The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Dark waters

Posted on September 12, 2020 by

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 12 09 20 08:57

      Dark waters | speymouth

    244 to “Dark waters”

    1. Britannia waives the rules.

    2. Tom Kane says:

      Chris, if I had my own BBC, I would get my best talent to work with you on a programme to explore how you make this magic. That would be quite a valuable programme for the cultural archives. I am convinced that many of your cartoons will last hundreds of years.

      And mad is this time is, you help some of us breathe more easily.


    3. A C Bruce says:

      Hilarious, Chris.

      I doubt Britain will be able to afford that wee boat. It’ll be a paddle board.

      To think BoZo and Goings are running the UK. What a joke!

    4. MaggieC says:

      Chris ,

      You’ve excelled yourself once again , This is be one of “ the best of British bojo “ cartoons ever .

    5. MaggieC says:

      Me @ 7.41 am
      I’ve not wakened up enough yet ,

      This is * got * to be .

    6. Mike d says:

      Spilled a mouthful of my coffee laughing at this.

    7. Rm says:

      Ha Ha Ha Aye captain Pugwash right enough and we know what he was.

    8. dunks says:

      Genius, simply genius. Nothing more to add.

    9. A Person says:

      Great cartoon illustrating a point very clearly. What did we do to deserve this horrible buffoon?

    10. Gullane No 4 says:

      Is Seaman Staines [Gove] in charge of steering the boat.

    11. Andy Ellis says:

      Another cracker Chris. You’re on top form recently bud!

      It strikes me listening to the reports on the radio this morning that BoJo is complaining that the EU are trying to break up the britnats precious union, and given the fact the brexiteers are prepared to break international law and renege on treaty commitments, that the EU would be well advised to announce now that if Scotland votes for independence it will be fast tracked for membership.

      That ought to be worth a few more % points surely?

    12. PacMan says:

      Andy Ellis says:12 September, 2020 at 8:14 am

      …that the EU would be well advised to announce now that if Scotland votes for independence it will be fast tracked for membership.

      If the Europeans had any sense they would start doing that simply to get the UK government to come to their senses.

      Putting that aside, Scotland becoming independent of a state that breaks international treaties and goes back on ones they had previously agreed makes it even more diplomatically easier for us to regain our EU citizenship in the event of independence.

      I know that Spain has said they would never vote against the admittance of us as long as it was done by proper constitutional means but this is even easier for them to sell to any dissenting voices in their country now that we are out of the EU and the UK is going back on their promises.

    13. kapelmeister says:

      A classic!

    14. Sharny Dubs says:

      Nancy had a few things to say about international treaties and the good Friday agreement, I wonder if BoZo was listening?
      Good toon Chris

    15. kapelmeister says:

      The cross of St. Andrew on the uj being bones. Appropriate, since the Tories plan to devour Scotland to the bone.

    16. Anna Nemus says:

      Nice work, Chris!

    17. kapelmeister says:

      Next time he won’t even be able to afford a tiny boat that still has a wheelhouse. BoJo will be ruling the waves in a coracle. After all he is a basket case.

    18. kapelmeister says:

      A Person @8:03 pm

      “What did we do to deserve this horrible buffoon?”

      Voted 55% No.

    19. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Surely Dominic Master Bates has the tiller, while the rest of the Tory crew are busy with Roger the Cabin Boy.

    20. Contrary says:

      Sums the current British establishment (deluded) thinking perfectly, fabulous cartoon as always Chris.

    21. Andy Ellis says:


      Indeed. If only we had a government in Holyrood with the political cojones to do something practical about it, rather than just droning on about getting another mandate, and maybe doing something at some indeterminate point in the future if all the stars are aligned and every conceivable hurdle has been jumped.

      It’s the want of any fire in their bellies I find perplexing. If they’d spent half the energy on preparing for independence that they’ve spent on trying to erase Alex Salmond or promote gender woo-woo we’d all be a lot closer to getting Scottish passports.

      Maximilian Steinbeis’ recent piece in the excellent Verfassungsblog about BoJo and the brexiteers outlaw romanticism has them bang to rights:

      “Parliament is sovereign to pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s treaty obligations under UK constitutional law, the government claims. That, per se, may even be true, but is hogwash nevertheless. The treaty in question has been concluded only months ago by the very government which now declares its intention to breach it. It was Boris Johnson’s triumph that he has achieved what his predecessor had failed at: a deal which was passed by Parliament. This is the deal he now preposterously claims the sovereign right to simply walk away from, with no better excuse than it is and always has been bloody annoying to honour it in the first place. On top of that, the draft Internal Market Bill makes no secret of its authors’ intentions as it states explicitly in clause 45 that its rules on exit procedures and state aids shall “have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent”. The aim of this is obviously to immunize the breach from any challenge before a UK court. The breach shall be both there, for everyone to see, and not there, without any judicial consequences.

      To claim the role of the outlaw is an act of self-empowerment. You stage yourself as a wild and dangerous daredevil, trying to impress all those who aren’t but would like to be, imprisoned in the lightless inside and all the more keen to believe in any projections of the would-be outside.

      Any outlaw depends on norms like a parasite on its host, though. In the case of the UK it may appear attractive to the current government to cultivate that sort of relationship with EU law as long as it is politically profitable. But that won’t be the end of it. Law – that is the statement here – is what we get away with. The norm in relation to which this government is adopting the role of the outlaw is the rule of law itself.”

    22. Effijy says:

      Blond beard the Pirate should be walking the plank shortly
      And the ships rats will be scurrying away with pockets filled
      with gold down to Dominique Jone’s Locker.

      A second wave and a perfect storm is brewing with independence waiting just beyond.

      Just give their Captain a little more rope to reach the yardarm.
      There is bounty in our mutiny.

    23. auld highlander says:

      another cracker but i wonder if they are holding their zoom meetings from that wee tub as i can almost hear fabricant singing rule britania.

    24. Effijy says:

      Looking at the global Covid Stats this morning-

      Next week we will see Trumpland reach 7,000,000 cases and 200,000 Deaths.

      India reaches 100,000 new cases per day.

      Peru the first country to have 1 Covid Death per 1,000 of population.

      China, being the source of the virus almost 1 year ago, still has daily increases
      for new cases in spite of the most stringent lockdown measures anywhere.

      Borisland finds yet another way of distorting the Covid Stats.

      Tory MP’s drive to Durham wearing blindfolds!

    25. Contrary says:

      Are we all in broad agreement that an independent Scotland needs to have its own currency yet?

      Richard Murphy talks plainly and frankly on the issue in this latest video found on his blog here:

      Or it can be found at his YouTube channel.

      Stu, any chance you are looking for any polling questions to be put out to the general public? I would really like the question ‘if Scotland became independent, should it have its own currency?’ (Yes/no/don’t know) – to see what the general consensus is just now – to see how much work needs to be done. Maybe if we can get the magic number 60% popular opinion on this, it will help change our ‘ leader’s ‘ stance on the issue. Maybe one has been done – if so can anyone point me to the results?

      I’m making the bold assumption we might be campaigning and have to debate the issue sometime in the next 20 years – an agreement of the broad principle of having our own currency will be a principle that can last forever though, so worth settling now. That is, it won’t be dependent on anything political changing.

    26. Ottomanboi says:

      Perhaps romantic Boris has this in mind.
      It did work….once.—queen-elizabeths-privateers/
      Doubt the suburbanized 21st century English capable of a reprise, even with aircraft carriers.

    27. Muscleguy says:

      Perfidious Pipsqueak

    28. J Galt says:

      We should be careful to discern what is “theatre” and what is real.

      I suspect that a lot of the blustering, disputation and “incompetence” is feigned.

      One aspect that is of interest and which is being downplayed is the continuing integration of the British armed forces into a rapidly developing EU military command structure.

      This integration has not slowed since 2016 and has even accelerated since the UK “left” 9 months ago. Why would that be I wonder?

      Perhaps there is a level above the bantering Johnsons and Barniers whose names we don’t have to know and who are really directing the “Brexit” event?

    29. Willie says:

      Boy oh boy, I smiled at this one Christopher.

      The caricature of the belligerent buffoon Admiral Bojo puffed up with the busted flush that is Britannic pride to be then shown for what he is amongst the the Chinese, American and EU economic and military Leviathans, is just so accurate.

      Made me start singing Humpty Dumpty.

    30. Stoker says:

      Contrary says: “Maybe if we can get the magic number 60% popular opinion on this, it will help change our ‘ leader’s ‘ stance on the issue.”

      Since when did 60% become “popular opinion” or “the magic number”? As far as I’m aware it has been touted by one or two utter twats. As far as I’m concerned, and most folk I know, the magic popular number is the democratic 50% + 1.

      Obviously the higher the better but 60% never has been the “popular opinion” outwith some of the Scottish National Procrastinators as a way to delay indy even further whilst they work on getting their own agendas pushed through Holyrood.

    31. Ottomanboi says:

      Obsession is bad for the immune system and the human spirit.
      You are becoming a ‘useful idiot’.

      “An old jest runs to the effect that there are three degrees of comparison among liars. There are liars, there are outrageous liars, and there are scientific experts. This has lately been adapted to throw dirt upon statistics. There are three degrees of comparison, it is said, in lying. There are lies, there are outrageous lies, and there are statistics”.
      Robert Giffen.1837-1910,
      assistant editor of The Economist and President of the Statistical Society writing in the Economic Journal in 1892.

    32. robertknight says:

      Not so much John Paul Jones but more so Edward John Smith.

      Nice one Mr Cairns.

    33. Willie says:

      And the cabin boy on Admiral Bojo’s boat.

