1 3:21

    My point was the objection by some was that it discriminatory against only football fans. By amending it to cover all events it removes this distinction. It doesn’t matter if it only happens at football, it’s about equality and if this would make either the Greens or Libdems support it then it’s worthwhile change.

    The band comment was tongue in cheek.

  52. David says:

    “K1 says:

    Aye Liz, knew who you meant, I simply don’t understand why the greens would support this?”

    Freedom of speech.

  53. orri says:

    The OBFA was supported by Celtic supporters up until the point where they discovered that it applied to them as much as to Rangers fans. Moreso as the ordure of the Rangers was far more blatant and easy to pinpoint as obviously sectarian. As soon as Celtic fans were getting lifted for their perfectly innocent renditions of traditional irish ditties that only coincidentally baited bears they went off the idea of the OFBA.

  54. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    K1, and rugby is a sporting event. Snooker is a sporting event. Shinty is a sporting event. This Act does not cover these sporting events.

    I should also point out that the words ‘sectarian’ and ‘sectarianism’ appear no where within the Act. This Act is not anout sectarianism.

    It is also worth pointing out that the last figures i saw showed fans from 16 different footnall clubs had been charged under tjis legislation, the worse group of fans, per head of fans, was Aberdeen.

    This Act has saw young Hamilton fans charged for singing songs about the town of Motherwell!

  55. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    This Act was never supported by Celtic fans.

  56. Robert Louis says:

    Why are the greens supporting the repeal of this? I cannot understand how a party such as them committed to equality and fairness thinks the right to sing bigotted offensive and racist songs is ok. I seriously don’t get it.

    Of course no legislation is perfect, and if the greens want to amend then they should aim to do so, but repeal, just beggars belief.

    Makes no sense at all. btw, James Kelly is, in all likelihoods, a tube.

  57. Stoker says:

    As per Petra’s O/T request at 3:29 pm

  58. jfngw says:

    Normal Brewer on Politics Scotland constantly badgering and interrupting the SNP MSP, the other three parties allowed to speak with little intervention. He didn’t even correct the Tory when he claimed SNP had not won the election. Apparently you only have a mandate in Scotland with majority of vote, but in UK it is the number of seats.

    There is little point to these political commentators if they can’t even point out simple facts, they are supposed to be informing the viewers not assisting in their confusion.

    Long interview with recently promoted Tory reject in London, pretty much gets to say what he wants, city deals are the same as a straightforward bung it would appear. No pointing out that city deals are open to every nation, but the bung is only available to NI.

  59. Liz says:

    @David so will they allow songs about ni**ers?

    Why have any laws at all protecting people from being abused by homophobes and racists.

    There’s freedom of speech and there’s

  60. David says:


    Can only assume he’d be OK with it as long as it was in a football ground.

    I hope the supporters of repealing the act are challenged with providing an alternative.

  61. David says:

    Can only assume he’d be OK with it as long as it was in a football ground.

    I hope the supporters of repealing the act are challenged with providing an alternative.

  62. Faltdubh says:

    Happy with Nicola’s announcement yesterday. And I’m loving the Anglo Unionist argument of “she’s backtracking” to the Scot-Brits “TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE!” There’s not a hope in hell that Sturgeon was ever going to ‘take it off the table’ and especially not so, if it was Davidson, Kezia and Wullie Rennie who were demanding that be done.

    From the website, I get an impression just from Nicola’s statement yesterday and just from nothing more than an gut feeling that any new Yes movement/campaign will be talked about less by Nicola Sturgeon and more by a cross-party Yes group.

    The ball is now really back in the Tories court with the up coming Brexit debacle. I thought Sturgeon suggesting to the Unionist parties in Holyrood to back the Scots govt to get a seat at the table and/or help them put pressure on the UK govt for single market/common market/movement of people was an excellent and move, although as we’ve seen the likes of Davidson – seems to only come out for the press when things are going well.

    I thought after the election this is exactly what the SNP needed to. Although it is actually not different from what the SNP were suggesting in March and I’m sure the ones who were listening (I guess most of us, and not all crowing English-based Yoons)would have realised this. Some of the commentary on Scotland from England is not just of course 100% biased, but actually weak and often very basic e.g like I’d imagine many of us if we were ever to write a detailed response about a country we know just a wee bit about.

    The offensive behavior bill has been a good thing. And I say that as fan from a Celtic background. I certainly don’t think this should be voted through and disappointed that Greens seem to be voting with the Tories and Labour on this. Then, if we Jamessy Kelly gets to sing his rebels then all his well, and also Murdo of Pertshire can no doubt sing the Sash at 12 Bells – I’m sure he’ll be delighted too.

    Now for the SNP – the main focus has to be domestic issues with a ton of pressure put on the UK Govt in Brussels. If the SNP step away – for the time, and it is only just that! of even talking about independence, what will the Scots Tories actually do? They will have nothing to talk about.

    A sensible approach is to see what happens with Brexit. We could be heading for a hard, soft, no Brexit at all or out by November – if the talks break down?

    Slow and steady wins the race, but we need to be ready for all eventualities and I believe that is right.

  63. K1 says:

    That’s fine Peter, you just didn’t ‘show your hand’ and therefore I thought you were a genuine commenter making a comment about the Rev actually using the words ‘sporting events’ but it turns out you’ve an axe tae grind.

    I don’t. Not getting intae this kind of dialogue on here. You want argue the merits of this act and it’s application with the usual hair splitting devices that’s up tae you and yours.

    Imo the act should stay. End.

  64. Dorothy Devine says:

    Unbelievable stupidity by probably the most wanting of MSPs and the media behaving in the usual cynical manner – I do hope they come up against the opposing side when they least expect it.

    I wonder when their jobs are seriously under threat if they will change their tune , they sure as hell owe the peoples of Scotland a huge apology for being a lying , spinning parcel o’ rogues.

    I will never forgive , neither will I forget.

  65. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Thats fine K1.

    I think this is a dangerous piece of legislation that targets football fans only. There was, and is, many other legal avenues for charging anyone who sings sectarian, racist, homophobic songs.

  66. K1 says:

    My point Peter is that you entered a comment that was underhand and devious when what you are now saying was your true agenda, it’s that, that I will have nothing to do with. I don’t discuss any issue wi others who indulge in subterfuge, therefore anything you have to say in relation to this or any subject is void. You’re not a straight shooter. I like honest brokers.

    Ma mistake to have responded in the first instance, guid day tae ye.

  67. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    K1, i entered a comment that was factually correct. I fail to understand how my comment could, in any way, be considered underhand and devious. Perhaps you only wish to engage with others that agree with you. Your loss if that is the case.

  68. Capella says:

    So is there a Holyrood petition against repeal? I’d sign. Circulated via Facebook and twitter it could collect a lot of signatures and let the parties know we’re taking note.

  69. Dek says:

    The ludicrous OBFA article the Rev refers to finally freed me from the tyranny of buying a Sunday paper.

  70. jfngw says:

    @Peter.Edinburgh 4:15pm

    Dangerous, a bit over of an statement. Aligning yourself with one side of the people in NI is dangerous, this is a minor piece of legislation that affects a tiny minority of the population, supported by the majority of the population according to the poll conducted.

  71. K1 says:

    ‘By amending it to cover all events it removes this distinction. It doesn’t matter if it only happens at football, it’s about equality and if this would make either the Greens or Libdems support it then it’s worthwhile change.’

    I see where you are coming from. I’m not sure what if any amandments the greens or Libdems would bring forward that could stop the repeal. I’m hoping the snp will bring forward some that could reshape in such a way that this lie is exposed for what it is, politicking bullshit:

    ‘He added: “Every other party opposed it. Academics, lawyers, football clubs and football fans opposed it, yet the SNP wouldn’t listen and used its majority in the Scottish Parliament to railroad the Football Act through.”

    Which is completely at odds wi the recent policing on the matter that the Rev has published atl.

    Kelly isn’t interested in ‘worthwhile change’ he wants it repealed.

  72. K1 says:

    ‘policing’ = ‘polling’ obvs 🙁

  73. Brian Powell says:

    If the poll that Wings commissioned was supplied to the MSPs and journalists then it seems reasonable to hold the MSPs who vote for repeal plus the journalists who write the stories personally responsible for what follows.

  74. gerry parker says:

    Brian Powell.

    ” believe Kelly was a List MP, nobody elected him.”

    A case for restricting the involvement of list MP’s perhaps.

  75. Thepnr says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh

    I think this is a dangerous piece of legislation…

    I fail to see anything remotely dangerous about this act, who or what is it a danger too in your opinion, do you even know what the act says?

    Scope of the offence:

    A person commits an offence if a person engages in behaviour of the kind listed below in relation to a regulated football match and which is likely to incite public disorder:

    Expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against an individual or group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group, a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation, a group defined by reference to colour, race, nationality, ethnic or national origins, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability;

    Behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of such a group; behaviour that is threatening;

    or other behaviour that a reasonable person would consider offensive including, but not limited to, sectarian songs or chants.

    In your view what is particularly dangerous as described in the act of the scope of the offence. I see nothing here that I could not support and maybe that is why almost 2/3rds of Scots agree with me as demonstrated by any poll result you care to look at.

    Ypou appear to be in the minority here, a minority of 1 if comments on this thread are anything to go by.

    So let’s hear it. Give it your best shot, what is it exactly you object to in the act and what makes it so dangerous?

  76. K1 says:

    To be honest, this could do with a referendum, let’s have a petition for this?

    Get it sorted once and for all?

    A short one, 1 month, all the views aired in public, let the people decide, not wackodoodle Kelly’s of the parliament telling us what he thinks everyone else thinks about this, cause when it gets to the stage where such recent polling is so clear on this subject, there has to be a point where the Scottish Government put their legislation to the public?

  77. ronnie anderson says:

    cuilean 2.47 Sheriff Tony Kelly & James Kelly msp are brothers , but I must say Sheriff Tony is the brighter of the two by far .

  78. Az says:

    I heard James Kelly MSP being interviewed re the dirty DUP deal recently. The guy is near robotic. He had a pre-rehearsed line which he used, preceded by the word “well…”, which he simply used as a reply to the opening question. Unfortunately it was SO not an answer.

    It was painful listening, unnecessarily exposing the listener to a few minutes of him bumbling pre-manufactured lines and phrases in an awkward, mechanical and heavy-going struggle of an interview. As I overheard at half-time at Firhill (Partick Thistle vs Aberdeen) where I was in the away end and Aberdeen had been lacklustre, the score 0-0:

    “Fit de ye mak o that?”
    “Ah, thir fukin makin heavy weath’r ot”

    This was a simple, inquisitive interview. Nowhere near confrontational or overly pressing. Yet all the hapless Kelly could do was make heavy weather of it. I have literally no idea if the man has so much as a spark of intelligence. He looks glaiket, but he might not be; he sounds very stupid indeed, but perhaps he is not. It is therefore easy to indulge in speculation as to how he retains his place on the SLab list. He isn’t even popular, is he? Does he have something on someone? Is it just that there is nobody better, is Labour this talentless?

    If you cannot think on your feet and actually at least address questions put to you, you should not be an MSP. You are not capable. You are preventing a more qualified person from doing the job. An important job. Serving the people in your area of Scotland. How dare you come back again and again, election after election, to clog things up and waste everyone’s time with attention-seeking nonsense that appeals to the worst types. I am only guessing here, but I’ll bet he is terrible at his regional (is that the right term? it surely can’t be ‘constituency’) work as well. How can he not be? Inept. Woeful. Possibly dense.

  79. Thepnr says:

    My quot on the scope of the act is from the Lord Advocates Guidelines on the act and can be read here:

  80. Geoff Huijer says:

    One can only presume that the media want the Act repealed because sectarianism sells papers.

    ‘No-one arrested at Old Firm derby’ hasn’t got the smae ring as ‘Old Firm riot’ (And yes, I know sectarianism in football is not just a Celtic/Rangers thing).

  81. Jack Murphy says:

    BREXIT and a Scotland Independence Referendum as seen by viewers in England,Wales,Northern Ireland and Scotland on the BBC TV Flagship 6pm News last night.

    The BBC UK Newsreader begins at the top of the News:
    “Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has scrapped plans for a second referendum on independence by the Spring of 2019….”

    Scotland correspondent Sarah Smith is included in this link.


  82. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Thepnr, that is mot what the Act says. What the Act says is-

    1. Offensive behaviour at regulated football matches

    (1)A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match—
    (a)the person engages in behaviour of a kind described in subsection (2), and
    (b)the behaviour—
    (i)is likely to incite public disorder, or
    (ii)would be likely to incite public disorder.

    (2)The behaviour is—
    (a)expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of—
    (i)a religious group,
    (ii)a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,
    (iii)a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4),

    (b)expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a),

    (c)behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in any of those sub-paragraphs,

    (d)behaviour that is threatening, or

    (e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

    (3)For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) and (b), it is irrelevant whether the hatred is also based (to any extent) on any other factor.

    (4)The things referred to in subsection (2)(a)(iii) are—
    (c)nationality (including citizenship),
    (d)ethnic or national origins,
    (e)sexual orientation,
    (f)transgender identity,

    (5)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii), behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that—
    (a)measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or
    (b)persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in sufficient numbers.

    (6)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
    (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine, or to both, or
    (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

    That is not what you posted, which leads me to wonder where you copied and pasted that from? And i wonder if you know what the Act says?

    As for dangerous, i give you 2e other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

    Who defines ‘reasonable person’? You? Me? Am individual police officer? Actually, that reasonable person doesn’t even need to exist. Someone just has to consider that a reasonable person may consider an individuals behaviour offemsive.

    Ask the many individuals who have been charged under this Act, only to have their charges thrown out many months later, if they consider this Act dangerous.