      That’s easy, it’s Roger the Cabin Boy. ( nee Nicola )

    34. dakk says:

      Cracker Chris

    35. Dan says:

      @Andy Ellis

      One wonders if the recent new UK breaches in legality and constitutional matters within the EU leaving State are applicable with Article 48 as discussed in comments below this initial post. Albeit with us now in the Transition Period.


      Declaration of independence from a state arising from a member state’s secession or dissolution following a democratic process.

      Notification of succession, from a European Union member state by the state emerging from a member state’s secession or dissolution. This act would notify of the new situation as well as the new state’s wish to succeed the predecessor state as a European Union member as a new state complying with the principles and conditions required for being a Union member with a model of market economy and required administrative capacity. The new state would commit the in accepting the entire flow of the European Union, and would want to immediately initiate the process of adaptation intended to ensure that European Union law is brought into line with the new situation, together with the commitment to adopt all acts that allow it to fulfi l all the international obligations assumed by states as European Union members.

      Act adopted by the European Union to recognise a new state’s succession arising from the secession or dissolution of another European Union member state as a Union member. This would mean the recognition of the predecessor state, if it should continue to exist and of the successor state(s) as members of the European Union and would have to contain the initial provision needed to guarantee the operation of the Union.

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

    36. Frank Gillougley says:

      Perfect and in a nutshell.

      It’s about the sheer scale of his delusion and confabulation. Literally terrifying.

    37. Bob Mack says:

      Next will come a Bill to allow piracy, and new Commanders like Charlie Drake and Raleigh Byke will protect our sea lanes.

      Sounds like a good novel for future kids to read at school.

    38. Graf Midgehunter says:

      Britannia waves goodbye.

      Nobody even wants them as slaves.

    39. Bob Mack says:

      Any similarity to Captain Pugwash is purely coincidental.

    40. Contrary says:

      Stoker @ 9.43am

      I was being sarcastic about the 60%.

    41. Republicofscotland says:

      excellent Chris buccaneers indeed, the British nationalist press, have been bumming up their latest trade deal with Japan, and how wonderful it is, bear in mind Scotland had absolutely zero input into this deal, Westminster will make all the trade deals and we’ll just have to suck it up and abide by them even if they damage Scottish interests.

      Rule Britannia, pirates indeed.

    42. Willie says:

      What is this talk of magic numbers Stoker.

      Have you not heard of imaginary numbers. They are real number in the mathematical world to make mathematics work. Think negative numbers and you get the idea. Well how can you have negative votes do I hear you say. Well precisely, how do you, have negative anything.

      Now magic numbers that’s another matter altogether. Do I agree with 60 no I don’t because like you I believe in 51. So where did Nicola’s 60 come from.

      Well here is one theory, or explanation. The secret to life, to the universe is 42. Now since you cannot take 42 away from 1 since this would give you a real imaginary number, you therefore take it away from 100 and hey presto 58 which is nearly 60.

      Now why 42 to start with. Well that’s easy, Numerologist Nicola has obviously realised that –

      * Prince Albert died aged 42,
      * Prince Albert and Vic had 42 Grandchildren
      * The world’s first Gutenberg printed book had 42 lines per page.
      * On page 42 of the Philosopher’s Stone, Harry discovers he’s a Wizard
      * Buzz Light Years space ship is called 42
      * The element molybdenum has the atomic number 42

      And so based upon these fundamental truth and recognising and adjusting for a rounding error of an imaginary 2,, then taking 42 away from a 100, one realises exactly why Nicola has settled on 60 percent.

      So there you are Stoker 60 trumps 51. Easy when you know how sixty has been calculated.

      Now the EU referendum , which resides in an alternative universe, the number 60 rounded to the real number of 62, that has a different meaning. But I’m sure the Rev Stu will be able to explain that.

      Have a nice day, y’all. Right glad I am that we are all in such capable hands.

    43. Sharny Dubs says:

      Just got a text from SNP Nicola asking me (And all my contacts) to download an app to combat Covid.
      Look a squirrel! Or what?

    44. Effijy says:

      Ottoman boy

      Go catch the virus and spread it among your family if it makes you feel better.

      I’m reading the global Covid stats.
      It’s not made up like your suggestion we are living with chains on.

      I can go out whenever I like, I go shopping for food and clothes regularly,
      I’ve never visited restaurants more frequently, I’m going to the pub today.

      I’m as free as not spreading a killer virus allows me to be.

      What kind of person suggests 29,000,000 people have been tricked into believing they have the virus and nearly 1,000,000 people dead just to keep me from gathering in crowds.

      Several 100,000 Doctors who took the oath must be in on the act too.

      I’ve said this to you before, although it might lead mainly to the death of the elderly and vulnerable,
      that would include my Mother and my Wife.

      I’d very much like them to live a while yet so I’ll not be taking up your game of Russian Roulette!

    45. Republicofscotland says:

      How the SNP’s £3 billion Green Investment Portfolio, is selling out Scotland’s renewables.

      Scotland must be the only country in the world to discover oil, gas, wind and water renewables and get poorer in the process.

    46. McDuff says:

      Brilliant Chris.

    47. kapelmeister says:

      Sturgeon tweeting relentlessly about Covid. Nothing about the power grab.

      Covid doesn’t have the power to bring Scotland to its knees. Westminster soon will have and it will use it.

      A genuine leader, right now, would be doing everything to boost Scottish self-confidence, develop strategy and raise political consciousness for the battles ahead.

      In complete contrast, this FM is play acting and enjoying her personal poll ratings, which have only been superficially boosted by impressionable unionists watching her months of covid reports. Impressionable peoples’ support disappears and the poll ratings for independence will drop again if the SNP does not do the things that are vital to sustain it.

      All that Sturgeon has as a strategy is to go around the country next election time in her big ego bus – assuming her crimes over the Salmond case don’t catch up with her first – and gain another mandate she has neither the brains or the risk-taking selflessness to use.

    48. CameronB Brodie says:

      I hope folk are happy to live under authoritarian totalitarianism which is divorced from moral reason, as that is what the Scottish government has condemned Scotland to. If only they were able to access competent legal advice, but the Lord Advocate appears to be a Tory, and devotee of English legal culture.

      Enforcement of International Law

    49. Dorothy Devine says:

      Mr Cairns have you been in cahoots with Mr Rowson in the Guardian?

      Or is it just a case of great minds think alike?

      Effigy , I too try hard to avoid unnecessary jaunts to pubs, protests and pillocks and I will continue so to do until WHO tells us the pandemic has seen its last case.

    50. Willie says:

      Yep, an email yesterday from Sturgeon via SNP mail about down loading the app. And a text today on the same message.

      Not a word though on the power grab our on strategy as to how we are going to deal with the collapsing economy or how being out of Europe will impact us or even how she is now banned from the BBC.

      And does anyone have any concerns about Nicola as First Minister using SNP party apparatus and member – supporter data for Government use. Data protection under the SNP ……

    51. James Barr Gardner says:

      Yet again you’ve cracked it Chris, another BELTER !

    52. CameronB Brodie says:

      Honestly peeps, the Lord Advocate clearly does not now how to support the rule of law. This is obvious from the Scottish government’s approach to the law, which lacks respect for the legal principle of equality in law, and the legal doctrine of proportionality.

      American Journal of International Law, Volume 29, Issue S2 (Supplement. Research in International Law Part III & Index) 1935 , pp. 1077-1096
      Article 27. Violation of Treaty Obligations

    53. Den Cairns says:

      Without out doubt one of CC’s best yet IMHO.

    54. James Barr Gardner says:

      Captain Pugwash rodger the cabin boy !

    55. Cadogan Enright says:


      Apparently C19 coverage is newsworthy in Northern Ireland – but not in Scotland as it gives the Scottish Government positive coverage vis-a vis Westminster

    56. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m pretty sure the Lord Advocate is a Tory at heart, so are we going to put up with the right-wing preventing us from accessing our human rights?

      The Treaty and International Law
      A Brief Look at the Maroon Treaty and the International Law of Treaties The International Law of Treaties

      Pacta sunt servanda, or the principle that agreements are to be respected, even among otherwise sovereign states, is a fundamental tenet of international law. The original justification for the obligatory force of treaties is probably attributable to religious solemnity (the Maroon Treaty, typically, begins, “In the name of God, Amen . . . “). Nowadays, international theory attributes the legally binding nature of treaties to the capacity of sovereign states to bind themselves….

    57. CameronB Brodie says:

      Personally, I wouldn’t trust the Lord Advocate as far as I could throw him.

      The International Responsibility of States for Breach of Multilateral Obligations

    58. Rm says:

      Seems the Scottish Government won’t speak up for the 66 percent of people who wanted to stay within Europe, can the people themselves send a delegation to Brussels and ask if it’s possible the sovereign people of Scotland can stay in Europe so we and future generations can work and travel freely in all European member countries. Hello

    59. CameronB Brodie says:

      As far as I’m aware, it is possible for individuals to petition the EU in cases of breaches of their fundamental rights.

      Fundamental Rights Adjudication in the European Union
      Exploring the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice

    60. CameronB Brodie says:

      So I imagine a group petition would have significanr legal effect.

      Adjudication of International Disputes in Europe: The Role of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights

    61. CameronB Brodie says:

      Unfortunately for Scots, the Lord Advocate does not appear capable of supporting common law jurisprudence.

      EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
      Citizens’ rights
      Article 41 – Right to good administration

    62. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @MaggieC (11.54 last night) –

      Just saw your message there, thanks. Looks like the one Andy Ellis linked to a bit earlier. I spent quite a while last night looking for examples of actual contempt but they seem pretty thin on the ground and none seem to address how best to deal with bumptious, sarcastic, chortling patronising plonkers like Mr Wolfe.

    63. MaggieC says:

      I see that Tricky Dicky Leonard has survived to fight another day as England’s Labour leader in Scotland from BBC Shortbread .

    64. MaggieC says:

      Ian Brotherhood ,

      I had been looking to see if you had found my post , pleased you found it .

      I think the easiest way for us to get answers would be if we asked
      Rev Stuart Campbell to contact Alex Salmond to contact Joanna Cherry as at least she knows and understands Scots Law LOL .

    65. CameronB Brodie says:

      If the Lord Advocate respected Common law jurisprudence, Scots might be able to enjoy justice.

      The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 64, Issue 4, 1 December 2016, Pages 841–864
      The Comparative Law Method and the European Court of Justice: Echoes Across the Atlantic

    66. CameronB Brodie says:

      And if he supported the rule-of-law, Scots wouldn’t be getting removed from the EU, and women’s rights would not be under severe threat in Scotland.

      Comparative study
      on the implementation
      of the ECHR at
      the national level

    67. CameronB Brodie says:

      Quite frankly, the Lord Advocate does not strike me as being capable of supporting the rule-of-law, and I’m happy to face him in a court of law if that upsets him.


    68. Ottomanboi says:

      However sympathetic one might be the anglocentrism in this piece is patently evident.
      No mention of Scotland which accounts for 60% of ‘UK’ quota.
      The reality.
      Flog-it….it’s the English way.

    69. Republicofscotland says:

      The BBC will replace Scotland’s crucial Covid-19 daily briefings from the FM with Bargain Hunt, a antiques show.

      Meanwhile a rally is to be held outside the BBC HQ in Scotland(Glasgow) demonstrating against the removal of the vital Covid-19 briefings.

    70. MaggieC says:

      Stuart Mctavish @ 6.49 am ,

      I’ve posted an answer to Ian Brotherhood @ 2.12 pm , LOL

    71. Republicofscotland says:

      Meanwhile Johnson is to arrange another jaunt North of the border as the polls are beginning to worry him. The Tory government has secretly commissioned polls on Scottish independence, but will not share their findings even thought the polls are taxpayer funded. I take from that, and Johnson’s planned visits to Scotland that they’re still polling above fifty percent.

    72. Stuart MacKay says:

      Republicofscotland @11:05am

      Hear, hear. Of all the bickering and whining that goes on here, very little it is directed at the real big ticket items: land reform, territorial integrity and ensuring Scotland’s assets go to benefit all Scots along with how we are current being sold short and bent over by thieves and clowns.

      Renewable energy is essentially without end and with enormous markets on our doorstep (well leave the problem of how to deliver it to the side for a moment). A strong government with vision and drive could take advantage of our embarrassment of energy riches and make a vast difference to the lives of all Scots. It’s not like we don’t have a close neighbour and long-time friend who did exactly that.

      Yet here we have a bunch of petty bureaucrats pissing away Scotland’s future for a few pieces of silver. It’s the Private Finance Initiative all over again.

    73. MaggieC says:

      RepublicofScotland @ 2.53 pm. ,

      I wonder if they’ll announce where bojo is going to visit and we could have a socially distanced committee waiting to welcome him .

      When eventually the Snp get organised to hold our Indy ref all we need is 50% + 1 vote to win it .

    74. red sunset says:

      Stuart MacKay says:
      12 September, 2020 at 2:58 pm
      Republicofscotland @11:05am

      Hear, hear. Of all the bickering and whining that goes on here, very little it is directed at the real big ticket items:

      While I totally agree with what you’re saying, generally speaking most people will only get stuck in with anything they think they might have a chance at influencing. Or just to have a good gripe.

      But after time, again generally speaking, most people will drift away if they feel it’s head to brick wall stuff. Which I think is how most people feel about just about everything these days.

      We had the campaigning times. We’ve now had years of just about every gripe being ignored. No initiatives on much of great importance. Not even talking about progressive ideas.

      What is needed is BOLD AND RADICAL – bold and radical action on the big ticket stuff. Land ownership and land taxation being near the top of the list.

      But as I say, people won’t get worked up about things they believe will be ignored by those in power.

    75. A Person says:


      True, but you and I didn’t!

    76. A Person says:

      -Red Sunset-

      Not much chance of that when top SG advisers are employed by the Duke of Buccleuch though is there?

    77. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m not exaggerating when I suggest that the Lord Advocate does not appear capable of supporting the rule-of-law. Unfortunately, he appears more than capable of supporting authoritarian English Torydum.

      Two of the most basic principles of democracy, are the right of “internal sovereignty” and the right to “external sovereignty”. Internal soveriegnty is the right of a nation to be free of internal disruption to its rights and freedoms to the internal governance of its society and borders. “External soverignty”, is the right of a nation to be free from external forces that would undermine, disrupt, or remove the rights and freedoms of that nation to exist and govern its own territory and society.



      This Article will suggest that judges of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) take into account both legal and non-legal considerations when deciding “hard” cases. This Article focuses on these legal considerations, emphasizing the legal, rather than the political, personality of the ECtHR.

      Legal considerations can be further divided into internal and external ones. The former originate from within the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) system, such as the ECtHR case law or the law and practice of the Contracting Parties to the Convention. The latter are provisions borrowed from outside of the realm of the Convention, such as international treaties or laws and practices from nations outside of the Council of Europe.

      This Article will argue that reliance on internal, as opposed to external, sources can help minimize the challenges that the ECtHR is currently facing in regard to its legitimacy.

    78. Breeks says:

      MaggieC says:
      12 September, 2020 at 2:12 pm

      I think the easiest way for us to get answers would be if we asked
      Rev Stuart Campbell to contact Alex Salmond to contact Joanna Cherry as at least she knows and understands Scots Law LOL ….

      I was listening to the WGD podcast with Andrew Tickell, and he said a very odd thing. He said words to the effect that there is no formal legislation that actually supports Scottish Sovereignty. There is apparently no specific reference to it. But he then went on to talk about the Claim of Right, to which due reference does appear, and how that, at least to an extent, codified the sovereignty of the people… (although the law has issues with popular sovereignty and whether it can exist).

      But he left me confused. If the Claim of Right has extant force and recognition in modern legislation, (as it does), then surely it follows that the legislation with established the Claim of Right must also be extant and carry lawful legitimacy? Plain logic dictates that it must.

      As we all know, the Claim of Right refers to the right of the Scottish people to depose their monarch and choose another to rule in their place, and thus, we can be sure that the Claim of Right exists, because the Declaration of Arbroath exists, and more, that the Declaration of Arbroath wasn’t just a “claim”, but was formally recognised by the Pope, and the Dowager English Queen Isabella in 1320.

      The implication from what Andrew Tickell was saying is that while there may be no reference to Scottish Sovereignty in UK legislation, for Scottish Sovereignty “not” to exist would require some piece of legislation rescinding it. But since the Claim of Right has been recognised in legislation, then surely this is unequivocal evidence that the right of Scottish People to depose their Monarch never has been formally rescinded, so neither has the Declaration of Arbroath.

      I am troubled by Andrew Tickell’s perspective. We have unequivocal proof, international recognition, and centuries of provenance to prove Scottish Sovereignty did exist, and just because there is no direct reference to it modern UK legislation does not mean it suddenly ceased to exist. That might be wishful thinking of the part of the Unionist fraternity, but show me the legislation or it didn’t happen.

      Just as telling as the absent references to Scottish Sovereignty, (in fact more telling), is the non existence of any legislation, or even reference to any such legislation, actually rescinding Scottish Sovereignty.

      Statute remains on the statute book until it is removed, and the Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland has never been removed, because nobody has the capacity to remove it. That position is supported by the Claim of Right, which does survive to be referenced in modern legislation, so while I’m no lawyer, I think it falls on Mr Tickell to substantiate his opinion that Scotland’s Sovereignty doesn’t properly exist because modern legislation doesn’t mention it, by providing reference to whatever legislation there is which allegedly removed sovereignty from the Scottish people, (but preserved the Claim of Right which codifies that very sovereignty).

      Confused? That’s precisely what you’re meant to be. It’s how the “Union” survives. But boil away the rotten flesh… the phoney Union disintegrates, but Scottish Sovereignty survives the process intact.

      If I’m correct in interpreting what Mr Tickell says, Scotland may be Sovereign but we must accept Westminster’s exploitation in the Union, because we can’t prove Scottish Sovereignty in law. But I think he is wrong in that. We can prove beyond all doubt that Scotland’s popular sovereignty did exist, and that puts the onus on any Britisher claiming Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty was extinguished to produce the evidence of how, and when, it was done.

      That we were sovereign, but now, to be apparently not-sovereign, requires evidence of the legislation which “somehow” changed our state from sovereign to non-sovereign. No such legislation exists, because if it somehow did truncate Scottish Sovereignty, then there would not be any Claim of Right. QED.

      With all due respect to Mr Tickell, I fear he’s been taken in by UK sophistry and misrepresentation, and the “established” conventional thinking of the “Establishment’s” Conventions. Scotland can produce it’s birth certificate of legitimacy, recognised by the Pope and ratified by the English monarchy in perpetuity. (Edinburgh/ Northampton Treaty 1328). All the Union can produce is an unwritten convention.

      If the Brits want their narrative to stick that Scottish Sovereignty was indeed extinguished, then don’t just say it was, show me the workings to your answer. Show me the actual legislation which removed sovereignty from the Scottish people.