  83. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Rangers fans: “We Are The People – Noone Likes Us We Don’t Care”

    Celtic fans: “We Are The Greatest Fans In The World – Celtic, Never Defeated, Always Cheated Since 1888”.

    That’s the reality. The Rangers’ fans do not care how much you criticise them or attempt to belittle them. They support “The most-successful team in the world” – suck it up you poor suckers who follow inferior teams.

    The Celtic fans desperately want to be loved, to have their team’s superiority on the park, and theirs off the park, acknowledged by all.

    They are two cheeks of the same arse. Banning the Rangers songbook of traditional Irish songs will not stop them flaunting their own sense of superiority.

    Banning the Celtic songbook of traditional Irish songs only demonstrates how much you hate them and deny their own sense of superiority.

    These traits are ingested from the cradle, like mother’s milk – they will never change.

    OBFA is bad law; it was badly, and hurriedly drafted. I know several retired senior policemen who will tell you, the old breach of the peace law was sufficient, but, the political will to properly enforce it was never there.

    OK, it is bad law, the obvious thing to do is amend it, rather than repealing it.

    The Celtic fans, or at least a goodly proportion of them always thought it was meant to stop the Rangers’ fans – no more Billy Boys or The Famine Song. In their eyes, it was never meant to count against their songs of the brave Irish struggle against the might of England’s empire.

    That is where Kelly is coming from.

    However, the truth is – if Scottish Football would tackle Offensive Behaviour at Football Matches, there would be no need for this act.

    If the clubs were made responsible for their fans’ behaviour, the offensive behaviour would quickly stop.

    But, since football will not do this, then we need laws, even bad laws like OBFA.

    And, by the way mogabee @ 2.56pm – people DO sing sectarian songs at places other than football grounds. I was wakened at 2am on Saturday morning, while overnighting in Kilwinning, by an out-of-tune medley of The Sash, followed by Derry’s Walls, with the optional FTP add-ons, as some of the neighbours got home.

    And finally, EVERY football club in the senior and junior ranks in Scotland has its quota of heid-cases. But the two Glasgow teams mentioned have more than all the rest combined.

  84. Marie Clark says:

    By jings, De Hondt has a lot to answer for. Whit a feckin eejit o a man.

    A complete and utter waste of space.

  85. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    So thenpr, you are not quoting from the Act at all, but from Guidelines!

  86. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Faltdubh @ 16:09,

    We can’t be “out by November”. This is a casual misunderstanding that is being repeated too often. The Mayhem Gang can walk out of talks any time they choose, of course, but exit only occurs 2 years after invoking Art.50. Not before. (Or later, except by mutual agreement.)

  87. Coz says:

    Sectarianism is useful for the Union, deep rooted familial and cultural beliefs and attitudes are wrapped up in the concept of Britishness, Queen, flag, Rangers etc. Anything which ‘threatens’ the standing of Britishness is a personal affront and must be defeated. SNP is a personal affront to many on one side of the sectarian divide in particular, they vote against the SNP & independence because their own sense of self – family, friends, football team, religion(after a fasion) the Queen – is threatened, their concept of identity is rigid and narrow. In attempting to water down & ultimately defeat sectarianism the SNP I’m sure understand that by removing the blinkered view of sectarian influenced identity they might free up the intellect of thousands of future Scots to make rational judgements in Scotland’s best interests free from the burden of loyalty to a flag, football team or whatever first.

  88. Thepnr says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh

    I’m pretty satisfied in following the Lord Advocate of Scotlands guidance on this act rather than the dry substance of the act itself.

    No one, certainly not me is arguing the act is perfect and some clarification on the use of the word reasonable would be welcome.

    Still doesn’t make the act “dangerous” who should I listen too you or the Lord Advocate? Hmmm. You don’t need to answer that by the way it was a rhetorical question.

  89. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Thepnr, you didnt post what the Act says, despite you suggesting you had.

    As far as i’m aware the Lord Advocate has not offered any opinion on whether the Act is dangerous or not.

    However, we can always use the description of one Sherriff when he described the Act as ‘mince’. Is that a better word?

    You don’t need to answer that by the way, it was a rhetorical question.

  90. Petra says:

    @ Stoker @ 3:59pm ….. Thanks Stoker.


    What next in an attempt to scupper Indyref2? A few wee ‘security’ incidents, Russian subs reported as mooching about Faslane, dozens of terrorist cells operating from Wick to Dumfries etc?

    One thing that we can be sure of is that the powers that be will try to put the Scots off of the EU altogether. Taking it that it’s become clear that dark money ‘collected’ by the DUP was being used to influence the outcome of the EU referendum on the mainland, promoting the leave vote and succeeding, I reckon they’ll now focus 100% on Scotland. As we continue to get the truth out there in relation to our economy, etc, let’s not forget to get the truth out there about the EU too.

  91. yesindyref2 says:

    I keep forgetting to do this.

    If you get the typical naysayer for a Scottis currency “Denmark has foreign reserves of £50 billion, Scotland would have to have the same”, then the asnwer is that Demark’s are high because of the possibility of entering the ERM2 for 2 years prior to the eurozone, so it built them up. Remember how much the UK lost in just one day in the 1990s.

    Whereas Sweden has no current intention, and runs at about the equivalent of £19 billion for Scotland proportional to GDP. But the UK itself having built up reserves for Brexit is at just £120 billion, the equivalent in Scotland of just £10 billion.

    Rev had an article on this, but for reference, half-way down the page at that URL you can get the current (within a month) state of play of any country’s foreign reserves.

  92. Dan Huil says:

    @Coz 5:03pm

    Well said. The britnat establishment would dearly love to see “Troubles” contaminating Scotland. Indeed it would happily induce it if it meant protecting their so-called united kingdom.

  93. Andy-B says:

    Isn’t it in the unionist parties interests, to keep Scotland divided by sectarianism. The last thing they want is to see the Scottish public united on this matter.

  94. Breeks says:



    Item 3

    “In addition, a dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland has been launched under the authority of the Coordinators”….

    Why is there a dialogue on Ireland / Norther Ireland in the Brexit Negotiation Structure, but no reference at all to Scotland?

  95. Skip_NC says:

    Greetings from Raleigh, North Carolina. Back in the day, I was a regular at Meadowbank Thistle games, so this act would never have applied to me (ha ha). However, looking at the quote posted by thepnr, I have to wonder why other legislation could not be used. Breach of the Peace perhaps? Here in NC, a case could (and in some counties, would) be made for assault, leading to a short spell in the county jail for a first offence.

  96. Scottish Steve says:

    I cant stand football and all the sectarian rubbish that comes with it so I was very pleased with the SNP when they brought forward this legislation. So they want to let people sing sectarian songs do they? Yet we nationalists are accused of being the divisive ones!

    It beggars belief. A shame that no government has the balls to ban the Orange marches. Then again, look at the howling and screaming the unionists are doing just at this Act. Imagine the reaction if they were prevented from parading their bigotry on the streets with their portraits of Wee Willy. There’d be bloodshed.

    Truly Scotland’s shame.

  97. Thepnr says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh

    I take it your not very happy about the Lord Advocates guidance then and prefer a solitary Sheriffs view that it is mince. Fair enough. I guess the sheriff never got the message from the LA.

    The whole act is dangerous and should be scuppered in your view because it includes the word “reasonable” which in your view is ill defined. Is that a reason to scrap it? Which part in particular are you unhappy with? Care to share?

    2/3rds of Scots appear to disagree with you and your argument for this act being “dangerous” is let’s face it, I’ll be fair and say unsubstantiated. What I want to know is why YOU in particular are so against this legislation that clearly the majority support and what is dangerous?

    You see I don’t understand your arguments nor James Kelly’s, maybe you could enlighten me.

  98. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Marie Clark @ 16:57 (and others),

    Don’t blame the electoral system, Marie, tempting though it may be. The truth is that manifest eejits like Kelly are voted in, whatever the system (viz. Ruth’s UKOK Dozy Dozen), by eeji voters with an incomplete understanding of issues and personal capabilities.

    (I mean, c’mon, who really thinks the Douglas Ross is in anywhere the same league as Alex Salmond?)

    Alas there’s plenty of that kind of stupid goin’ around. They deserve each other, it’s just a pity the rest of us have to endure the rank awfulness of it all as well.

  99. Capella says:

    @ Breeks – because Ireland is in the EU and must be protected by the EU where there are Borders with a non EU state. The EU will expect the Good Friday Agreement to be defended.
    Scotland, as long as we are in the UK, has no border with the EU.
    That would change on independence.

  100. yesindyref2 says:

    Becuase Ireland is a full member state, and has made representations about the border. Scotland isn’t, and won’t be a problem unless we go Independent. The EU can do nothing, except observe.

    What I like though was the reference to the “Common Trade Area”, which could be stretched a little later to include Indy Scotland being in the EU (/ EEA), and the rUK not. The precedent as it were (probably a Protocol to the Treaties), would already be established.

  101. Hamish100 says:

    If the sectarian card played by labour and Tories succeed the next old firm fight will be their responsibility.

    Except the will blame the SNP.

    The so called football journalists, Tories and labour are the lowest

  102. Capella says:

    A petition could say that votes will be noted. Should the Act be repealed, all MSP’s who voted for repeal will be held personally responsible for the consequences.

  103. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    yesindyref2 @ 17:47,

    That’s the thing which I believe everyone is missing. By keeping the UK (as it stands) inside the single market, it prevents Scottish trade with rUK being used as an obstacle to independence during the coming indyref2 and limiting our EU options.

    We don’t have the heft of a full EU member behind us, unfortunately, but it’s a policy that still protects our flanks while (graciously!) helping E+W+NI at the same time.

  104. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Guidance is just that, guidance.

    And it is more than a single Sherriffs view, which you seem to dismiss easily, the Act has a very low conviction rate.

    And one of the reasons for the low conviction rate is due to how individual police officers are interpreting the words ‘reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.’, as it is so dangerously defined.

    Where do you get this evidence that 2/3rds of Scots appear to disagree with me?

    Bad legislation is bad legislation. The low conviction rate of this particular Act suggests its bad. The fact that the majority of political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament think it is bad. The fact that the majority of MSPs think it is bad. The fact that football fans from clubs all over Scotland think it is bad (and i really wish people would stop thinking that this is about two clubs only).

    And you still have not answered my question as to who is defining who the ‘reasonable person’ that is so offended by a behaviour, that it can lead to an individual being arrested and charged under this Act.

  105. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    And thepnr, i have not forgotten your attempt to pass off guidance as the actual Act. The words underhand and devious were aimed at me earlier as well!!!

  106. Meg merrilees says:

    Robert j Sutherland /Faltdubh 5.09pm

    Even if T May tried to take us ‘out by November’, surely nothing legally could happen till the Great Repeal Bill has been debated/passed and implemented.

    Given the amount of legislation this bill will affect, that should take some considerable time, including the need for a legislative Consent motion from Wales, N.Ireland and Scotland.

    I should imagine that could even take a year, say till next Autumn, i.e. Autumn 2018…

  107. Scottish Steve says:

    @Peter Edinburgh

    Why are you so keen to allow people to sing bigoted songs at football? Is it because it somehow infringes on the poor footie fans’ freedom of speech? I rather think it is there to punish them for behaving like sectarian scum.

  108. Thepnr says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh

    The evidence for the poll results come from the article above. Did you read the article? Doesn’t seem like it and not just the Wings poll but lots of polls, all are linked. Maybe take a look.

    How many more Sheriffs have described the act as mince? Any at all other than the one you mentioned earlier?

    You have a bee in your bonnet about this act and that comes across clearly, still though you haven’t told me why it is “dangerous” and which particular part of the act so offends you.

    I’m listening and await your enlightenment.

    One last thing, I never said anywhere in my post at 4:39 that I was directly quoting from the OBFA act. If your going to attempt to slander me please try and get your facts right. I immediately posted minutes later the source of my quote for the avoidance of doubt.

    I think your just a wee bit tetchy.

  109. Auld Rock says:

    Am I correct, living a long way from Glasgow, but did I hear that Colonel Blimps infantry are tacking- over Glasgow this weekend? If so I hope ‘Dim Wit Kelly’ will enjoy the flute bands and all the rest of the vile behaviour that goes on which is I believe repeated when East Glasgow meets South Glasgow. Personally I don’t follow football and the reason I never started over sixty years ago was down to sectarianism.

    Patrick and his Greens really do need to rethink their position on this.

    Auld Rock

  110. Elizabeth Stanley says:

    The conviction rate for rape is shockingly low.

    Perhaps that law should be repealed?

  111. Scottish Steve says:

    @Auld Rock

    Well marching season will soon be upon us. Unfortunately, the Orange bigots always lay siege to my home city of Glasgow every summer. They certainly know how to ruin a weekend!

    I just find it funny that these morons march out of love for a state and monarchy that would not piss on them if they were on fire.

  112. Bill McLean says:

    Send the Greens an email. I have. Telling them I will never lend them nor vote for them again if they support the repeal of OBFA.

  113. Sarah says:

    @ Bill McLean 6.41

    I’ve emailed my Green MSP suggesting they go for amendment not repeal.

  114. Mungo says:

    Does anyone know why the SNP Glasgow city Council have given permission for this orange march?

  115. Scottish Steve says:


    I have two possible answers.

    1) They are scared of a violet backlash from the Orange Order as well as endless whinging from unionist parties and the media about suppression of freedom of assembly/religion/speech.

    2) There may be Protestant elements of the SNP which approve of the marches.

  116. PacMan says:

    Over the decades a lot of behaviours that once was seen as normal has for the good been removed from public life. Examples of these has been harmless things like smoking in public places and more unacceptable ones like sexist, racist and homophobic comments. This has achieved through personal activism, changing public attitudes and government legislation.