      I think you will find that’s the legislation which doesn’t exist, conspicuous by it’s absence, and why the UK Parliament has to invent a swamp of impenetrable sophistry, and rule “by unwritten convention” because they don’t have the right paperwork.

      Where I think Mr Tickell is right, is that when the changes brought about by the Union came into effect in Scotland in 1707, what had been a sovereign Independent Nation simply had it’s Constitution swept aside and supplanted. It was never codified how Scotland’s Constitution was meant to integrate with the Union… and fundamental incompatibilities which could not possibly be resolved were simply buried beneath expedient conventions, such Westminster’s Parliamentary Sovereignty by Convention…

      I firmly believe Scotland has nothing to lose but everything to gain from an exacting and ruthless Constitutional audit of the Union… provided of course that we don’t allow Westminster to do the auditing.

    79. Fireproofjim says:

      Boris Johnson is very badly advised if he thinks that a flying visit to Scotland to meet a tiny group of sycophantic Tories like Douglas Ross is going to improve the Unionist poll ratings.
      In general most Scots view Johnson with dislike and even hostility.
      The terms red rag and bull come to mind.

    80. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mr. Tickell strikes me as being rather parochial in his appreciation of the law, and determined not to acknowledge Treaty law. All Scots are agents of international law, but Westminster considers itself superior to international law, so is happy to ignore this.


    81. Breeks says:

      I also wonder whether Mr Tickell’s appreciation of Scotland’s Constitutional dilemma is typical of the wider legal community, and that lack of confidence is being communicated to our Politicians.

      If there is a prevailing belief amongst lawyers that Scottish Sovereignty has been compromised by the formation of the Union in 1707, then it might explain why so few are prepared to stick their head above the parapet.

      It is my personal belief we should not be dictated to by anything in the Scotland Act. That is the Constitution of a devolved assembly beneath Westminster in rank, and Holyrood is sickeningly acting like it.

      It is my personal belief Scotland’s actions should be dictated by Scotland’s National Constitution; the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and popular sovereignty of the Scottish people, and the robust Sovereign Nation which once existed, free from Westminster’s interference and meddling. If the “body” cannot be represented by Holyrood, then we need a new Scottish Constitutional Body which can represent the Sovereign people and defend the Scottish Constitution and our rights.

    82. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m honestly struggling to believe Mr. Tickell supports Common law jurisprudence. He appears to be more of a legal positivist and blind to Natural law.

      Constitutional Law and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: An Attempt at a Synthesis


      It is a fact that constitutional courts today produce law. This corpus of law, derived from continuous judicial review of the activities of all three branches of power, in so far as human rights are concerned, has much in common with the procedures and the substance of the case-law fashioned by the European Court of Human Rights.

      The court, while also deciding in abstracto, produces an inter partes decision which, in the end, inevitably has at least a de facto erga omnes effect. Case law now represents the lion’s share of modern constitutional law. It is again an empirical fact that Europe has had in Strasbourg, for the last forty years, its own constitutional court.

    83. Daisy Walker says:

      Another fantastic cartoon Chris.

      And very interesting posts btl too.

      I’ve been thinking about the rogue state’s motives for traducing the Withdrawal Agreement and its possible knock on affect on the Good Friday treaty.

      By doing this (if that is what happens) will Ireland and N Ireland have their ability to hold a Referendum on reuniting no longer guaranteed (by the EU), or it kicked into the long grass, if this goes ahead?

      And will that automatically limit Scotland’s likelihood of holding one?

      Just some early thoughts. Interested on what others think about it.

      Kind regards

    84. CameronB Brodie says:

      IMHO, Mr. Tickell does appear to be punting poor quality legal advice. I’m honestly struggling to understand why folk would trust him.

      Procedural Justice in Human Rights Adjudication: The European Court of Human Rights

      The social psychological theory of procedural justice emphasizes the fundamental importance of procedural fairness judgments in shaping citizens’ satisfaction and compliance with the outcome of a legal process and in strengthening the legitimacy of legal institutions.

      This article explores the benefit of applying procedural justice criteria (participation, neutrality, respect, and trust) in human rights adjudication, with a particular focus on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It is argued that the ECtHR should take these criteria into account both at the level of its own proceedings and in evaluating how human rights have been dealt with at the domestic level.

    85. Andy Ellis says:

      @Breeks, CBB et al

      Andrew Tickell may not be a specialist in constitutional law, but he strikes me as a pretty knowledgeable if not authoritative source. The trouble for many of those who pontificate about the treaty of Unions, act of union, claim of right, declaration of Arbroath, sovereignty of the people etc is that nobody outside Scotland really cares.

      The international community only really cares about a clear majority vote in response to a clear referendum question or mandate from plebiscitary elections. They would prefer the parties to co-operate and negotiate in good faith, and will be loathe to take sides (particularly the side of the party trying to secede) unless there are very serious reasons for doing so such as violence, ethnic cleansing or flagrant gerrymandering.

      Everything else is as useful as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

      The English parliament considers itself supreme. We are now seeing that it also considers itself free to not only break international law, but publicly and unashamedly admit to doing so.

      Unless and until the a majority of the Scottish people summon the courage to vote clearly for independence (whether in a referendum or elections) nobody in the international community will confront Westminster. Neither Brussels nor Strasbourg will serve as some deus ex machina to drop statehood into our laps via legal means, any more than they would or will do so for Catalans, Basques, Flemings, Corsicans or anyone else.

      In the final analysis independence is taken not granted. I’m honestly beginning to wonder if, after 300 years of union, there are enough Scots with the self belief left to take what is rightfully theirs, even as they pontificate endlessly about their undoubted right to do so.

      Seven hundred years ago our forebears swore that as long as only 100 of them remained alive they would never be brought under English rule. I wonder what they’d make of a couple of million Scots lacking the balls to mark a ballot paper with a pencil?

    86. Republicofscotland says:

      “I wonder if they’ll announce where bojo is going to visit and we could have a socially distanced committee waiting to welcome him .”


      No doubt the Daily Mail will let the cat out of the bag, as they did in the Applegate affair.

      Johnson will of course visit British nationalist closed shops, possibly somewhere in Aberdeen.

      But yes there’s always a few canny scots that will spot him and make their presence know to the PM.

    87. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mr. Tickel appears to believe the legal universe was created in 1707, and that contemporary British constitutional practice is coherent or compatible with international law. It isn’t, and if it ain’t compatible with international law, it ain’t compatible with Britain’s Common law constitution.

      Legal Equality and the International Rule of Law

    88. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      Kind of hard to disagree with you. But I simply don’t consider Mr. Tickle’s legal opinion as being sound. Legal parochialism and legal positivism are the parents of fascism.

      Equality and Discrimination Under International Law

    89. Republicofscotland says:

      Stuart MacKay@ 2.58pm.

      Yes Stuart, Robin McAlpine writes some very good articles, McAlpine points out that the S&G’s £3 billion Green Investment Portfolio privatisation programme on energy will see the likes of oil and gas and wind and water energy, also syphoned off with huge profits to the private sector for creating future infrastructure on energy.

      Its all being done in secret more or less, its not been discussed at any SNP conference, or via any other other form of public hearing. There has been no public scrutiny and no real public consultation, and it definitely wasn’t put to the electorate in the Holyrood manifesto.

      So as McAlpine says Scotland has never had an opportunity to express a view on it. I find that very worrying indeed.

    90. The brexit ref., asked in or out only No deals were offered I voted out T., May added these deals to water down leaving she had no right to do so if I decide to leave a club then I leave their terms and rules no longer apply to me as I am not a’ member anymore simple as that they have no say in my future it is none of their business what I do after I leave I want independence to mean just that no NATO no E.U no special relationship with America Scotland aFREE country run by Scots any thing else is not freedom theE.U. Will mean 27 masters being allowed to rule you instead of1 some freedom to me it is more captivity and do not forget the E.U and world leaders who lined up to talk out against Scotland’s freedom aye and the SNP not delivering it as I say though all the World betrays thee ???

    91. Andy Ellis says:


      The soundness of his, or indeed any other legal authority’s, opinion is a moot point. I imagine his views would be considered the mainstream even among pro-independence Scots legal academics and authorities.

      Legal action will not deliver the Scottish “Forógra na Poblachta”, with the First Minister at the pond in front or of Holyrood reading out the formal Declaration. Sturgeon is no Patrick Pearse.

      The only certain methods of extricating ourselves from the vaguery of English parliamentary supremacy and ensuring it does not in due course extend to a de jure as well as a de facto veto on “secession”, are to vote for it and ensure recognition, or to fight for it.

      If we are not careful we will no longer find ourselves in a position of being told “now is not the time”, to being told “there will never be a time”. We’ll end up facing a government which is simply going to refuse to countenance a dissolution of the union, in much the same way that the federal government in Washington refuses to recognise it would be possible for a US state to secede.

    92. CameronB Brodie says:

      I don’t mean to be a bully, but Mr. Tickel appears to view the law in the same way as the Lord Advocate. Neither appear capable of supporting Common law jurisprudence, which is what justifies the British constitution.


    93. Breeks says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      12 September, 2020 at 5:02 pm

      …Unless and until the a majority of the Scottish people summon the courage to vote clearly for independence (whether in a referendum or elections) nobody in the international community will confront Westminster. Neither Brussels nor Strasbourg will serve as some deus ex machina to drop statehood into our laps via legal means, any more than they would or will do so for Catalans, Basques, Flemings, Corsicans or anyone else…

      I don’t think it’s that simple, because our democracy is faulty, not our courage, and faulty because our population is deluged from cradle to crave with mind altering propaganda. How can any polling, or even actual votes and elections be meaningful when we are subjected to such carpet bombing indoctrination?