    No one in their right mind should expect these measures to totally eradicate those bigoted attitudes but it has allowed for individuals to express and develop themselves in public life without fear of being subject to uncivil behaviour and abuse.

    Again, nobody is expecting the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act to eradicate sectarianism but it makes public spaces free of such hatred and abuse. More importantly, it will stop the knuckle draggers from frequenting the football terraces and make watch football more family friendly which is the real way to eradicate sectarianism in football.

  117. Scottish Steve says:

    That should read violent, not violet. The OO are certainly no shrinking violets!

    An edit button, an edit button, my kingdom for an edit button!

  118. Paula Rose says:

    Strolls into Wings – football – strolls out again.

  119. Thepnr says:

    @Scottish Steve

    We knew what you meant, I do it all the time. 🙂

  120. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Thepnr, the poll asks about sectarian singing, which as i have pointed time and time again, is not what the Act is about. Again, the words ‘sectarian’ and ‘sectarianism’ do not appear in the Act. Therefore the poll is flawed, it asks a misleading question. Of course no one wants to hear sectarian singing at football. There was, and is, legislation that deals with sectarian singing at football in place. This Act was not required.

    No, you didn’t say you were quoting direct from the Act. Luckily then i never claimed that you did say that. I did post that you were suggesting you were quoting from the Act. Shame you didnt post your source for the quote at the time. But there you go.

    I think i have explained why i consider it dangerous. You just don’t wish to accept what i post.

    You have still to answer my question as to who defines who a reasonable person is. Three times i have asked, you have still not answered. I don’t expect you to do so now.

  121. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Scottish Steve, if you can point out where i ever suggested i am happy for people to sing bigoted songs at footnall, i’d appreciate it.

  122. velofello says:

    The article listed here by Jeanette Findlay is pitiful.

  123. Juan P says:


    The sheriff who described the act as mince (Sheriff Richard Davidson) has a colourful history of making ill informed comments from the bench which, to his credit, he has on occassion subsequently apologised for. Examples include but not limited to:

    Also, please give an example of behaviour prosecuted under the obaf which you consider to be acceptable at a football match?

    The fairest objective criticism of the act, and one accepted by criminal law practitioners, is that some offending could be dealt with using existing legislation and/or the common law. That’s hardly a good enough reason to call for repeal though.

    Statutory offences which protect police and other emergency workers from assault could be prosecuted under the common law of assault. Are you calling for repeal of those too?

    Lastly, what kind of behaviour is it that you would like to participate in at a match that you believe the act currently prevents you from engaging in? Can you not just go to a match and watch the game like normal folk who attend other sports?

  124. Rock says:

    “The Sunday Herald ran a particularly despicable andh yperbolic piece full of appalling mistruths by some abysmally dreadful idiot,”

    The Sunday Herald showing its true colours.

    Is support for independence was fake and given up when its sister paper The National took over the pretence.

    Buy The National to keep The Herald and The Sunday Herald alive.

  125. ClanDonald says:

    The Greens supporting this is as politically inept as the SNP voting to mutilate puppies.

  126. Gary45% says:

    Probably signed off before the SNP took control, public meetings like marches/ rallies are organised months in advance.

  127. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Juan P, again, it seems posters putting words in my mouth.

  128. Robbo says:

    The only act they should be repealing is the ‘Act of Union 1707’ and gee us aw peace!

  129. Rock says:

    Rev. Stuart Campbell,

    “The Greens are committed to voting with Labour and the Tories on it.”

    It is a wonder that the Greens backed a second independence referendum.

    I believe it was to do with their political survival, to avoid the inevitable backlash from pro-independence voters if they had voted against.

  130. Big Jock says:

    Kellys next bill is to reintroduce the Corn Laws of 1815. Mercantilism is the new unionism.

  131. HandandShrimp says:

    Strolls into Wings – football – strolls out again.

    Wise move Paula… 🙂

    I am sure that if the numbers stack up then they will repeal the legislation. If there is a re-continuation of the problems of a few years ago then those that repealed the act, whether it is fair or not, will own that problem, not the Government.

  132. Juan P says:

    If you answer the questions we might have a clearer idea what your argument is.

    In terms of a reasonable person this is a concept which courts in Scotland, England and many other jurisdictions address their minds to every day in respect of a wide range of offences.

  133. Scottish Steve says:


    If the Greens vote to repeal the OBFA then I wont ever vote for them again. It’ll be SNP or nobody from then on for me.

  134. jfngw says:


    Oh give up with the puppies. We stun other animals, hang them from their feet then slit their throats and make sure they wiggle to get the blood out. If you are a vegan you may have a point but otherwise it’s inconsistent caring for animal welfare.

  135. Undeadshaun says:

    I think councils should insist that when a licence is granted for a march by orange order that they should be forced to march in empty industrial estates on sundays when there is no one there.

  136. Rock says:

    Scottish Steve,


    If the Greens vote to repeal the OBFA then I wont ever vote for them again. It’ll be SNP or nobody from then on for me.”

    Rock (4th July 2015 – Scotland’s Embarrassment),

    “Green poiticians are opportunist hypocrites just like the Lib Dems.

    They know that their policies could never be implemented but play the nice guys to win votes.

    People vote for them in good faith, as they used to for the Lib Dems.

    Like the 1300 that voted Green enabling the Tory viceroy of Scotland get in with a majority of 900.

    Ken500 often says that they are in the pockets of the big landowners and I wouldn’t be surprised if they are.

    Patrick Harvey never misses an opportunity to attack the SNP.

    Green and Socialist MSPs have their own agendas and would hold the SNP to ransom if the latter didn’t win an outright majority.

    Anyone whose top priority is independence must give both their votes to the SNP in 2016.”

    My motto is:

    “Always vote, and always vote for the SNP, until after independence.”

  137. heraldnomore says:

    Quite right Paula, strolling out. But never mind the fitba’ there’s the bawheid back. So I’m out too.

  138. Scottish Steve says:


    I’ve said something similar for ages. If the government wont ban them then they ought to be put into empty stadiums where they can march in circles to their wee hearts’ content.

    But if they did that then they wouldn’t be able to go out onto the streets to intimidate people and show everyone how big and strong and manly they are with their flutes and flags and ugly little uniforms. They need the attention to feel superior.

  139. jfngw says:


    I think we get it, you seem to want the bill repealed and a number of us want it retained with possibly some amendments. Is there any other point you are making?

  140. Scottish Steve says:


    I voted SNP with both votes in the last Scottish Parliament election. I gave my third preference vote to Patrick Harvie in the council election as I thought he was a decent guy and pro-indy.

    But this nonsense about them wanting to repeal the OBFA is putting me right off them.

  141. Thepnr says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh

    I would say that both you and I would consider ourselves to be “reasonable persons” whether this would would be be the case in the eyes of the law I have no idea.

    I’ve already said that this was something worth considering if there was to be an amendment to the law and I have no problem with that.

    You are right that the act as written does not specifically mention sectarianism though the Lord Advocate’s guidance does, so maybe that’s another area for improvement of this law.

    Improve the law not scrap it in my view, for sure existing law will cover many cases that this falls under though because this is specifically about football the punishment under existing law may not include banning orders from football grounds etc.

    Do you want to know what I really believe this law is about? Probably not but I’ll tell you anyway, it’s about raising the profile of sickening sectarianism, making it highly visible and an attempt to eradicate it from Scottish society. A goal I am fully behind as are the vast majority of Scots.

    This law is not in any way dangerous in my view to all law abiding citizens and as far as I’m concerned you haven’t explained that at all, much as I’d like you too.

  142. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Juan P, i think my point is clear.

    Jfngw, here was me thinking that this was an open forum for discussion. It appears not.

    Oh well. Good luck to you all.

  143. Rock says:


    “We stun other animals, hang them from their feet then slit their throats and make sure they wiggle to get the blood out.”

    The stunned ones might count themselves lucky.

    Muslims and Jews slit their throats while they are fully conscious.

    Perfectly legally in this country, I mean kingdom, of “animal lovers”.

  144. Capella says:

    @ Paula Rose – it’s not really about football. It’s about Unionists stirring up sectarian violence against the wishes of the majority of voters from all parties, classes, ages and genders.

    It’s anti- democratic. Maybe the SNP should call a referendum on this!

  145. Michael McCabe says:

    @ Peter. Edinburgh. I can Define that Thepnr is a Reasonable Person.

  146. Artyhetty says:

    Anyone voting for this should be made to attend a few matches, before and after.

    A disgraceful attempt to create divide and cause violence and the likes of Kelly do not give a stuff about that.
    They want to see the police stations and hospitals full at weekends. These unionists have no morals when it comes to their own political agenda. They would rather see violence than a civilised society, where people are getting on together.

    A civilised, successful society is much harder to manipulate.

    It is an attempt to undermine the SNP government. The Greens would be wise to think again, or be lumped in with the self serving bigots.

  147. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Thepnr, until the most obvious example of sectarianism in this country is outlawed, Orange marches, them i fail to accept any Scottish Government is serious about tackling sectarianism.

    There always something suspicious when anyone claims all law abiding citizens need not fear a particular law. We are all law abiding citizens, until we are not!

  148. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Michael McCabe, is he/she? And what definition are you using?

    And for clarification, i am not suggesting thepnr is not a reasonable person.

    You see, i consider Orange marches as unreadonable. However, they are legal and tjousands of people consider them perfectly acceptable. So who is reasonable here? Me or the person who takes part in these marches?

  149. jfngw says:


    I didn’t see any discussion merely the same point being repeated over and over, then nitpicking others replies to keep the responses going. I’m sure there is a description for this type of behaviour.

  150. Capella says:

    @ Artyhetty – I agree. It ‘s part of their “Ulsterisation” Project. To be resisted at all costs. If the Greens can’t vote with the SNP they should at least abstain.

    If the SNP is defeated they can hold a referendum – at a time of their choosing. Let the people decide!

  151. Scottish Steve says:

    I wrote to Patrick Harvie who is my regional Green MSP. I told him that if he and his party vote to repeal the OBFA then I wont be giving him or his party my vote again in future. I advise others to do likewise. If they receive enough messages like that, it might make them think twice.

    Correction: I didn’t vote for Harvie in the council election as he wasn’t standing! I voted for his candidate. Apologies. Have had a couple of blond moments on here today.

  152. Thepnr says:

    @Peter. Edinburgh

    I’d guess Michael McCabe is using the definition of his own ears and ears since he has met me at Wings gatherings. We have yet to have that pleasure.

    Still waiting on an answer on your definition of “dangerous” regarding OBFA. Looking like will freeze over first before I get one.

  153. geeo says:


    Broken fucking record.

  154. Robert Kerr says:


    Too many posts Peter.

    I scroll past without reading.


  155. Capella says:

    We could do with some practice in holding referendums. Next time we must have the OSCE supervising to ensure the media obey the rules. An exit poll is also essential.
    Scrutiny of the voter roll, expenditure (e.g. DUP banned from interfering) and postal votes has to be in place. And Facebook and Twitter will have to be monitored for subliminal ads.
    All doable. An OBFA referendum would be a useful practice model.

  156. Scottish Steve says:


    At this rate the SNP might need to rename themselves as the SRP (Scottish Referendum Party) 😛

    I think we should leave our elected representatives in Parliament to do their jobs. We can talk about holding referendums on laws in a hopefully soon-to-be independent Scotland. They do it in countries like Switzerland but I don’t think an independent Scotland would be the type of nation to hold referendums on laws all the time. I just don’t think we have the culture or enthusiasm for it. Then again, if Scotland’s people are sovereign, it could be a cool article to add to a Scottish constitution. 😉

    It’s an interesting concept and I am sympathetic to it. Power to the people!

  157. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Geeo. And with that, i’m out of here. Now, under this Act you could be charged under the threatening communication part, which states ‘the material consists of, contains or implies a threat, or an incitement, to carry out a seriously violent act against a person’. I find your communication threatening. Fortunately for you i am not attending a Scottish football game tonight.

  158. jfngw says:

    @Capella 8:18pm

    It looks like an expensive way to run government using lots referendums. Unless you can streamline the process that does not involve holding the votes in hundreds of locations, I don’t really see it as feasible.

    The last GE is being quoted at over £100m, so even a highly streamlined one is probably going to cost over £1m.

    Although the next indyref should not allow money from outside Scotland to fund the campaigns, with every donation declared and open to scrutiny. This is a decision for Scotland and it should only debated by politicians from Scotland, no more last minute vows.

  159. ronnie anderson says:

    Another stumbling block for Teresa tomorrow in the NI assembly ? will Sein Fein be persuaded by the £1.5 billion .

  160. Valerie says:

    I can’t tell you how much James Kelly and his support for sectarianism sickens me.

    Sectarianism is still a big problem in this country, and much of the root is in football.

    Figures from social attitudes survey are very clear about the issue.

    Secondly, the more control we exercise over behaviour at matches, the better it might impact in reducing domestic violence, which can double after an old firm game.

    Anything that lessens control over sectarianism is simply aimed at furthering divide. James Kelly is doing the Tories work especially in this disgusting endeavour.

  161. stewartb says:

    Peter. Edinburgh @7.10 states:

    “You have still to answer my question as to who defines who a reasonable person is. Three times i have asked, you have still not answered. I don’t expect you to do so now.”

    Just catching up on this thread. I am no legal expert but candidly it takes but a FEW MINUTES to research the concept of the “reasonable person” and to discover that it is a well-established, well-used and very longstanding legal concept in many jurisdictions across the world e.g. England, USA, France etc. as well as in Scots Law.

    Used in many aspects of law in these systems, the definition and application of the ‘reasonable person’ concept is commonplace, tested by lawyers in court, and decided upon by judges and juries.

  162. Thepnr says:

    “ears and ears” that’s a new one. Time for a lie down I think LOL.

  163. Bob p says:

    Scottish Steve 6.31pm. A lot of the residents of Manchester would agree with you there. (About pissing on them if they were on fire)

  164. Liz g says:

    Geeo @ 8.08
    Well if he thinks fucking is a Seriously violent act
    Then there’s naebody hare can help him.
    Or mibbi it’s his record that ye threatened!
    Anyhoo he says he’s away so thank fuck (gently of course)

  165. ronnie anderson says:

    Wid some Winger throw that thread disrupter fae Emburgh ah Farleys rusk , he’s thrown his dummy oot the pram .

  166. Scottish Steve says:

    @Bob p

    The OO is an obsolete and bigoted organisation, Bob. Serves no purpose but to insult Catholics and disrupt the day-to-day business of ordinary people.

    What a shame James VII never took back his throne. Might not have had to suffer the OO if he did!

  167. mike d says:

    Andy-b 5.24pm. You got that in one Andy, the unionists have always used religious sectarianism to control their Scotland region. Just like they once did with their evil empire. Just a shame that some scots are uneducated enough to see through this ploy.

  168. WN says:

    Only problem is that the Act does not, and can never hope to, achieve a reduction in sectarianism, which was the stated aim of the SNP government in rushing to enact it. Even the government’s defence of the Act – that x many convictions have been achieved under it, rather than that sectarianism has been reduced – suggests that the government itself realises that the Act is ineffective. The reduction in sectarianism which has occurred in Scotland over the past half century, recently drawn to our attention by Professor Tom Devine, has been achieved by increasing secularism and ecumenism, a rather more patient process than this cack-handed piece of legislation. (Disagree with that description of it? then just ask any police officer, lawyer, or sheriff)

  169. Rock says:

    Peter. Edinburgh,

    “You see, i consider Orange marches as unreadonable. However, they are legal and tjousands of people consider them perfectly acceptable. So who is reasonable here? Me or the person who takes part in these marches?”

    I agree that the thugs’ marches should be banned.

    Is there any “reasonable person” around who can argue that they should be allowed to continue?

  170. Liz g says:

    Valerie @ 8.35
    Well said,it is sickening.
    What this fool and his backers don’t seem to want to know is..

    That after getting all fired up singing about being up to his knees in fieinen (never had cause to learn how to spell it)blood, he is not allowed to actually do it,so the blood on his knees is most likely from his wife’s face.

    And while it’s small blue birds that are ” ment ” to be flying over low laying fields, it’s normally his wife flying across the room so emotional was he.

    What ever is tapped in to by these chants in that footballing environment… it’s certainly no the beautiful thing that is freedom of speech!!

  171. Capella says:

    How much trouble can it be to wander down to your local Primary School or Village Hall and put a cross on a piece of paper every year or so? The Swiss do it all the time.
    You can even vote by post.
    Or don’t vote -it’s not compulsory.

    Are people beginning to believe the media hype?
    Now I don’t have TV but aren’t there endless game shows where people press the red button? Sounds like voting to me.

  172. Bob p says:

    Scottish Steve. Yes i can personally vouch for the insults . I’ll always remember when as a teenager in glasgow hearing my old irish dad on the 12th,being called a ‘fenian bastard ‘.and told to f**k off back to Ireland.

  173. Tinto Chiel says:

    “@ Peter. Edinburgh. I can Define that Thepnr is a Reasonable Person.”

    Just catching up but I concur, Michael.

    We don’t need this act for any other sporting activity in Scotland because its sectarian expression only manifests itself at the fitba’.


  174. george wood says:

    People have been saying that existing legislation is sufficient to deal with sectarian chanting, but the lack of convictions for sectarian chanting before the OBA says that it was not.
    Either the Police weren’t arresting people for it because they didn’t think it merited arrest or they decided it wouldn’t be worth it because they wouldn’t get a conviction or the existing law wasn’t clear enough about sectarian chanting. The Scottish Government is not supposed to tell the Sheriffs how to judge, so the only way to move forward is new legislation.
    New legislation to let the Police and/or the courts know that they are not in touch with what the people and specifically football fans want – an end to sectarian chanting.

  175. Scottish Steve says:

    @Bob p

    Totally disgraceful. They are nothing but thugs.

    Years ago when my sister was very little, my mum and her were going past an Orange march. My sister, only being a wean, was clapping along and enjoying the music. The men in the march were responding positively to her. My mum told me that she thought to herself, “Oh, hen, if they knew you were a Catholic, they’d spit in your eye.”

    How can this BS still scourge Scotland in this day and age?

  176. Tinto Chiel says:

    Bob p: I believe you. As the supporter of what is normally called an SPL “wee diddy team”, I have been called both a Fenian and Orange bastard, and quite extensively over the years…….

    And Kelly wants to perpetuate this kach…..

    It’s just the old divide and rule of the working class.

    Worked for Carson and the British State, after all.

  177. Robert Graham says:

    O/T I didn’t realise the DUP deal as well as the Bribe Included their MPs being included and having a direct say in Brexit negotiations, the reference being ” A Coordination Committee ” That means 10 Ulster Unionist MPS will have more say than the Scottish Parliament and our 35 MPS, Mayhem really doesn’t give a f/k about anything north of the border, I suggest SNP MPS at Westminster cause as much aggravation and bloody chaos as they can, they don’t want our MPs there so f/k their parliament and all the antiquated bloody customs .

  178. Thepnr says:

    Wings is reviled, it is hated both by the media and the Ultra Unionists. You know why, it’s because it’s NOT a place of hatefulness btl despite there attempts at making it so. In fact it is the opposite of what is claimed and most people are reasonable in putting across their view.

    Partisan it may be but it is always reasonable.

    Reasonable is an alien word to those that oppose Independence. Get back in your box Jock, AYE sure yah doughnut. You’ve got to laugh at their efforts they will go to such lengths to put us back in the box. On here, Wings, they have no chance of that.

    In fact their pathetic attempts only increase my resolve, I’ll be having none of the bullshit served up on my plate from the British State. I’m sticking around until Scotland and the Scottish people can decide for themselves if they want to remain in the UK or as a part of the European Union.

    That is why Wings is hated so much. This is where we the supporters of Independence have a voice and that annoys them so.

    Let’s annoy them some more, stick up a post that will rile them!

  179. Capella says:

    BTW – I’m all for MSPs getting on with their job. Their job is to represent their constituents. Now Stu’s research shows that the majority want OBFA retained. Who are we to believe? Stu or James Kelly and Murdo Fraser?

  180. jfngw says:


    Yes there are lots of shows you can vote on, and I can vote as many times as I care to. If you want an online voting system it has to be a lot more robust than the TV versions. Also open to more claims of vote rigging, there are no visible bits of paper to count.

    Switzerland appear to have held four referendums in 2016, roughly every three months, turnout seems pretty poor in three of them, less than 50%.

    You can see I’m a bit sceptical, but not closed minded about it.

  181. Scottish Steve says:


    Oooh, you’ve got a different opinion there, mate. Dugdale wont stand for that. Having a different opinion from her and her fellow travelers is divisive don’t ya know!

    I think she and many Scots unionists would enjoy living in North Korea. No division or dissenting opinion allowed. Just absolute love for the state and its glorious leaders. 🙂

  182. Ghillie says:

    If this is such an ineffectual Act in tackling violence and bigotry at football matches then what is Mr Harvie, for example, proposing as the alternative?

    Slabs and Slibs just don’t seem to give a toot about the violence. (unless eggs or stickers are involved)

    And I’m guessing, given the company they keep, the Tories actively endorse and enjoy the bigotry.

    Keep safe folks.

  183. Scottish Steve says:


    Fraser and Kelly have the British unionist mindset of “we know what’s best for the plebs” so of course they and their friends in the media will tell the Scots over and over that they detest the OBFA and that repealing is in their best interests.

    I can already see the screeching headlines if it’s repealed. “SNP Humiliated as Hated OBFA Is Scrapped” and then the unionist parties and voters will have a wee giggle amongst themselves like school weans. “Oh, check us, we scored a goal against the SNP teehee.”

  184. Liz g says:

    George Wood @ 19.18
    I don’t think anyone was saying that it was sufficient George.
    At the very least the concept of it being against the law,to behave in that way says…. Scottish society judges that you are wrong to do so.
    It’s not always about the numbers and surely it’s better to tackle it some how, don’t ye think?
    It’s a start,is it no?
    Don’t tear it down now, that’s like saying that behaviour was ok after all.
    That the behaviour doesn’t need addressed because it’s perfectly leagal.
    Would be completely the wrong step to take, I would have thought,common sense would tell them that.

    But rather take addressing the problem farther and hopefully one day that law can actually be safely repealed.
    And the repeal of it taken through Holyrood by an MSP for whom it can be demonstrated,has no other motivated for doing so.

    The motivation for passing the law and what it attempted to achieve, should also be considered along side the motivation for repealing the law and what that would likely achieve as well…. because that’s as much of an “outcome” as conviction rates.

  185. Andy smith says:

    Every time I see James Kelly on TV, I am reminded of Rikki Fulton’s alter-ego ‘Josie’…but without the jokes !!

  186. COLIN ALEXANDER says:

    So, the Scottish Govt and Scottish Parliament both backed Scotland remaining in the Single Market.

    The UK Govt refuse this by saying Brexit was a UK-wide decision. If my ideas are a no-goer, and the current SNP strategy as it’s been followed till date continues.

    The situation is:

    The Scot Govt’s solution is “MAYBE” an indyref after the Brexit negotiations are a done deal. Nobody knows how long that will be. At least two years and maybe more. Nobody knows if the SNP will ever be in a position to deliver another indyref if, not unexpectedly, Brexit negotiations don’t run as smooth as they were expected to, and there will be no time for an indyref before the end of this Scot Parl term. Nobody knows if the UK Govt would give permission for a Section 30 order.

    So, how does that keep Scotland in the Single Market?

    It disnae.

    Scotland would be oot. The whole premise for the indyref would be howled at as shutting the stable door after the Single Market horse has bolted.

    Now, that widnae bother me, as I’d jump at the chance of voting for independence again.

    But, for those that voted No last time, I don’t understand how being out the EU and Single Market will encourage them to vote for indy next time.

    It could INCREASE support for those too feart to be fully independent. Those who need a Union security blanket – even if it’s really a millstone round their necks.

    The lack of answers is also pissing off the Greens, without whose support we would not have had the chance to hold any indyref at all in this term.

    Can someone explain this to me. Ta.

  187. Scottish Steve says:


    I wrote to Patrick Harvie about this issue and he told me that the Scottish Government is going to revamp current hate crime legislation to make sure it includes all protected characteristics. He says this will give a better basis for more effective legislation in this “complex area than the rushed and haphazard process which led to the OBFA.”

  188. Capella says:

    @ jfngw – turnout depends on the issue. If you are in a Canton where somebody wants to build a nuclear power station, turnout will be pretty much 100%.

  189. harry mcaye says:

    I remember a few years ago I’d just left my house in Hamilton and was walking down to the corner shop for a paper. A car passed by and I heard someone shout “fenian bastard”. I looked about and it could only have been directed at me. Then it dawned on me. I was wearing a dark petrol green jacket and it was the day of an Old Firm match. Silly me, leaving the house and daring to walk the streets wearing something a bit green. It hadn’t even occurred to me that my jacket might inflame some knuckledragger. Being a fan of The Accies, these things don’t tend to be uppermost in my mind.

    I think it is time for people to boycott the shops in towns and cities on the days Orange and Republican parades go through them. Hit the retailers and these marches might finally stop.

  190. Liz g says:

    Colin Alexander @ 9.52
    Fed up explaining it tae ye Colin.

    Westminster is not allowed to give up any Sovereignty.
    Your plan means it has to.
    QED …your plans no good.

  191. Capella says:

    @ Scottish Steve – exactly. They are not democrats and if you’re not a democrat what are you? A fascist. That’s where their secret societies, dark money, manipulation of elections and howling insults at real democrats gives away their true nature.
    Yesterday’s men and women. We want something better, much better, for Scotland.

  192. sassenach says:


    Just looked at the HYS on the BBC report about May not answering the SNP question about Fluffy – and was amazed to see that it’s not the usual complete Anti-SNP garbage ad nauseum.

    Now I’m getting worried…………….

  193. Scottish Steve says:


    The obstacle is convincing enough Scots to believe that a better country is possible with independence. There will always be the loyalists who will never forsake the British state, come what may. We must ignore these types. They’re lost causes. We must convince the waverers, the soft Nos, the open-minded unionists.

    Independence is not truly about identity (though that is an important factor, for me at least) but ultimately about democracy and where power should lie. Should it lie with Westminster or with the people of Scotland?

    I know where I think it ought to lie.

  194. Meg merrilees says:

    The sh+t is about to hit the fan over tRuthless’ decision making in Perth.
    Tory, Belinda Don is bringing a court case against Colonel Gadaftie and was interviewed by none other than Glenn Campbell.

    Makes interesting listening.

  195. yesindyref2 says:

    I have no views on this OBFA thing, don’t know anything about it really, and don’t want to.

    But, if there are plans to revamp it and greatly improve it, it would seem daft to repeal it now and leave a total gap.

    Better would be to producce a new bill which includes the repeal of this one, have the debates, have the vote, and do the two at the same time – repeal old one, enact new one.

    Which means the Greens are wrong to support its repeal now, and Labour on a mission for no reason.

  196. Scottish Steve says:


    Patrick Harview’s view, according to the email he sent me, is that there is already hate crime legislation that the Scottish Government can and will review which would be better than the OBFA. He said this Act was rushed and reactionary.

  197. Orri says:

    Moving this to another area of law think about mobile phone use in cars. The reasoning is that their use can distract the driver from the road. Not just the holding them by one hand but worse when you look at the screen or even text. You might argue that dangerous driving laws already covered it but despite that a specific law was thought necessary.