      I also disagree with you about Brussels. IF Holyrood hadn’t caved in over Brexit and instead of prattling on about access to the single Market, they issued a Constitutional ultimatum, similar to the Irish Backstop, then I firmly believe Brussels would have come down on the right side of International Law, and agreed that Brexit against our democratic will and Constitutional Sovereignty did constitute unlawful subjugation.

      You say they’d never have done it? They did it. They came down on side with Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the American’s are even now warning Westminster that jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement is a kill switch on any Trade Deal. They didn’t budge an inch, and knew Westminster had to back down.

      Scotland’s Leadership under Sturgeon has been constitutionally inept from the outset, and their strategy has been dismal beyond belief. Brexit was our ticket to Independence, the democracy box was ticked, international Law and International Goodwill was all there for the taking, but after nearly five years of “Brexit Jeopardy”, the dust will settle this December, and we’ll have lost our European citizenship, squandered a heaven sent ticket to Independence, and got NOTHING, not even a paltry conciliatory gesture, out of Brexit, and we’ll still be led by the same SNP dullards who squandered every opportunity that came their way, and I doubt they could even spell ‘initiative’.

      Even now, with the Brexit Doomsday clock just minutes to midnight, we could still cobble together some kind of Constitutional spanner in the works for Brexit, and Scotland can create a Backstop to protest our unlawful subjugation, but instead we have our “leadership” focussed on 2021 Elections and having a squabble with the BBC. And let’s not even mention the Salmond Conspiracy and their petty coverup. It’s beyond pathetic. Everyone who voted SNP these past five years should demand their money back.

      I’ll promise you this, if Sturgeon isn’t booted out before there’s an Election, it’s a spoiled ballot for me, or more probably I won’t bother to vote… certainly not for some creepoid genderwoowoo phenomenon with a Degree from Stirling Uni. They’ve let us all down, from Alex Salmond, Martin Keatings, Joanna Cherry, Craig Murray, Rev Stu, the list goes on and on…. It didn’t have to be this way.

    94. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      Absolutely, the law will not deliver Scotland’s independence, that’s our responsibility. Seeking to undermine the foundations of the rule-of-law, is certainly not going to help our cause though. However, that’s exactly what the Lord Advocate, Mr. Tickel, and the Scottish government appears to support.

      A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence pp 141-180, 24 June 2011
      Implicit Law and Principles of Legality


      In 1940, Lon Fuller (1940, 2) wrote that the fundamental task of legal philosophy is to give effective and meaningful direction to the application of human energies in the law. However, he added ruefully, judged by this standard, the preceding quarter century had not been a fruitful one.

      Despite his sympathy with the realists’ practitioner-focused approach to law, he argued that their theoretical lens distorted our perception of the reality of law and that positivism, in both its classical Austinian form and its latter-day reinventions, fared no better.

      Against the prevailing jurisprudential winds, Fuller proposed a form of jurisprudence that looked to many readers like a natural-law theory, albeit in a subtly qualified, secular form. In philosophical circles, Fuller’s work is remembered largely for the thesis that there is an “internal morality of law,” the principles of which correspond to familiar principles of the rule of law (a close cousin to the notion of Rechtsstaat).

      Legal Order Social Rule Individual Liberty Spontaneous Order Internal Morality

    95. mr thms says:

      This is current legislation

      “The Claim of Right is an Act passed by the Parliament of Scotland in April 1689. It is one of the key documents of United Kingdom constitutional law and Scottish constitutional law.”

    96. Effijy says:

      The Daily Redcoat, the paper behind the Vow suggest Salmond is
      Preventing the release of government documents?

      Salmond has no powers whatsoever ever over what Is released but that God the
      Distorted record is about to disappear for good

    97. Ottomanboi says:

      @Andy Ellis
      Truly, independence is taken. It is there to take, provided you have the collective will.
      There’s the rub….
      The will, unfortunately, has a short shelf life.

    98. Andy Ellis says:


      I’ve always thought the argument that we’re too clueless to vote for independence because we’re too indoctrinated was fairly weak to be honest. I agree our democracy is fault, but a big part of the reason it’s faulty is that we collectively lack the courage to change it for the better, or vote to take ourselves out of a democratically challenged situation. We’re not so much a nation in waiting as whimpering cur shaking in the corner desperately licking the hand of our abuser in hope he hits less hard.

      “If” Holyrood hadn’t caved in you think Brussels would have rushed to our aid….? Really? You might like to check with our Catalan friends what store they set by the EU. If you’re expecting Brussels to ride in like the 7th Cavalry, expect a good scalping. The EU stood by Ireland because it was in the organisations interests, the interests of the single market, and a member state to do so. The Irish at least had the courage to fight for their independence.

      You’re making my case for me, conjuring visions of an SNP that simply doesn’t exist. You’re right that it didn’t have to be there, but saying “if I wanted to get there, I wouldn’t start from here” doesn’t help us. We’re out of the EU in a few months. The dominant party is about to win a landslide in elections in May but will do precisely nothing. The British nationalists will veto #indyref2. The SNP will huff and puff and quietly march its troops to the bottom of the hill and ask for another mandate.

      The past five years of SNP inaction shows us their quality: as Maya Angelou famously observed, when somebody shows you who they are, believe them.

    99. Stuart MacKay says:

      @Andy Ellis,

      In a sense you’re right but the foundations that a country are built on are important even if they are not in the day-to-day consciousness of a population.

      Whenever I see anything about Iceland, the Alþingi, which was formed in 930, comes to mind. When you look at that you see a country which has democracy baked into it’s essence. Contrast that with perfidious Albion and that vacuous, self-serving statement that Westminster is the mother of parliaments and I know who’d I’d rather do business with.

      When it comes to setting standards for the world, there is front-row seat, waiting for Scotland. We just need to step forward.

    100. CameronB Brodie says:

      “but a big part of the reason it’s faulty is that we collectively lack the courage to change it for the better, or vote to take ourselves out of a democratically challenged situation.”

      I agree that it is the public’s duty to ensure the health of our democracy, but were not helped by legal fuckwittery from our legal officials, and alleged legal scholars.

      Health and Humuman Rights, 2017 Dec; 19(2): 295–298.
      The Rule of Law as a Social Determinant of Health

    101. Stuart MacKay says:


      Good point to raise about what Nancy Pelosi said over the Good Friday agreement. It’s clear statement that Johnson and Cummings, in their hubristic, small-minded, arrogant way clearly don’t understand the importance the Americans put into peace in Northern Ireland. It wasn’t just some deal the UK hammered out with Senator George Mitchell tagging along for the ride. He was the architect and shepherded it through difficult patches. It will be a cold day in Hell before the Americans let Bojo piss all over it.

    102. stuart mctavish says:

      @Maggie C
      Could certainly get interesting were JC to advise the committee (or even were it to decide amongst its members) that it had full authority over the Lord Advocate in the matter (ie he’d then be obliged either to comply with its requests without further obstruction or reveal whoever might be his own boss in order to demonstrate/argue his case that their authority could supplant that of the committee 🙂

    103. Andy Ellis says:

      @Stuart MacKay

      I agree the foundations are important. The Icelanders had the courage to take their independence from the Danes, as the Norwegians did from the Swedes. Remember Iceland had been under foreign rule from the 1260’s until 1944 and had few of the advantages Scotland had. The Faroese were denied their independence in 1948, but achieved self-government which puts ours to shame: even now they are talking about independence again.

      Perhaps our Scandinavian cousins sense of self is more “baked in” to their essence, perhaps their rulers were less devious or determined, or just felt they didn’t have as much to lose.

      Talking to lots of people abroad in my travels over the period since #indyref1 I find many who are astonished that the % of Scots in favour of indy isn’t much higher. They understand that independence is normal and can’t really see why Scots are afraid to take their destiny into their own hands.

      I never know how to answer them.

    104. CameronB Brodie says:

      The rule of law is international, and couldn’t give a flying fuck about English legal exceptionalism. It’s just a pity Scotland’s legal officers were not of the shame opinion.

      Public’s Health: Revitalizing Law and Policy to Meet New Challenges (2011)
      Law and the Public’s Health: Law as a
      Tool for Improving Population Health

    105. Andy Ellis says:


      It doesn’t give a flying fuck about Spanish exceptionalism either.

      That hasn’t released a single Catalan from prison or moved them a centimetre closer to independence.

    106. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      You’ve already outlined the constitutional differences between Scotland and Catalonia, a number of times, so I don’t think you’re being intellectually consistent.

    107. Margaret E says:

      @andy ellis 6.23
      we collectively lack the courage to change it for the better, or vote to take ourselves out of a democratically challenged situation. We’re not so much a nation in waiting as whimpering cur shaking in the corner desperately licking the hand of our abuser in hope he hits less hard.
      I spend a lot of time (for work) in Crete. Enough said perhaps.
      Cretans cannot understand why the Scots are simply acquiescing in the annihilation of Scotland. They fought in every way possible to regain their independence. They understand what is happening under our very own eyes. If our government literally does nothing,m except pious soundbites,
      then their opinion is that Scotland is quite happy to assist in its own obliteration.
      Because make no mistake, if nothing at all is done before 31st December 2020, the well-prepared Westminster takeover will occur. EVERTHING is in place.
      Including the compliant Scots, I am afraid We really are too stupid, after all.

    108. Margaret E says:

      Forgive my typos. Written under stress.

    109. CameronB Brodie says:

      Margaret E
      I hope you don’t mined if I pinch that excuse for myself. 🙂

      The ECJ’s Adjudication of Fundamental Rights Conflicts: In Search of a Fair Balance

    110. John Digsby says:

      Dan at 9:58am:

      This would be interesting Dan, except that all talk of successor states is irrevelevant, as we ceased to be EU members on Jamuary 31st just gone.