  198. Roland Smith says:

    We need to start organising for the next referendum and apart from Wings bypassing the MSM and BBC.

    This App is worth considering for development and Wings are known for their generosity.

  199. jfngw says:

    The public sector austerity continues after WM vote, apart from NI, the Royal household and MP’s salaries.

  200. Brus MacGallah says:

    The Fib-dems of course have no sense of history (or indeed any sense full-stop) but if they did they would realise the OBFA was very much the creation of Donald Gorrie the LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MSP for Edinburgh West.
    This quote from his BBC obituary

    Dave Scott, of anti-sectarianism charity Nil By Mouth, also paid tribute to Mr Gorrie.

    “Donald was a great champion of our cause and we would extend our deepest sympathies to his family and friends,” he said.

    “He steered tough and effective legislation through Holyrood which has subsequently seen over 2,000 people convicted for sectarian behaviour; ensuring justice for their victims and highlighting the scale of the problem.”

    Perhaps professional idiot Alexander Cole-Hamilton would like to explain why he is spitting on the grave of his predecessor (once he has finished explaining his “meticulous” election expenses to the Procurator Fiscal of course)

  201. Capella says:

    @ Scottish Steve – Yes, democracy us the key. What greater affront to democracy is there than the House of Lords, the biggest unelected legislative body in the world apart from the Chinese Politburo. Even then, the Chinese Communist Party does have elected representatives.

    The Union Treaty does not safeguard democracy in Scotland and must be repealed. I watched Theresa May’s arrogant response to Ian Blackford today in PMQs. Enough. As the other partner in the United Kingdom we should dissolve the partnership as there is no way of getting our concerns met.
    The exchange is on the BBC website.

  202. Scottish Steve says:


    Did you expect anything less from the British establishment?

  203. Scottish Steve says:


    I never saw that exchange but I’m not surprised to hear May was arrogant. It’s what she does best.

    I agree with you. The UK has one of the most ridiculous political structures ever conceived. An unwritten constitution, unelected second chamber, unelected head of state, First Past the Post, devolution, archaic customs at Westminster.

    The UK has run out of steam. Past its sell-by date. Time to dissolve it and time for Scotland and England to return to being true equals as independent nation-states once again.

  204. Liz g says:

    Sassenach @ 10.19
    The BBC do that every now and again…. usually at a point in the voting cycle,when a damaging report isn’t likely to influence any outcome.
    Well not for Scottish Independence anyway.

    This I think, is to build a back catalogue of evedienc that they can point to as being even handed,in their reports.

    It’s nice that they still try to get us to believe them .. don’t ya think!!
    Wonder when they will just give up?

  205. Big Jock says:

    This is not about football. Labour realise they will never get the nationalist to vote for them again. So they are trying to appeal to the pond life Orangemen.

    The only people who object to the law are the criminals. Using Kellys logic we should let criminals decide if any law is fair not the judiciary.

    He is a fundamentalist with no moral compass.

  206. Orri says:

    The replacement MEP is entirely up to the Secretary of State to decide in Scotland according to the law. It’s not 100% clear when he’s meant to specify what the procedure should be though as that requirement is laid out in legislation concerning returning officers.

    There’s obviously a scope for corruption as a decision might be made based on political advantage rather than fairness. One reading of the law as it applies in Scotland might be that if no guidance on how vacancies were to be filled was made then the default is the next on the list as that is how vacancies in list seats at Holyrood are filled. Precedents in English law are immaterial if guidance can be taken from Scots.

  207. Az says:


    Right now I’m in Blackfriars in Glasgow’s Merchant City. There’s a group of English guys near the bar, and I just heard one metrosplaining to the other that in fact when Scotland voted landslide SNP in 2015, it was because the Scots wanted more powers. But that then Nicola Sturgeon had said in March that she wanted a referendum now, but then Theresa May had called an election, and the other Scottish parties had campaigned, not about Brexit, but in fact about staying in the UK which meant Nicola Sturgeon lost LOADS of seats…

    Yeah nice 1 mate, that’s pure how ah remember it an aw.

  208. Gary45% says:

    peter fae embra@7.57
    OO marches have no part in the Scottish culture, any form of sectarianism (which ever side you butter your toast) breeds hatred. There is no place for it in a modern Scotland, if history shows anything to back up the case for flute/drum, pish in gardens etc I will stand corrected.
    Did the fact Mr Hess landed in Scotland once many moons ago, justify having a wee celebration for the goose step once a year-I don’t think so!!
    Sectarianism is another form of apartheid.

  209. jfngw says:

    @Scottish Steve 10:42pm

    Obviously not, but there were a number of Tories on the news giving the impression the pay cap was coming to an end. I wonder if the population at large realised they were actually going to vote against it.

    Lots of people don’t pay any attention to parliamentary votes but will remember the Tory ‘being on their side’.

  210. Scottish Steve says:


    I am sure that made sense in his head. Some English people up here really don’t realise how patronising and condescending they can be. I think many don’t mean to be but they come across that way.

  211. Az says:

    O/T – UPDATE

    I got another pint in, and it’s now clear the English guy was metrosplaining to two German guys. I’ll await my opporchancity to put them right. Yoonboy has to go for a P eventually…

  212. Az says:

    I agree Stevie – a cultural norm. They are are British after all, aren’t they?

  213. Scottish Steve says:


    Makes me despair for democracy. Some people are too stupid to vote.


    Aye, make sure you teach they German lads right. I can hear his explanation in my head in his accent, “so Scots voted Tory because they like, really enjoy being ruled by us.”

  214. Capella says:

    @ Az – good work no 9. Report to HQ when you make a conversion!
    Pip, pip.

  215. yesindyref2 says:

    @Scottish Steve
    The counter argument to that could be to take the example of laser pens. Dangerous use of them could be prosecuted under something else, I don’t know, something like reckless endangerment.

    But if there was a specific law including shining laser pens at aircraft and into pilots faces it would do two things.

    1. make it easier to prosecute that specific crime as it would no longer need interpretation “does the act cover this”

    2. increase public awareness that it was dangerous, and in fact a specific crime, with penalties laid down.

  216. Az says:

    @Scottish Steve

    I fully agree – a cultural norm. Well after all, they are British, aren’t they?

  217. stu mac says:

    It’s late so I can’t be bothered reading through all of this – so this post may repeat what others have said. There is a weakness in the law and it is on the unwillingness of the officials to always act on blatant sectarian singing. The evidence is in the regular – weekly? – performance of the choir at Ibrox, often recorded and put up on Youtube (though when shown on sports TV programs the sound is turned down and pundits talk over it so it’s not so noticeable).

    What you really get is a few scapegoat fans are arrested an charged now and then and several hundred others are ignored. If anything the law needs changed to allow fining of clubs (or maybe just one club) who are obviously making no serious attempts to stop this. Included in this are the SPFL and SFA who over the years have studiously turned a blind eye to this and they actually have the power to do something as they could go beyond fines (which rich clubs can ignore) and deduct points.

    I should add that this is not just a matter of a bunch of idiots singing offensive songs. Psychiatrists have a word for it: reinforcement. An example is telling of racists jokes. Racists tell each other racist jokes and make racist comments as it reinforces their prejudices and “normalises” it in their minds. It also can help spread the prejudice to others, including youngsters at an age they can be influenced.

    So this sectarian singing in crowds is not just an exhibition of bigotry – it is a promotion of bigotry. The longer it goes unchallenged, the more “justified” the bigots feel and the more chance that the number of bigots will increase. A comment I saw once on a football forum is apt: “Ibrox is an iron lung for bigotry in this country”. I’m reminded of Iain Archer’s oft quoted comment too.

  218. Lochside says:

    James Kelly and his pal ex Glesga Provost Michael Kelly…who may or not be related, are members of that strange group…fortunately disappearing rapidly: Irish republican Scot/Brit Nats. People who greet into their guinness about fighting for the ‘ould sod’ whilst acting all the while like complete total sods.

    Why in the name of the wee green man would Jamesie Kelly, the foghorn leghorn of fudocracy..bother his shirt about giving the OO, the political wing of the zombie fitba club ‘Rangers 2012’ the chance for its ugliest adherents to ponce and piss about screaming their poisonous hate at the general public?

    Answer: because he’s bitter (geddit) very Green and very cross cod man who will even join his unionist brethren in arms, and sashes, against the SNPBAAD at all costs.

  219. K1 says:

    Please report back Az, ahm enjoying your night oot vicariously cheers 🙂

  220. Scottish Steve says:


    That’s true aye. Och, to be honest, I don’t mind what Act covers it. So long as sectarianism gets zero tolerance.


    Part of the British character, mate. Need to civilise the natives, what what.

  221. Kirriereoch says:

    “Right now I’m in Blackfriars in Glasgow’s Merchant City. There’s a group of English guys near the bar, and I just heard one metrosplaining to the other that in fact when Scotland voted landslide SNP in 2015, it was because the Scots wanted more powers. But that then Nicola Sturgeon had said in March that she wanted a referendum now, but then Theresa May had called an election, and the other Scottish parties had campaigned, not about Brexit, but in fact about staying in the UK which meant Nicola Sturgeon lost LOADS of seats… ”

    I´m currently working in Central Europe at a university and some of my students asked if the SNP had really “lost” the election. I said no, they won by far the majority of seats in Scotland.

    Then they asked if the Scottish independence referendum has been postponed and I said no, it´ll be held whenever, due to UK government faffing around, Brexit is clear and how Brexit will happen, as was the initial policy.

    Then they asked if Scotland votes “No” again in a second referendum then that surely means Scotland is “rejecting” Europe TWICE by its own accord, once via the UK as a “whole” vote and then the “No to leaving the UK even though the UK is leaving” vote thereby annulling the “Remain” vote of 62% in 2016.

    Now that concept of “rejecting Europe directly via a “No” vote ” ,technically twice, would surely concentrate the minds of certain groups of people in Scotland to vote “Yes” in the forthcoming referendum?

  222. Liz g says:

    Gary 45% @ 11.01
    I can’t see how the OO is a part of Scottish culture either.

    But it is “a” form of culture,and I would never support banning it.
    And I would never ever support banning marches either.
    For lot’s of reasons but mainly because I want my right to march.

    Where they march and how often, however is another issue.
    Thru Glasgow once a year,and everyone knows it’s happening, I can’t see a problem with.

    But constantly running in to them and being held up by them, when trying to get on with yer ain stuff,is a bit much.

    But ban them…no…. it’s a fading pass time anyway,a wee bit of a revival because of the current political situation.
    But they will be dropped back into weird cult status after they stopped being useful to the British state…AKA..indy.

    Just as a matter of interest… could they be the oldest cult, that’s no an actual religion?
    Cause we might need to cryogenically freeze thum..afore they actually did die oot.
    Or mibbi that’s Ireland’s job and no Scotland’s?

  223. COLIN ALEXANDER says:

    Liz g said: “Westminster is not allowed to give up any Sovereignty”

    So my plan is no good according to Liz g.

    I welcome Liz g’s opinion. But is it correct? says: “Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

    They include:

    The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
    The Human Rights Act 1998.
    The UK’s entry to the European Union in 1973.
    The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK’s final court of appeal.
    These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.”

    On the basis that an indyref won’t happen for years, according to the FM. I’d like further examination of my suggestions – or something better suggested. Please.

    Something positive. Sensible. Slagging people and their political beliefs isn’t a vote winner in the real world.

  224. Capella says:

    We undercover agents must fan out through the bars, restaurants and tearooms of our major cities and lug in to the conversations with the aim of setting the political record straight.
    Agent Az leads the way and is setting a high bar.
    Good work TinTin.

  225. Thepnr says:


    Have spent an hour or two in Blackfriars myself and sorry that I can’t be with you tonight. Anyway I trust that you can handle the confused Englishman by yourself and put the German visitors right.

    Or maybe not? Good luck all the same.

  226. Scottish Steve says:


    Thank God we have folk like you and Az who can put right those who don’t know much about Scottish politics. I would hate to think of people in Europe thinking we had rejected them twice. It would make our wee country look inward-looking, parochial and spineless.

  227. BBC Scotland Tells Lies says:

    James Kelly is a BawBag.

  228. Liz g says:

    Colin Alexander @ 11.25
    Yes I am right..

    Westminster passed around bits of Sovereignty as and when it decides for itself it want’s to.
    But can’t ever give up the right to take it back when ever it wanted to.

    You still have not planned for that?

    But do plan on not having a conversation with me again if you ever discuss me in the third person again, it is so I’ll mannered and I am right about that too.

  229. Az says:

    Thanks all for your interest in my strange scenario… I had to leave, meanwhile the guy never left his German companions. However, I did observe that one of the guys was making fed-up looking faces and I think was sceptical about the chap’s witterings.

    I suspect that when Germans come to Scotland, it’s because they want to visit SCOTLAND. They’re not visiting North Britain on a pomp and circumstance tour of Her Majety’s Royal Realm and cheering the UJ..,

    The Germans I’ve met can smell shite just as easily as the Scots. Oh an they’re funny and witty and have good senses of humour. Another English lie.

  230. Angry Weegie says:

    Perhaps someone should tell Patrick Harvie and the rest of the Greens that saving the planet for future generations won’t do much good if these future generations are threatened by the thugs and bigots he is now supporting.

  231. Smallaxe says:

    Lasers and Pilots

    Kafflics and Prodisints

    Peace Always

    Goodnight folks

  232. Scottish Steve says:


    Exactly, Az. Germans are wise to BS. And they do come to see Scotland and interact with the Scots. Yet some unionists would love to believe Scotland only has a thriving tourism industry because it’s seen as some kind of extension or appendage of Greater England.