      Like it or not, we genuinely have to reapply at this stage as an outside member. That might be easy or not – my fear is that we’re not being honest with ourselves about these things and in the heat of an indyref campaign we therefore won’t be ready to counter the inevitable questions about internal borders on the island of GB.

      To do so effectively, we’ve got to try and leave the EU issue out of the campaign (the “that’s for us to decide later” approach). Assuming we ever GET a referendum, of course…

    111. C Griffiths says:

      Brilliant picture, so true.

    112. John Digsby says:

      I did of course mean January,not Jamuary. Must just be hungry!

    113. Effijy says:

      Anyone explain how in this equal partnership union how if Scotland
      Voted for independence we are kicked out of the EU and yet if England
      Wants out and Scotland wants to remain in, we are still out?

    114. CameronB Brodie says:

      The sore truth is the contemporary British constitutional practice does not support democracy and the rule-of-law, it support reactionary and authoritarian cultural and religious bigotry. This is the very soul of British nationalism, which is the articulation of English Tory tradition and ethos.

      Treaties as Binding International Obligation

    115. cynicalHighlander says:

      @Margaret E

      We really are too stupid, after all.

      I think supine might fit better. People used to be able to vote for a party that first and foremost wanted independence which is now gone so they have nothing to focus on.

    116. Andy Ellis says:


      Yes, I have consistently pointed out that the situations of Scotland and Catalonia have many differences but that doesn’t mean there are no similarities. More to the point I don’t see the inconsistency: I’m simply pointing out that legal means, international or domestic, will not help us any more than they have helped the Catalans.

      For example both Madrid and London share certain things: both are essentially saying that independence is possible, but imposing conditions. Madrid says no independence without a constitutional amendment which IS all but impossible, but allows them (at least as they see it) to hide behind the fig leaf that they aren’t crypto-Francoists. London says (at least for the present) “now is not the time”, but not “there will never be a time”, but they may well begin to see the attraction of that.

      The fact remains however that in the final analysis the only way for people in situations like Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec to achieve independence is for them to take it. Nobody is going to “give” it to us, nor can we expect the international community or institutions to do our homework for us.

    117. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m certainly not suggesting I’m as antiquated with the law as either the Lord Advocate of Mr. Tickel, but they both appear to take a rather colonial approach to the law, where as mine is more contemporary.


      The purpose of this article is to encourage legal scholars to engage more actively with postcolonial discourse. To this end, the article will outline key concepts in postcolonial theory – such as colonialism, imperialism, decolonisation and neo-colonialism, and will also trace the work of major
      theorists in this area – Frantz Fanon, Homi Bhabha, Gayatri Spivak, and Edward Said.

      As this article presents itself as a contribution to the study of postcolonial theory and the law, it will focus on contemporary developments in Australian law reform. Specifically, the article will discuss the Law Reform
      Commission of Western Australia’s Final Report on Aboriginal Customary Laws.

    118. robertknight says:


      I think you already know the answer:

      All the countries comprising the UK are equal.

      But some countries are more equal than others.

    119. CameronB Brodie says:

      “I’m simply pointing out that legal means, international or domestic, will not help us any more than they have helped the Catalans. ”

      Sorry, I can’t agree.

      The Effects of Treaties in Public International Law

    120. CameronB Brodie says:

      sorry….I’ve only just turned 53, so I’m definitely not I’m antiquated. That should have been “acquainted”. 🙂

    121. Beaker says:

      @Andy Ellis says:
      12 September, 2020 at 8:23 pm
      “The fact remains however that in the final analysis the only way for people in situations like Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec to achieve independence is for them to take it. Nobody is going to “give” it to us, nor can we expect the international community or institutions to do our homework for us.”

      I hope that when you say “them to take it” means by legal means. Any other way is doomed to failure.

    122. auld highlander says:

      What’s going on here folks?

      Geneva currency exchange showing a Scottish pound. No data when you click though.

    123. Andy Ellis says:

      @Beaker 8.23pm

      I’m advocating peaceful means.

      Question however: what do you do if faced with absolute refusal backed up with repression and violence?

    124. CameronB Brodie says:

      As I said, I think my approach to the law is more valid than either the Lord Advocate of Mr. Tickel. Brexit is not compatible with the Common law, so it is not compatible with the British constitution.

      European Journal of International Law, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 2019, Pages 73–104
      From Joining to Leaving: Domestic Law’s Role in the International Legal Validity of Treaty Withdrawal


      If a state withdraws from a treaty in a manner that violates its own domestic law, will this withdrawal take effect in international law? The decisions to join and withdraw from treaties are both aspects of the state’s treaty-making capacity. Logically, international law must therefore consider the relationship between domestic and international rules on states’ treaty consent both in relation to treaty entry and exit.

      However, while international law provides a role for domestic legal requirements in the international validity of a state’s consent when joining a treaty, it is silent on this question in relation to treaty withdrawal. Further, there has been little scholarly or judicial consideration of this question.

      This contribution addresses this gap. Given recent controversies concerning treaty withdrawal – including the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, South Africa’s possible withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, and the threatened US denunciation of the Paris Agreement – and the principles underlying this body of law, it is proposed that the law of treaties should be interpreted so as to develop international legal recognition for domestic rules on treaty withdrawal equivalent to that when states join treaties, such that a manifest violation of domestic law may invalidate a state’s treaty withdrawal in international law.

    125. cynicalHighlander says:

      @auld highlander

      The Hong Kong ech showd a Scottish Pound even before indy ref 2014 slightly up on the English one then.

      The rest of the World is totally confused on UK set up.

    126. CameronB Brodie says:

      If only Scotland had legally competent legal officers who were loyal to Scotland, rather than the Crown in Parliament.

      Why customary international law matters in protecting human rights

    127. John Jones says:

      Can someone explain who the 4 nations are who are always quoted on TV? As I understand it there are Scotland, England and Wales, I always thought that Northern Ireland was a region of Ireland as a whole, though sort of self governing on sufference from London.

    128. Rm says:

      That’s what’s wrong about the internet, everybody knows what your thinking, a lot of good speakers and thinkers on here, if Scotland has any chance at all Breeks, Cameron Brodie, robertlouise etc,etc not get together and get something organised, even what I’m saying now everybody knows about it, how to get things organised without the wrong people knowing about it nae easy the way things are.

    129. CameronB Brodie says:

      I don’t meant to flood the thread, but I know a bit about international law and stuff. So I’m being serious when I suggest Scotland is being fitted-up to slip seamlessly into a state of totalitarianism.

      btw, our inalienable “Right to Development” is internationally ratified “soft law”, though I think Westminster is rigidly opposed to its adoption, as honouring it would break the union.

      A Compliance Based Theory of International Law


      This Article examines international law from the perspective of compliance. Using insights from international relations theory, the Article adopts a theory in which compliance comes about in a model of rational, self-interested states. Specifically, states are concerned about both reputational and direct sanctions for their conduct.

      The model allows us to consider international law in a new light. Most strikingly, one is forced to reconsider two of the most fundamental doctrinal points in the field – the definitions of customary international law (CIL) and of international law itself. A reputational model of compliance makes it clear that CIL affects the behavior of a state because other states believe that the first state has a commitment that it must honor.

      A failure to honor that commitment hurts a state’s reputation because it signals that it is prepared to breach its obligations. This implies a definition that turns on the existence of an obligation in the eyes of other states rather than the conventional requirements of state practice and a sense of legal obligation felt by the breaching state.

      Classical definitions of international law look to two primary sources of law – treaties and CIL. A reputational theory, however, would label as international law any commitment that materially alters state incentives. This includes agreements that fall short of the traditional definition, including what is often referred to as “soft law.”

      The Article points out that there is no way to categorize treaties and CIL as “law” without also including soft law. Agreements such as ministerial accords or memoranda of understanding represent commitments by a state which, if breached, will have a reputational impact. For this reason, these soft law agreements should be included in the definition of international law.

      The Article also calls for a refocusing of international law scholarship. Because international law works through reputational and direct sanctions, we must recognize that these sanctions have limited force. As a result, international law is more likely to have an impact on events when the stakes are relatively modest. The implication is that many of the topics that receive the most attention in international law – the laws of war, territorial limits, arms agreements, and so on – are unlikely to be affected by international law.

      On the other hand, issues such as international economic matters, environmental issues, and so on, can more easily be affected by international law. This suggests that the international law academy should focus greater attention on the latter subjects and less on the former.

    130. Andy Ellis says:


      I don’t care what the common law dictates, or about the British constitution: they are matters for the UK. Our concentration should be on Scots law, fashioning the constitution of our new republic and ensuring we have the independence to make it so.

      If we want to become an independent we have to start thinking like we’re already living in the early days of a better nation.

      Not if, when.

      Not years from now, ASAP.

      Not asking, telling.

    131. cynicalHighlander says:


      How do you know they aren’t already? Just asking.

    132. Shug says:

      I see the BBC has a story about scotland’s Covid cases being at a high with 220 cases.
      Totally omitting that the English figure is 3400
      Given population Size they should have around 2200
      Again the BBC misleading us and hiding the truth

    133. CameronB Brodie says:

      Needless to say, it is more than a bit disappointing that the Scottish government is only prepared to pay lip-service to global sustainability, which places the “Right to Development” as central to sustainable social practice. So Scotland’s economy faces the costs of achieving sustainable social practice, without gaining the full rewards, i.e. self-determination.

    134. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      Is it Scots law that binds Scotland? No, it’s the British constitution, which is a contract in Common law.

    135. twathater says:

      @ ROS 11.05am thank you for that link to Robin McAlpines piece in the national , TBH this is so FRIGHTENING and UNBELIEVABLE that the SNP are CURRENTLY discussing basically auctioning off our MASSIVE energy resources , WTAF is going on with these people who have been elected to make SCOTLAND a better place for OUR people NOT to line the pockets of investors , tax evaders and avoiders

      As Robin indicates that would be like turning the clock back to when oil was discovered and the McCrone report was secret

      Rev could you do a piece on this and possibly liase with Robin as this HAS to be EXPOSED within the independence movement
      If we believe the HCB and the GRA is bad these moves are astronomical
      Please people read robins piece in the national it will ANGER and INFLAME everyone

    136. Socrates MacSporran says:

      robertknight @ 8.30pm

      You wrote:

      “All the countries comprising the UK are equal.

      But some countries are more equal than others.”

      If I may be so bold as to correct your statement, which should read:

      All the countries comprising the Uk are equal.

      But England is more equal than the other three.

    137. Andy Ellis says:


      The only thing binding us it seems is ourselves. As soon as we make the decision to leave the British constitution and common law are irrelevant. You’re thinking like a subject, not a citizen.

    138. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      That’s simply a slur you can’t substantiate.

      International Law in the Post-Human Rights Era

    139. Andy Ellis says:


      More cut and paste logorrhoea. What is it you think clogging up the BTL comments with these inappropriately posted secondary articles you insist on posting actually shows or achieves?

      You give every appearance of somebody off their meds.

    140. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      Are you sure you understand the what Common law is?

      The International Journal of Human Rights, Volume 24, 2020 – Issue 5
      Common law tort of negligence as a tool for deconstructing positive obligations under the European convention on human rights

    141. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      You appear to want to deny WOS readers insight they might not otherwise have obtained. Are you sure you’re on our side?

    142. Andy Ellis says:


      I’m on the side of the folk who don’t care for you cluttering up the BTL comments. I don’t need to justify my support for the cause to a no-mark like you.

      Cutting and pasting stuff on the scale you do it isn’t insight, it’s mania.

    143. cirsium says:

      @andy ellis, 6.23

      but a big part of the reason it’s faulty is that we collectively lack the courage to change it for the better,

      How so? We operate in a representative democracy. We elected the SNP to effect change for the better. The problem is that the SNP leadership has stopped representing YES. I’ve just come across a clip of the FM talking about the New Normal. That is too close to Gordon Brown’s and Tony Blair’s New World Order for comfort. Talk of the New Normal does explain the change of focus from sovereignty and such issues as land reform to GRA and Hate legislation and the assault on women’s rights. Pepe Escobar’s latest article has more information on the NWO.

    144. willie says:

      Just a thought all the comments on. but doesn’t Chris Cairns depiction of a raggedy boat among the big boys show how unable they are to resist Scottish Independence.

      The UK is a busted flush internally and externally.

    145. Melvin penman says:

      Robert Knight – I don’t understand the John Paul Jones comment, JPJ was Scottish and an American Patriot fighting against the tyranny of the British state. . Boris is a clown and British, ( clowns and britishhave a lot in common, both are pretend institutions and deluded.

    146. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      How else am to convey complex arguments? Away and have a word with yourself.

    147. leither says:

      love yer links cam

    148. Andy Ellis says:


      If electing the SNP isn’t working, the answer is……..?

    149. Breeks says:

      twathater says:
      12 September, 2020 at 10:03 pm
      @ ROS 11.05am thank you for that link to Robin McAlpines piece in the national , TBH this is so FRIGHTENING and UNBELIEVABLE that the SNP are CURRENTLY discussing basically auctioning off our MASSIVE energy resources , WTAF is going on with these people who have been elected to make SCOTLAND a better place for OUR people NOT to line the pockets of investors , tax evaders and avoiders

      As Robin indicates that would be like turning the clock back to when oil was discovered and the McCrone report was secret…

      Absolutely agree 100%.

      Where is Scotland’s Statoil equivalent? The Norwegian people own their resources, and so should Scotland. Have we learned NOTHING from McCrone???

      Selling off our resources to the highest bidder is straight out Thatcher’s book of Conservative greed and short term plunder. Disgusting. They are as profligate with our resources as they are with our sovereignty.

      What the FK has got in to the SNP? They are shaping up to be a bigger threat to Scotland than all the Tory spivs in Whitehall. What’s next? Is Pete Wishart maybe plotting with his shootin’ and fishin’ buddies to sell off Scotland’s parks and playing fields for rearing grouse to shoot? That’s said in jest, but I wouldn’t put it past them.

      “Somebody” is leading the SNP around by the nose, and it certainly isn’t the sovereign people of Scotland.

    150. CameronB Brodie says:

      No problems, and I’m so glad someone appreciates inclusive educational practice.

      On The Interpretation
      of Treaties
      The Modern International Law as Expressed
      in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law
      of Treaties

    151. Richard says:

      Irish Rte journalist has a good take on Boris and breaking of international treaty.

      Great cartoon Chris

    152. Beaker says:

      @Andy Ellis says:
      12 September, 2020 at 8:56 pm
      @Beaker 8.23pm
      “I’m advocating peaceful means.
      Question however: what do you do if faced with absolute refusal backed up with repression and violence?”

      I am at a loss to understand where the violence comes from.

      This isn’t Spain or France.

    153. leither says:

      love yer links cameron

    154. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      Care to tell us all what your legal background is, or do you think a post-graduate degree in International Relations makes you king bee around here?


      The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate:
      A Short Guide for the Perplexed

      For the past four decades, Anglo-American legal philosophy has been preoccupied – some might say obsessed – with something called the “Hart-Dworkin” debate. Since the appearance in 1967 of “The Model of Rules I,” Ronald Dworkin’s seminal critique of H. L. A. Hart’s theory of legal positivism, countless books and articles have been written either defending Hart against Dworkin’s objections or defending Dworkin against Hart’s defenders.2

      Recently, in fact, there has been a significant uptick in enthusiasm for the debate from its already lofty levels, an escalation no doubt attributable to the publication of the second edition of The Concept of Law, which contained Hart’s much anticipated, but alas posthumous, answer to Dworkin in a postscript. Predictably, the postscript generated a vigorous metadebate about its cogency, with some arguing that Hart was wrong to reply to Dworkin in the way that he did3 and others countering that such criticisms of Hart are unfounded.4

      In this essay, I will not take sides in this controversy over Hart’s reply to Dworkin. I will be interested, rather, in a more preliminary matter, namely, in attempting to set out the basic subject matter of the debate. My chief concern,
      therefore, will be to identify the core issue around which the Hart-Dworkin debate is organized. Is the debate, for example, about whether the law contains principles as well as rules? Or does it concern whether judges have discretion in hard cases? Is it about the proper way to interpret legal texts in the American legal system? Or is it about the very possibility of conceptual jurisprudence?

    155. Andy Ellis says:


      Not at all, it simply indicates a certain level of understanding of the subject and general education. I don’t feel the need to manically clutter up WoS comments with out of context secondary links very few people apart from your friend leither & a few other randoms appreciate or ever seem to interact with.

    156. Andy Ellis says:


      No it isn’t Spain. I doubt many Catalans thought their grannies would be truncheoned or that their leadership would be jailed though.

      What would Scots do then? What would they do if Holyrood was closed? What would they do if we’re never “allowed” another vote? Are there any limits?

    157. Ronald Fraser says:

      Boris now considering opting out of the Human Rights Convension.

      Are you going to say something about that Nicola???

      Boris is practically handing us Independence on a plate.

      Your move Sturgeon.

    158. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      We could have made quite an effect team, but you strike me as being a bit of a smug and self-important prick. Such a shame you let your ego get in the way of the enlightenment of Others.

      Revue internationale de philosophie 2013/4 (n° 266), pages 397 à 419
      Methods, Methodology, and Moral Judgement: Sidgwick on the Nature of Ethics

    159. Ronald Fraser says:

      John Jones 9.30pm

      That’s a brilliant point you posted there John.

      I have always thought Scotland Wales N Ireland or England could vote to become an independent nation if they wanted to.

      But you are saying N Ireland could only vote to be unified with Southern Ireland.

      It could not vote to become an independent nation in its own right.

      That’s a fascinating point.

      I never realised that.

      And just took it for granted that it could.

      The things you learn on Wings, lol

    160. Keith fae Leith says:

      Spambot, you’re being trolled by the Cat, you must be the only regular contributor that can’t see that. A day of comment’s on a cartoon & countless irrelevant musings from obscure sources with no descriptions.

      I’ve said before, if you know your subject, no matter how “complex arguments” they may be, then you can explain them to a secondary school student.

      Now, based on today & every other day where you clog up threads with Academic Journals you have yet to show the readers of this blog that you actually understand the subject matter.

      For the love of whatever you hold Holy, prove you understand your “complex arguments”by explaining them.

      Preferably so people can understand, without insulting people, asking them to justify asking you a question or referring to your Royal Town Planning committee.

      Because to the layman, the RTP means nothing, the blurb to your links mean nothing & you don’t reach anyone who is willing to be swayed.

      If I had the time, for an experiment, in the name of (social) science. I’d go through today’s pebble-dashing of links, read every single one & see how long it takes.

      Is there a site bookie willing to offer odds on how long it would take to read the 31 (THIRTY-ONE) links posted by you in less than 12 hours?

    161. Keith fae Leith says:

      32 in less than 12 hours.

      More comments without links as well…..