  233. COLIN ALEXANDER says:

    @Liz g

    No offence meant Liz. I was merely trying to summarise the debate for others too, as it’s a public forum.

    So, it’s agreed Westminster can give up sovereignty.

    “But can’t ever give up the right to take it back when ever it wanted to.

    I agree with this. No dispute whatsoever. Holyrood is not guaranteed as permanent. It can be disbanded at the whim of Westminster under the current devolution settlement.

    You still have not planned for that?”

    Well, I think we are both agreed that independence is the best long term option.

    If we have sovereignty within the Union and Westminster wants to end that and takes back it’s sovereignty, then it can do that, as you correctly said.

    However, if it’s a popular policy – with former No voters and former Yes voters- it would be a vote winner for the independence movement, as it would severely cheese off those who voted No and liked Scottish sovereignty within the Union.

    So, hopefully that would give us the clear democratic mandate for independence.

    Aye, sovereignty within the Union could be destroyed, but by doing so, Westminster would open the door to independence.

  234. Az says:

    @Scottish Steve

    I love that about our western European neighbours – they see Scotland and understand its separate standing.

    However, it does sadden me that so many of oor ain fail to see what ‘foreigners’ can see. Just shows the power of propaganda and economic control.

  235. Az says:


    OMG are you still here banging that tired old drum about ‘increased powers’? THAT SHIP HAS SAILED.

  236. Capella says:

    Goodnight Smallaxe. I’m off up the little wooden hill to Bedfordshire.
    Hope you and Nana are well. More exciting developments tomorrow no doubt. Sleep well.

  237. Valerie says:


    I can see that. A big group of Wingers meeting up, and scattering out, in groups of 2-3, because one can act as the strawman to get the convo started.

    Group reconvened at midnight for debriefing!

    I do my wee bit out on dog walks with my range of Indy t shirts. It does mean more folk looking at my chest, right enough!

  238. Col says:

    Scottish Steve, if Scotland voted no to independence for a second time with everything that is happening in the UK these days we would be the laughing stock of the world and I will be telling this to as many people as possible in the next couple of years.
    What kind of message would we be sending under that circumstance?
    That we’re happy to be ruled over by England and no more than a non aspirational region of Greater England.
    No thanks.
    I’ve already started looking into emigrating because I can’t bare to think what life will be like for the next 20 years in the Scotland region of brexit UK if that comes to pass.

  239. manandboy says:


    What’s the real reason behind it?

    Brexit is an end game for the British Establishment but only because it brings Scottish Independence into play. This is a very serious situation for Britain’s ruling classes. The bounteous flow of very easy money is in real danger of being reduced to a trickle. It started with the banking crisis in 2008 and has only got worse since.

    However, the Establishment had a very important ace up their sleeve – Scotland, with its great wealth, kept secret from the public. The Establishment has been dependent on Scotland for a long time. But now there is a real possibility, again, of Scotland becoming independent. After Indyref14, the Establishment thought they had escaped the impending disaster. But then came the ‘material change’ of the EU referendum and its cataclysmic result. Suddenly, the Establishment was once again faced with its own demise. The end game of the British Empire is now being played out.

    The current mode of the Establishment is panic and desperation. The DUP deal has been done so as to get this Government to the end of the Brexit negotiations and to make sure that Scotland’s attempt at Independence is scuppered. The £1.5 billion is not buying votes; it is the funds necessary to mobilize the UDA for active service in Scotland, waging a sectarian propaganda offensive against ‘the Nationalists’. Expect a rapid expansion of the OO anytime soon in Scotland – with NI accents, so it will.

    Most people haven’t a clue what’s at stake here.

  240. Scottish Steve says:


    Tell me about it, Az. It’s because many of them see themselves as British, see Britain as a country and are under the delusion that they are equal with their southern brethren.

    Regarding separate standing, I have a small clique of mates and one of them is from Leeds. Nice guy. He sees himself as British, not English. We were all having lunch one afternoon and he spoke about the “British football team.”

    I did not have the hear to correct him by saying there was no such entity. He clearly meant the English team. But I did not want to be “that guy.” My other friends aren’t into politics and dislike it when I talk about it too much.

  241. Capella says:

    @ Valerie – victor tango. Over and out!
    Think I might need to brush up on my NATO alphabet! But we are many and they are few, to coin a phrase. So let’s all do what we can to spread the word.

  242. COLIN ALEXANDER says:

    “Az says:
    29 June, 2017 at 12:00 am

    OMG are you still here banging that tired old drum about ‘increased powers’? THAT SHIP HAS SAILED.”

    Best tell that to Nicola Sturgeon then, pal. Cos in her speech yesterday other day, she spoke about getting more powers for Holyrood in the meantime.

  243. Scottish Steve says:


    Mate, I know exactly how you feel and totally agree. We would be a laughing stock and just look like a bunch of wee weans clinging to Mummy Westminster’s leg. It was embarrassing enough with the first No vote. I dunno if I could handle another one.

    I cant emigrate. I don’t have the money. But even if I did, I don’t think I would. I love Scotland. It’s just the people that live in it that bug me at times. I’ve been saying for a while now, any No voter who votes No again will deserve every piece of shit Westminster throws at them and I’ll have no sympathy for them.

    I’m in two minds about politics if we lost another referendum. One side of me wants to keep voting SNP to keep the unionists out of Holyrood. The other side of me wants to give up and say what’s the point? Clearly if we vote No again, Scotland will show itself to be a nation of fearties who cant bear the thought of ruling themselves and need the big boys and girls in London to do everything for them.

    I would try my best not to be bitter but I would be. It’s one of my flaws. If it’s another No vote, unionists will continue to live in a Scotland where anything good that happens is because of the benevolence of Westminster and anything bad that happens is because of the evil SNP.

    That’s not the reality. That’s not the Scotland I live in but if it’s another No vote, I’ll just need to live with the fact that I live in a nation of shitebags.

  244. Hamish100 says:

    Any truth that North Ayrshire Council have banned all things pro Scots for their Viking Festival in Largs. Turned into a Morris dancing pro Brit military festival for the RUK. Union flags only? Led by one well kent letter writer to the herald labours Councillor Gallagher. Should public money be used to promote unionism? Did the Scots not win the battle of Largs against the Vikings only to be invaded by another country a few years later from the south? The rewriting of Scots history by labour is a disgrace .

  245. BJ says:

    Love this

    If you’re walking
    I’m not shopping

  246. Scottish Steve says:


    Wouldn’t surprise me. The more south you get in Scotland, the more British (English) and snooty they think they are.

  247. Cactus says:

    If the members of the marching bands need somewhere to march, I dinna see why they cannae just all meet up outside Edmiston Drive, then head inside tae the local football stadium for their celebrations. If it’s a private jig, they might even put on a free bar fur ye? Give em a whistle! Hell, you could televise it BBC ?!

    If ye ask nicely, we could get backstage to arrange a permanent ‘lock in’.

    Keep working and moving forwards.

    Everybuddy wins.

  248. Liz g says:

    Oh so it’s me that’s wrong?.
    Basic manners are different if it’s a public forum is that your position?
    Well that fits with your other worldly view of getting Westminster to cede some sovereignty!
    Short of gaining control of the neuks …which is where I thought you might be going with your plan!
    Well I don’t operate by your rules Colin….and I am reasonably sure neither does the constitutional arrangements of Westminster
    But good luck with it, especially if you gain something from the amount of times you can get your wee catch phrase in the thread

  249. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Erm, perhaps I’m reading that incorrectly but it would appear that 60% DISAGREE with the Act. Am I missing something?”

    Yes, you ARE reading it incorrectly. The clue’s in the words. BE MORE ALERT.

  250. yesindyref2 says:

    @Colin Alexander: “On the basis that an indyref won’t happen for years, according to the FM.

    You’ve got to stop saying that if you want anyone to take you seriously, because it’s just totally untrue.

    The FM said no such thing. Read what she did say.

  251. Cactus says:

    Ah mean whitz it awe about…?

    Urr they tryin’ tae make or prove some kind of relevant point..?

    Or are they just being wazzocks?


    There’s a few new oldie words ah’ve remembered fur ye for dissolvement.

  252. yesindyref2 says:

    A quick bit of very dodgy analysis. It’s possible that support for the abolition of Holyrood has increased, and that that support has gone straight to the Tory party. The possibly forthcoming SSAS might highlight this.

  253. Cactus says:

    Shengus means ‘shite’ but isnae comin’ up.

    Wazzock does:

    Mon the Panelbase!


  254. Stoker says:

    Liz g….

    Sorry for the late reply but i’ve only just seen your comment on the previous articles btl thread. I rarely read full threads these days or return to a btl thread once a new article and tread appears. Anyway, glad i did return to that thread and hopefully this will help you plan more hassle-free shopping trips etc.
    Stick it in your bookmarks 😉

    Goodnight, troops, it’s been a very long day.

  255. Liz g says:

    Stoker @ 2.05
    Thank you very much for taking the time to do that,much appreciated.
    I always seem to get caught out.
    Goodnight sleep well x

  256. Cactus says:

    Cheers Ian McCubbin, ur earlier was fuckin’ awesome 🙂

    It’s a Yip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah kinda day!:

    Grab a few beers, wine, whisky, gin, vodka, rum, run…

    The above video may freak you out.

    Whites of the eyes aye!

    Hummin’ wae the B’s.


  257. Cactus says:

    By ra way…

    Did anybuddy see or hear the ‘shinook double-rotored helicopter’ which flew over the south-side of Glasgow earlier yesterday afternoon…?

    Ye ken what a ‘Sea-King’ sounds like sure, but there’s no mistaking a shinook.

    The last time I saw one of them, there were two of them following a line down the Clyde many years ago.

    SO whits that awe aboot then?

  258. Cactus says:


    Did you know…

    Just like the frog in the yipadee video above… that’s the sound that Emily Thornberry makes whilst on the backbench. RAAA!

    “Yip, yip, yip, yip, yip” check out the videos of the westminster.

    Tinto vino ra nicht / morning.

    One is on holiday.

    Lead yerself.


  259. Cactus says:


  260. Thepnr says:


    Hey big man, still awake then. Keep it going, we are one.

  261. Cactus says:

    Aweright Thepnr, cheers bro, aye goin’ on into and thru the night.

    Cheers for your keepin it real n straight talkin posts.

    We are one.

    We should get a daynight out sorted out somewhere soon…

  262. Cactus says:

    @Scotland’s William Wallace ~

    I beckon and challenge ye frae ra o/t tae this current main thread.

    “What’s your pleasure?”

  263. Thepnr says:

    I’m taking a liberty here in posting this as it’s not my place to do so. However Cactus mentioned William Wallace and it had stuck in my mind, here’s a post he put on Off Topic that he wrote years ago.

    I’m posting it because I love it and would like to see more read it. So there you go.

    William Wallace says:

    I’m no literary genius, no Burns nor a Keats
    But my heart is filled with passion and for the written word it beats,
    So deciding what to write, in this little rhyme of mine
    I’ve decided to encapsulate, a moment of our lifetime,

    within that fleeting moment, images flood my mind
    Of wars, and of atrocities committed by mankind.
    Worldwide conflict rages, with ever increasing violence
    Whilst Western propaganda, maintains a veil of silence,

    My perception of this world, is with growing sense of sadness
    Man’s inhumanity to man, I can’t comprehend the madness,
    On our doorstep crime is rampant, remorseless criminals high on ‘crack’
    Whilst unscrupulous ruthless dealers, entice our children onto ‘smack’.

    There’s the destruction of communities, prevalent social deprivation
    Dissatisfied angry citizens stage another demonstration
    There’s the growth of new technology, it’s the age of information
    Monitoring of the citizens, George Orwell’s realisation.

    Power hungry politicians who no longer even care
    Their hands are bound by capitalism, the rich don’t want to share.
    Yes it’s a funny kind of life, I find myself within
    To comprehend it in moment, I wouldn’t know where to begin

    Of one thing I am certain, the wind of change is in the air
    Awareness of the common people, is a power that they share.
    And they will come together, the common folks alliance
    They will fight with those in power, flying banners of defiance’.

    So there it is my moment, of reflection of life today
    And to the good common folk, I’d really like to say,
    Never give up trying to make this world a better place
    No matter what the challenges each of us must face.

    Make it better for our children, a nicer world to live
    Promote love, peace and harmony and teach them to forgive,
    The generations gone before them, for the destruction of this Earth
    Teach them love and understanding from the moment of their birth,
    Then through the generations when we look on from above
    We’ll see a happy vibrant planet, filled with hope with peace and….LOVE.

  264. Cactus says:

    Hey, todaynight was fun… laterology.

    Who likes links?

    It’s Thursday.

    Next up…


  265. COLIN ALEXANDER says:

    @Az 29 June, 2017 at 12:00 am

    Az said: “OMG are you still here banging that tired old drum about ‘increased powers’? THAT SHIP HAS SAILED”

    27 June 2017 , Nicola Sturgeon said:

    “We will seek to build maximum support around the proposals set out in the paper that we published in December – Scotland’s Place in Europe – to keep us in the single market, with substantial new powers for this parliament.” – Nicola Sturgeon

  266. COLIN ALEXANDER says:


    Colin Alexander said: “On the basis that an indyref won’t happen for years, according to the FM.”

    yesindyref said: “You’ve got to stop saying that if you want anyone to take you seriously, because it’s just totally untrue.

    The FM said no such thing.”

    Nicola Sturgeon said:” The Scottish Government remains committed – strongly – to the principle of giving Scotland a choice at the end of this process.”

    “our proposal is not for a referendum now or before there is sufficient clarity about the options – but rather to give them a choice at the end of the Brexit process when that clarity has emerged”

    “at the end of this period of negotiation with the EU – likely to be around next autumn – when the terms of Brexit will be clearer, we will come back to Parliament to set out our judgment on the best way forward at that time, including our view on the precise timescale for offering people a choice over the country’s future.

    So, the FM will make another announcement in Autumn 2018. There will be no indyref until at least March 2019, at the very earliest. This is 2017. So, how am I wrong to say there will be no indyref for years?

    Please explain.

  267. McDuff says:

    Independence is not about Brexit, its about 300 years of being treated as a colony , of being lied to, of having our wealth stripped and plundered and shipped back to London, of having our identity and culture diluted. What happens if there is a favourable Brexit deal which is successfully sold to the public by the MSM. Where does that leave independence?
    When the broken promises started after the `14 indy the SNP should have been reminding the electorate at every opportunity of the broken promises of the “Vow“ but they haven`t nor do they strangely ever mention the McCrone report or of the theft of a stretch of our seas. All this legitimate ammunition and never used.
    I am an SNP member and have supported them for nearly 40 years both praising them and criticising them along the way but I am growing increasing concerned at the direction they are taking which lacks facts, passion and a belief in independence itself.
    I may be wrong and Nicola Sturgeon does have a strategy at work but I am not convinced.

  268. Think long and hard, Patrick Harvie, and your Green group, before you vote to decriminalise endomorphs who sing the following hymn to hatred at football matches.
    The Famine Song
    I often wonder where they would have been,
    If we hadn’t taken them in,
    Well we fed them and washed them,
    Thousands in Glasgow alone,
    From Ireland they came,
    Brought us nothing but trouble and shame,
    Well, the famine is over,
    Why don’t they go home?
    Now Athenry Mike was a thief,
    And Large John he was fully briefed,
    And that wee tr4itor from Castlemilk
    Turned his back on his own.
    They’ve all their papists in Rome,
    They have U2 and Bono,
    Well the famine is over,
    Why don’t they go home?
    Now they raped and fondled their kids,
    That’s what these perverts from the dark side did,
    And they swept it under the carpet and large John he hid,
    Their evil seeds have been sown,
    Cuse they’re not of our own,
    Well, the famine is over,
    Why don’t they go home?
    Now,Timmy, don’t take it from me,
    Cause if you know your history,
    You’ve persecuted thousands of people
    In Ireland alone,
    You turned on the lights,
    Fuelled U Boats by night,
    That’s how you repay us, It’s time to go home.
    It is sung to the tune of ‘Sloop John B’ popularised by The Beach Boys.

  269. Ken500 says:

    Independence has never been closer. The unionists are behaving appallingly.
    A bunch of hypocritical liars set on bringing Scotland down. There behaviour is just sickening killing and maiming millions of innocent people and ruining the world economy. They never had been such a malicious group as the unionist politicians

    These measures will make them even more unpopular. Trying to bring Scotland down to the lowest dominator. Just despicable. To tolerate bullying and appalling violence and discrimination in the name of sport. Fair game is just unbelievable, Ruining the Scottish economy.

    This will make some 3rd rate rejects even more unpopular than they are already. How can they carry on like that. Abusing the most vulnerable in the name of sport.

    Minimum pricing has it’s final hearing in Court in Edinburgh. Then it can be brought in to help the nation’s health. Save lives Save £Billions. After the unionists rejected it causing even more disease and early death. Putting a further strain on the SNHS and public services.

    if the GE was held today. It would have a different outcome. May is an outcast. Clinging on. A lame duck embarrassment

  270. BJ says:

    I have just donated to iScot using the PayPal link i saw on twitter. I wanted to donate before but didn’t want to use my card. Hope the new link helps to encourage more people to donate. It encouraged me.

  271. heedtracker says:

    McDuff says:
    29 June, 2017 at 7:02 am

    Scotland voted NO. SNP seemed to accept this fundamental democratic choice and continue to do what all parties, govern and try to win elections.

    Openly campaigning for independence, the day after 18 Sept 2014 was probably not the way to govern a region that had just voted to remain a region.

    Look at the opposition though.

  272. Jamur says:

    James Kelly is a thick orange fenian hun mutant bastard.
    So no problem?

  273. Brian Powell says:

    One problem is not matter how contemptible the Unionist Tories are Unionist Labour keep squeaking, don’t take control Scots vote us cos we’re Labour.

  274. wull2 says:

    You now have two chaps who are not MP’s or members of Holyrood who are well known that could start an impedance campaign, that could not be accused of neglecting the Day Job …

  275. mike d says:

    Scottish Steve 12.14am. Surely Steve you mean ‘living in a ‘region’ of shitebags.

  276. Bill McLean says:

    Reading Lesley Riddoch in today’s National i’m more and more convinced that she is the person to lead the Yes movement to Indyref2. With support from Alex Salmond, Angus Robertson and Denis Canavan she could do the job. Not a politician and an ex-broadcaster makes her even more suitable. C’mon Lesley!

  277. Robert Peffers says:

    @Az says: 29 June, 2017 at 12:00 am:

    OMG are you still here banging that tired old drum about ‘increased powers’? THAT SHIP HAS SAILED.”

    Sailed Az? It sank years ago.

    Colin is just one of the crew marooned on a island in the North Sea called Great Britain. Colin thinks that island is not just Britain but the crew all think it is still all Britain including N.I. and the whole British Empire.

  278. David says:


    Think that Labour and Tories are pretty confident that regardless of what they do or say the press and their loyal followers will support them.

    Every election in Scotland is another indyref and will get to the point where they are organised enough to hold a majority.

    Brexit is going to happen and SNP are foolish if they think that it will push people into the ‘yes’ camp when the thought of not being able to watch Eastenders wiped out all that successive UK governments had done.

  279. Robert Peffers says:

    @COLIN ALEXANDER says: 29 June, 2017 at 12:10 am:

    “Best tell that to Nicola Sturgeon then, pal. Cos in her speech yesterday other day, she spoke about getting more powers for Holyrood in the meantime.”

    Nah! Colin, There is nothing new in that as it has been SNP policy since Arthur Donaldson was a boy. Like the rest of Nicola’s speech, there were no changes in anything and there are no policy changes made by the SNP. The only change is in the Mayhem camp where they have found their anticipated plans for UKexit not going to their UK planed timetable.

    Just why would any responsible Scottish Government turn down any small increase in the scraps Westminster cares to throw down from the top table?

    Like the rest of the federation supporting faction you are long past your use by date.

  280. galamcennalath says:


    There will be no indyref until at least March 2019, at the very earliest.

    I don’t think anyone has a scooby.

    I don’t think Brexit will happen until at least Spring 2019. However, that isn’t the date when we will know the form it takes.

    At one extreme of the possible scenarios, the UK just won’t face up to the realities of EU citizens’ rights and financial settlement, the talks stall this summer, and there seems no prospect of anything other than a crash and burn Brexit at the end of the two years. IndyRef2 could become necessary well before the final exit.

    At the other extreme, the UK although hopelessly prepared and lacking in clear objectives does make progress. The EU believe a constructive outcome is possible but more time is needed. An extension to the two years is granted of …. who knows.

    So. Two variables. Firstly will the Brexit outcome avoid the need for IndyRef2, or mean it is necessary? Secondly, at what point does the Scottish Government know what form Brexit will take, and have to make a decision?

    We could make a guess based on a shite outcome and no time extension, but that is far from certain.

  281. heedtracker says:

    Robert Peffers says:
    29 June, 2017 at 9:23 am
    @COLIN ALEXANDER says: 29 June, 2017 at 12:10 am:

    Colin’s Great British Robert, and is 100% determined that Scotland will never exist as a NOT Great British nation. One of the fundamental lies we get rammed down our throats, is that Scotland is a nation.

    Its a very creepy fraud but we all why and how we live like this. This dude’s a good example. Mi6 handlers will be rather pleased.

    Cllr Scott Arthur Retweeted
    euan mccolm? @euanmccolm Jun 28

    euan mccolm Retweeted Mhairi Hunter
    maybe we’ll also keep asking about shocking standards in literacy and numeracy among scottish schoolchildren.

  282. Footsoldier says:

    Many of today’s papers and the BBC are honing in on Scotland being on the brink of recession as a result of the Fraser of Allander report.

    This is a golden opportunity for the SNP to rebut this and lay the problems at the Union, or at least some of them.

    Let’s see what they do, out on the attack or the usual weak waffle?

  283. Fergus Green says:

    @Bill McLean 9.07

    Absolutely agree. Lesley is the best person to head up YES2. Calm, articulate, well-informed, media savvy and not intimidated by BBC/MSM bullies. Always thought the last guy Blair Jenkins was nice and polite, but he got trampled on because of it.

  284. galamcennalath says:


    sovereignty within the Union

    That was the offer put on the table in Sept 2014 and duly accepted in good faith by a lot of Scots. It gave them the excuse to opt for continuing the Union. It was the winning card for BetterTogether just under 3years ago.

    So where is it all now?

  285. Calum McKay says:

    Ken500 says:

    “A bunch of hypocritical liars set on bringing Scotland down.”

    That sums it up, they will do anything to protect their union. that means a scorched earth policy.

    It is neither in labour’s or tory’s benefit for Scotland to flourish or to have confidence. That is why devolution provides some minor economic tools but not the major ones, and the purse strings are retained and pulled from London.

    We are a colony but some are too thinck to ralise it, other know it and ignore it, some benefits from the arrangement and some just do not care.

    Those of us who do care are branded extreemists and subversives.

    Since Febraury of this year there has been a conserted press push against the SNP and all things independence, this is the empire stricking back and tories and labour uniting behind the scenes.

    Only a YES movement can combat this top down attack by united at the grass roots and taking on the state and its henchmen!

  286. orri says:

    The thing about ships is that if it’s already sailed and you’re on it then you can always change the course and shelter in a friendly harbour should the weather turn nasty.

    So unlike the tories who seem to adopt the philosophy of full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes there’s no shame in seeing a storm on the horizon and changing course in order to avoid it.

  287. jfngw says:

    Imagine if the SG replicate the Tories DUP bung and only funded tuition fees, personal care, free prescription and bedroom tax relief to areas that supported them in government. Of course all these Tory voters will happily take the money, their Tory ethos doesn’t stretch that far does it.

  288. Bill McLean says:

    Fergus Green – totally agree with you. Blair Jenkins was a nice guy – not the type at all to take on the Empire. Lesley is feisty and won’t be walked on. I’d also thought Paul Kavanagh could do a good job but Lesley is, in my opinion, best for the job!

  289. Lochside says:

    McDuff..excellent post. My thoughts entirely. Btw that’s panel base poll shows that the RUK population is now at 11.5% in Scotland. A growing and either hostile or indifferent but significantly anti Indy electorate. Manandboy…also pointed out reality of DUP deal.Ayrshire has a colony of active loyalists from NI including a protected serial sectarian killer. Who organised the George Square riots?

  290. mike cassidy says:

    Currently reading Tim Shipman’s “All Out War” about the Brexit campaign.

    Cameron effectively committed himself to a Brexit referendum in 2013.

    Scottish referendum 2014.

    Here’s what an aide said in hindsight.

    After the Scottish referendum experience we realised you’re unleashing things you can’t control. That’s the one thing I’d say would have changed our minds”

    No wonder the yoonionists hate the fact indyref2 was not taken off the table.

  291. Breeks says:

    Scotland. The aspiring wee country which wants its freedom to defend the rights and camaraderie we have with our European neighbours and open our doors to refugees and immigrants. A wee country that talks seriously about a second Scottish Enlightenment as Scotland takes a moral and properly righteous stand against illegal wars, disregard for international law, and aspires to lead the world in finding a new and sustainable method of harnessing renewable energy. A wee country which prides itself on education, and access for all to education. A wee country which aspires to repopulate its barren hills and empty seas with the flora and fauna which has a respected right to be there.

    Aye Scotland. A wee country with the puss filled weeping sore of ignorance and grotesque petulance of sectarian hatred and bigotry, which dresses up like chocolate soldiers and marches through our streets banging drums and whistles to trumpet how very proud they are of their desperate sociopathy. You make Scotland a laughing stock. You feign a fanaticism about football, a game just like tennis, or basketball, but repeatedly shame this wee country with more crap, disappointment from the world of Scottish football, an amateurish game which just keeps handing out the humiliations to the rest of us. You’re a fecking disgrace the lot of you.

    Aye Scotland. A wee country with two tribes of hate brigades, the true blue, (apart from the orange bits), Tories who constantly raise the bar on rancid rabid hypocrisy, and the rump of a Labour Party that has sucked the life out of Scotland like some bloated self righteous parasite for decades, with its grasping corruptions and grubby opportunism that puts itself, always itself, first. You too are a fecking disgrace the lot of you.

    Don’t ban these parades. Move control of them to Holyrood, and quid pro quo, let them pay Scotland for one Marshall and one policeman for every ten bigots who demand the right to shame Scotland.

    Don’t repeal the Antisocial Behavior act. Even if it’s faulty, knee jerk, difficult to enforce, or roundly hated by all. It smears these bigotted louts with the stigma of being a fecking disgrace in the eyes of all normal people. Let us drag these thugs and lowlifes out of their ugliness and eradicate this blight. Drive a stake into the heart of this sectarianism and leave it behind in the dark ages of the Union which created it. Supposing Independence gave us nothing more than the removal of this sectarian cancer, then it would be such a fine and lasting achievement by itself.

  292. heedtracker says:

    Lochside says:
    29 June, 2017 at 9:55 am

    Here you go boys, hammer of the Scots Severin Carrell says this is bad, well everything Scots is bad says Graun but get stuck in.

    Severin Carrell?Verified account @severincarrell Jun 27
    Blurred lines between @scotgov and @theSNP: formal statement by @ScotGovFM to Holyrood published by SNP not by govt:

  293. Peter. Edinburgh says:

    Thepnr says:

    28 June, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Wings is reviled, it is hated both by the media and the Ultra Unionists. You know why, it’s because it’s NOT a place of hatefulness btl despite there attempts at making it so. In fact it is the opposite of what is claimed and most people are reasonable in putting across their view.

    Partisan it may be but it is always reasonable.

    Thepnr, always reasonable? So lets see what has been thrown at me on this thread alone.

    Not a straight shooter
    Not honest
    A bigot
    A sectarian bigot
    Told to eff off.

    In fact, given their is a Scottish football game tonight, although not my team, some of the comments aimed at me above, could see charges brought under Section 2 of this Act.

    Think on that as you all prepare your replies. I will be watching.

  294. Robert Peffers says:

    @Footsoldier says: 29 June, 2017 at 9:36 am:

    “ … Many of today’s papers and the BBC are honing in on Scotland being on the brink of recession as a result of the Fraser of Allander report.”

    What else did you expect, Footsoldier? They are, after all members of the Westminster Propaganda wing.

    ” … This is a golden opportunity for the SNP to rebut this and lay the problems at the Union, or at least some of them.
    Let’s see what they do, out on the attack or the usual weak waffle?”

    And, going by your above post, you very well may be one of them too.

    The SNP, and indeed the entire YES movement never stop attacking the Westminster Establishment – at Westminster, at Holyrood and on social media. What they are prevented from doing is attacking them on the Westminster Establishment owned MSM and Broadcasters news, (sic), outlets.

    However, we are mostly all well aware that the Westminster Establishment seem to have finally gat to grips with the big lead the Indy movement have had on social media. The Westminster Establishment now seem to be popping up on all social media, on-line, outlets and even here on Wings.

    Their undercover agents have been trolling like mad for some time now under the guise of being dyed in the wool Indy supporters while also having more obvious trolls to distract us from the less obvious ones.

    These agents of the Establishment do exactly what you are doing here right now. While they all claim to be Indy supporters they attempt to cast doubts upon the SNP of not always being on the attack and thus implying they are weak and ineffectual.

    The truth is that the elected SNP members work tirelessly in local councils, Holyrood and Westminster at all times and the statistics prove they are, as a group, the most effective councillors, MSPs and MPs, (and not forgetting the MEPs).

    People like you are NOT good Indyref supporters but either ill informed indy supporters or, far more likely, agents of the Westminster Establishment planted on social media to attempt to fool people that the SNP are weak and ineffectual.

    There has definitely been a sudden great rise in such posts of recent times. I detect a great influx of such tactics. The truth is that the SNP are fighting all the time but it just isn’t reported by the MSM and state Broadcasters.

    In fact there has also been a great increase in the blatant lies these Westminster owned outlets are now openly telling.

    The present, “Sturgeon U Turn”, lie is only the tip of a very large ice-berg. We are not fools. “Footsoldier”, we see the lies, omissions and propaganda.

    We know that the SNP did NOT lose the Election as the YoonYoonists are claiming. 35 Westminster seats is more than the entire unionist seats added together in what is factually an individual party election. It is not only dishonest to lump all three unionist parties together but it also exposes the Westminster Establishment’s agenda as being anti-independence in what is factually a straight political party fight for Westminster seats.

    We know the SNP fight tooth and nail in all levels of government and we know there is a constant undercurrent of lies, omissions and misdirection by the paid-for Westminster agents. It looks very much like you may well be one of them.

    As I see it the forces of darkness have very obvious Trolls that we are meant to find to divert our attention away from the less these less obvious trolls while these less obvious Trolls are casting doubts upon the SNP’s effectivenes at every possible opportunity.

    I would very much like to be proven wrong on this score, Footsoldier, but it seems I may well be right. Perhaps the clue is in your assumed title, “Footsoldier”, are you, perhaps, from the 77 Brigade?

  295. Robert Peffers says:

    Seems this post sent itself before I had finished it. Here it is again just in case –

    @Footsoldier says: 29 June, 2017 at 9:36 am:

    “ … Many of today’s papers and the BBC are honing in on Scotland being on the brink of recession as a result of the Fraser of Allander report.”

    What else did you expect, Footsoldier? They are, after all members of the Westminster Propaganda wing.

    ” … This is a golden opportunity for the SNP to rebut this and lay the problems at the Union, or at least some of them.
    Let’s see what they do, out on the attack or the usual weak waffle?”

    And, going by your above post, you very well may be one of them too.

    The SNP, and indeed the entire YES movement never stop attacking the Westminster Establishment – at Westminster, at Holyrood and on social media. What they are prevented from doing is attacking them on the Westminster Establishment owned MSM and Broadcasters news, (sic), outlets.

    However, we are mostly all well aware that the Westminster Establishment seem to have finally gat to grips with the big lead the Indy movement have had on social media. The Westminster Establishment now seem to be popping up on all social media, on-line, outlets and even here on Wings.

    Their undercover agents have been trolling like mad for some time now under the guise of being dyed in the wool Indy supporters while also having more obvious trolls to distract us from the less obvious ones.

    These agents of the Establishment do exactly what you are doing here right now. While they all claim to be Indy supporters they attempt to cast doubts upon the SNP of not always being on the attack and thus implying they are weak and ineffectual.

    The truth is that the elected SNP members work tirelessly in local councils, Holyrood and Westminster at all times and the statistics prove they are, as a group, the most effective councillors, MSPs and MPs, (and not forgetting the MEPs).

    People like you are NOT good Indyref supporters but either ill informed indy supporters or, far more likely, agents of the Westminster Establishment planted on social media to attempt to fool people that the SNP are weak and ineffectual.

    There has definitely been a sudden great rise in such posts of recent times. I detect a great influx of such tactics. The truth is that the SNP are fighting all the time but it just isn’t reported by the MSM and state Broadcasters.

    In fact there has also been a great increase in the blatant lies these Westminster owned outlets are now openly telling.

    The present, “Sturgeon U Turn”, lie is only the tip of a very large ice-berg. We are not fools. “Footsoldier”, we see the lies, omissions and propaganda.

    We know that the SNP did NOT lose the Election as the YoonYoonists are claiming. 35 Westminster seats is more than the entire unionist seats added together in what is factually an individual party election. It is not only dishonest to lump all three unionist parties together but it also exposes the Westminster Establishment’s agenda as being anti-independence in what is factually a straight political party fight for Westminster seats.

    We know the SNP fight tooth and nail in all levels of government and we know there is a constant undercurrent of lies, omissions and misdirection by the paid-for Westminster agents. It looks very much like you may well be one of them.

    As I see it the forces of darkness have very obvious Trolls that we are meant to find to divert our attention away from the less these less obvious trolls while these less obvious Trolls are casting doubts upon the SNP’s effectivenes at every possible opportunity.

    I would very much like to be proven wrong on this score, Footsoldier, but it seems I may well be right. Perhaps the clue is in your assumed title, “Footsoldier”, are you, perhaps, from the 77 Brigade?

  296. Petra says:

    @ Breeks at 10:18am ……. Brilliant post Breeks and let’s not forget that the OO’s main aim when marching is the recruitment of young, easily influenced boys in particular.

    @Robert at 10:40am …….Spot on Robert. The Internet has been flooded with ‘undercover agents’ and of course Wings is no exception. On here they are aware that they can’t be too openly hostile towards Nicola Sturgeon / SNP / the Independence movement so clog up the site with boring, repetitive posts or slip in the odd wee comment to cast doubt in general in an attempt to drive people away / undermine the cause. Sad to say I don’t think that they are all newcomers.

    @ Colin Alexander …. June 2017 to March 2019 = one year and nine months. That’s not ‘years’. As to holding a Referendum on Scottish sovereignty. Many, many Scots don’t seem to have a clue about the basics never mind the Constitution / Sovereinty, so how’s that going to work? How long would it take to educate such people taking into account the MSM is the Unionist propaganda machine? Time to get real Colin and to start making viable, constructive suggestions to help us win the next Referendum, that is if you want us to win it at all.

  297. COLIN ALEXANDER says:


    Thanks for the link.

  298. orri says:

    Sorry@Pettra but recruitment isn’t the sole reason or even the main reason for Orange walks.

    There used to be, and still are in some parts of the UK, ceremonial marking of boundaries. If you listen to the arguments held in NI for traditional routes it amounts to the same thing. If you listen to some of the arguments for Fox hunting it also amounts to the same thing. It’s all about marking territory. In the later case it also involves derisory offers of compensation should the hunt get out of control and destroy property or injure/maim/kill pets. It’s all part of the same attitude of demonstrating that a given group owns an area even if you thought you did.

  299. heedtracker says:

    29 June, 2017 at 11:34 am

    Thanks for the link.

    You’re welcome. So get stuck Colin.

    Let’s get sovereignty.for.Scotland.within.the.UK.ref1 going asap, not within years, but months, weeks maybe.

    Or never maybe.

    Appreciate that guys like you just never want to Scotland to exist as nation state self governing though. That’s what democracy is all about, in teamGB, confuse, bullshit, lie, frighten. Just one lunchtime news BBC Scotland news broadcast.

    Its how power works in teamGB.

  300. colin Alexander says:


    “One year and nine months is not years”. True enough, but you can bet it will be years by the time the UK Govt stops dragging its feet about giving a Section 30 for permission for a legally binding referendum.

    Sovereignty can be explained by: Scotland’s Parliament having the final say on matters affecting Scotland.

    You may have a point about the average voter being unable to understand all the issues and being fed lots of false information by the BBC and newspapers in particular. Sources of information that many older voters rely on.

    I would say that same basic problem affects indyrefs just as much. So, that’s why Project Fear won.

    I suggest you tell the SNP. They are the ones that favour referendums.

    I would rather Scotland gains independence by UDI following a democratically run Scottish General election where pro-independence MSPs gain a majority of seats and thus the democratic mandate to declare UDI.

    But mention UDI on here and the devout believers in the hallowed independence referendum take a hairy fit, as it suggests something other than their “infallible” plan to deliver independence.

    Point out that the first referendum plan FAILED and the economic situation in Scotland is now WORSE and it is predicted to get much worse and all you get is insults in response. Not one logical, sensible answer in response about how to win an indyref2 in that situation.

    I think the general consensus is that YES lost because the SNP failed to put a credible economic case for independence. Since 2014, it still has failed to do that.

    So for many No voters it’s a case of: better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

    The UK Govt has walked all over Scottish democracy ever since. More than ever. The Smith Commission was a walkover for the Unionists.

    Scotland would have been better having Sooty and Sweep negotiating for Scottish interests.

    If SMITH is the best deal the SNP can negotiate, then what sort of EU / Single Market deal would they negotiate for Scotland? I guess that’s what many voters would think.

    What’s the answer for many Wingers to the difficulties ahead? Hold another indyref and by magic these NO voters will for some unexplained reason vote YES next time. These “stupid, cowardly, Yoons”( not my words, but the words of some of the keyboard patriots on here). These “traytor scum, slaves to Westminster” will suddenly back independence.

    Why would they? The only answer some of the more illogical Wingers can come up with is insults and an illogical belief that a referendum has magical powers that turns No voters into YES voters.

    I am not suggesting this applies to you. But I’m sure the more sensible readers will form their own opinions on who fits this description.


    The problem is: I’ve yet to read how you are going to get enough people to switch their vote from NO to YES while convincing enough of those who voted YES last time to vote YES again.

    Project Fear is stronger than ever. There is no YES campaign (yet).

    Independence is not a lost cause. I believe it is winnable, but we need more than an indyref.

    We need credible and convincing, persuading economic arguments(and political arguments) as to why we should go through the upheaval and disruption – and RISK – of creating a new, much smaller political state. We need a stronger case than last time. A better presented case than last time.

    We need a majority in favour of independence BEFORE any indyref campaign begins.

    So, how do we achieve that? Please do tell me.

  301. yesindyref2 says:

    Sure, I’ll explain. The “end of the process” i.e. Brexit negotiations could be Autumn 2018 if it goes the full 18 months from notification, but the results of the deal could be known. In any case if it comes to an end on Sep 19 2018, a S30 can be requested immediately (within a day), pushed through Westminster and Queen’s Assent within 3 weeks. Meanwhile Holyrood can simultaneously finalise legislation, even set a date, and have the full debate done and just waiting for the S30 for its own final vote, and even do all the Electoral commission (EC) stuff.

    Royal Assent on the Holyrood legilsation in 1 week, total 4 weeks, date say 22nd October. EC recommend 6 months, but it’s not their decision, so 6 weeks it is till Ref date. So it happens around Dec 8th. That’s NOT years.

    On top of that Brexit negotiations could fall apart even earlier.

    Cameron put the EU Ref together quickly, the GE2017 was put together even quicker. So the same can happen with Indy Ref 2.

    What’s the incentive for Westminster to go along with this rush job? I could tell you, but then I’d have to …

  302. yesindyref2 says:

    Make that Dec 6 2018 – it’s a Thursday.

  303. Scottish Steve says:

    @mike d

    Oh, aye. Our region of North Britain.

  304. Ghillie says:

    Scottish Steve @ 9.55pm 28th

    Thank you for filling me in on what Patrick Harvie hopes will be a better way forward to tackle the violence and bigotry at footall matches.

    Lets hope it does the trick.

    At least the OBFA got the topic up front and in full view, imperfect as it may be.

    Now the challenge is to construct a law that works.

    And I sincerely hope that EVERY MSP votes it through.

  305. Seumas says:

    Jeanette Findlay does not speak for “ordinary” Celtic fans, who have never been criminalised, her views are extra ordinary on a great many subjects.

  306. Dorothy Devine says:

    See if anyone responds to the tumshie fae Edinburgh – I’ll scweam and scweam and scweam until I’m sick!

    I think the term ‘snowflake’ was invented for such as he.

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