    162. Beaker says:

      @Andy Ellis says:
      12 September, 2020 at 11:43 pm
      “No it isn’t Spain. I doubt many Catalans thought their grannies would be truncheoned or that their leadership would be jailed though.
      What would Scots do then? What would they do if Holyrood was closed? What would they do if we’re never “allowed” another vote? Are there any limits?”

      Franco is the root cause for the way the Spanish government behave. Christ even the fucking King was corrupt.

      I doubt very much that Holyrood would be closed. I know that the UK Government (ie Eyetest Man) can close it, as UK parliament is sovereign, but Boris would need to get that through the Commons, and I cannot see that happening. He could use his own position to effectively bypass Parliament, but that would truly be political suicide, as it would be viewed as a political coup. If that happened, then yes there will be fucking riots as everyone will be pissed off.

      Boris is already on shaky ground. There are Tory MPs voicing their concerns about this latest bill, and some must be wondering what the fuck they did by electing him as leader.

      His main option will be over reserved powers. That’s the easiest way to draw power from Scotland.

      Problem is we have a shit sandwich. There is fuck all that Sturgeon can do and trying anything illegal won’t work either.

      Had the likes of Blackford concentrated on other priorities from 2016 instead of fucking posturing, we might have been in a different position.

    163. CameronB Brodie says:

      Keith fae Leith
      Yourself and Andy appear to want to constrain WOS to a talking shop, where only personal interpretation counts. I’m trying to convey legal insight, and I’m struggling to understand why this is a problem for some.

    164. Breeks says:

      Ha ha ha ha. Just seen a reference to Boris Johnson as UK Crime Minister… lol.

    165. mr thms says:

      The timeline for Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that concluded on the 23rd May 1969 is interesting. The UK signed it on the 20th April 1970 and ratified it on the 25th June 1971. Around the same time as it concluded, Harold Wilson set up a Royal Commission on the Constitution to examine the structures of the constitution of the United Kingdom and the British Islands and the government of its constituent countries, to consider whether any changes should be made to those structures that was started under Lord Crowther on 15 April 1969. Not long after the first Scottish referendum on devolution on 1st March 1979, on the 3rd May 1979 Margaret Thatcher won the General and on the 20th June 1979 she repealed the Scotland Act 1978. Is it a coincidence The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties came into force on the 27th January 1980? It makes me think the Yes vote of 1979 paved the way for all the civic changes in Scotland that followed, and which ultimately led to a second referendum on devolution. I think more devolution, Brexit, and even more devolution are all part of the road map to independence.

    166. twathater says:

      OMG Cat leither you are now posting links rather than snidey comments, btw you never answered whether you put your ideas re early election and list party preference on WGD

    167. twathater says:

      If what Robin McAlpine commented in the national is anywhere near true which I don’t doubt, it appears we have a massive TROJAN horse in our parliament and it is NOT one of the three unionist parties , Scotland is being EATEN from the inside by maggots

      I appeal to the SNP members retiring, if you REALLY believe in your country and its people, and you have a conscience and if you are sickened by what’s being done to YOUR country I BEG you to come forward and expose the corruption within the party for without your honesty Scotland’s future is BLEAK

    168. leither says:

      love your comments keith fae leith 🙂

      i might be biased somewhat

    169. Robert Louis says:

      I see Stephen Gethins wants to stand for the SNP in Scots parliament, after losing his seat as an mp. Nope.

    170. brian lucey says:

      What’s more important to posters here? To achieve independence for Scotland or knock lumps off the leading political party for Scottish independence?
      you do know that the moment Scotland becomes independent you can all split off into whatever political organisations you wish? and you do know that until Scotland becomes independent all that’s getting off does is weaken the chances of becoming independent?
      Looking from the outside you’re like children playing at politics.

    171. robertknight says:


      When “the leading political party for Scottish independence” takes the turn marked “WRONG DIRECTION”, places IndyRef2 on the back-burner, then ties itself in a series of Gordian knots over Salmond, Cherry, GRA, Hate Speech, (De)selection, Brexit, Wokeism, the list goes on… would you rather we here closed our eyes, stuck fingers in our ears and struck up a chorus of “La-la-la Not Listening”?

      For many here it’s very much a case.of “I didn’t leave the Party, the Party left me” and we’d like it back, thank you!

    172. brian lucey says:

      Take it back after independence. While your at it read about how the British establishment managed to play up on valid and real issues in Irish independence and delay independence for at least 20 or 30 years.
      Believe me you don’t want to be looking back in 50 years time and wondering how it was that you managed to cease defeat from the jaws of victory

      For example what would stop a Westminster parliament from simply abolishing Scottish parliament? A divided Scottish independence movement would be less able to resist than a united one.

    173. Rm says:

      brian lucky and robertknight you both have points, the thing is to keep everyone who wants independence together, but why aren’t the Leaders of the SNP saying anything positive to keep everyone on side, people are worried the leadership are not pushing enough and they’ll have to say something positive soon or there will be a split it’s happening now.

    174. OldPete says:

      Well posted Brian Lucey.

    175. Lukas Scholts says:

      “ What’s more important to posters here? To achieve independence for Scotland or knock lumps off the leading political party for Scottish independence?”

      Those two objectives aren’t mutually exclusive. Actually, I’d say they were mutually dependent; and no progress towards Independence can be made until sturgeon and her regime are deposed.

    176. Willie says:

      The comment about our Parliament being eaten from within and not by one of the three unionist parties hits the nail right on the head.

      With everything heading the wrong way on the absolutely wrong focusses it is not difficult to see why so many independence supporters are now railing against the party that was supposed to be our independence champion.

      It is without doubt that the party has been infiltrated at the highest levels. How this was brought about most people have no idea but if you look at the recent history in Ireland the security services had agents in Sinn Fein that were immediate policy advisers to Martin McGuiness. Mrs Thatcher knew exactly from briefings what the senior SinnFein leadership were discussing and considering.

      And so it will be with the SNP. Yes there will now be the comfortable but there will also be those who have in some way become compromised and act as agents of establishment. All this focus on GRA, Hate Crime, go slow on independence is no accident. And the members and the wider Indy movement know it.

      And, with independence truly achievable that is why those like Alex Salmond, Joanna Cherry, the independence commentators ( Murray, Hirst et al ) and the campaigners like March Organiser Singh or banner protestor Sean Clearkin must be taken out and or dealt harshly with.

      It is a coordinated effort. Just like the police infiltration of protest groups where police agents participated in protests and even had children with fellow protestors.

      And it is coordinated with the media bias so extant in our daily diatribe from the MSM and the BBC.

      Time as so many commentators here keep saying that we all realised the cancer that is within and started to eradicate it.Time we replaced the fifth columnists within our party. Time we got our party and our wider Indy movement back.

      And we will!

    177. Socrates MacSporran says:

      A rugby friend of mine, owns his own successful business, late sixties, lives in one of the best streets in Troon, on Facebook yesterday announced: if “Scotland becomes independent, he will move to France, because he wishes to remain within the EU.

      How can you argue with this kind of thinking. Happy to be ruled by London, happy to be ruled as an immigrant, from Paris. No way will he consider rule, by fellow Scots, from Edinburgh.

      Sorry, I cannot get my head round that thinking.

    178. McDuff says:

      I agree. I find the SNP’s silence on independence deafening and they seem incapable of responding to the growing anger towards their come like state.

    179. Ottomanboi says:

      More total ballox from ‘officialdom’.
      [A] Police Scotland spokesperson said: “The Chief Constable has made it clear that we are asking people to take personal responsibility to do the right thing and remember the purpose of these measures is to aid the collective effort to stay safe, protect others and save lives by preventing the virus from spreading. Our officers will continue to engage with the public, explain the legislation and guidance and encourage compliance. We will use enforcement as a last resort where there is a clear breach of the legislation.”.
      Personal responsibility involves the exercise of free choice to do ‘the right thing’.
      There is no free choice allowed in this matter.
      People are herded into compliance through a project fear operation.
      Scotland’s State Police can go hang!

    180. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Andrew Marr getting an absolute kicking from Irish politician Simon Coveney this morning. All Marr has done is to try to stick-up for the Tories and their dishonest position on the Eu negotiations.

      He might yet rescue his K.

    181. Andy Ellis says:

      @CBB 11.54pm

      I’d avoid any team you were on like the plague bud. You’re WoS equivalent of the pub bore sitting on his own in the corner desperately hoping the other punters will notice him.

      You’re a liability to this site and the movement as a whole, because you’re diminishing the effectiveness of the BTL comment section of the most important pro-indy online resource.

      Your motivations are your own: I don’t believe you’re a yoon plant or hold with any other conspiracy theories. I think it’s adequately explained by you being on the spectrum somewhere and/or being off your meds.

    182. Ottomanboi says:

      @Socrates Mac Sporran.
      Your rugger friend may find France rather hot in the coming months. Les Gilets Jaunes are back.
      The French do not take well to state repression, many have had enough. Something Macron has finally realised. Unfortunately Sturgeon has not.

    183. mike cassidy says:


      Does your friend not realise he only has three months to go before living in Troon will see him out of the EU anyway?


      Edinburgh Uni decides to cancel David Hume.

      The David Hume Tower will now just be known as its address

      40 George Square.

      The fact some think its being called that after George Floyd just adds to the madness of 2020

      Wonder how long they’ll keep Gagarin Way in Lumphinnans

      And this sign in Vancouver lasted a day

      Its gonna be fun when the Hate Bill comes.

    184. Andy Ellis says:

      @Lukas Scholts 9.01am

      Well said. The unreasoning fools who come up with this “eyes on the prize” guff are really starting to irritate me.

      The only ones seizing defeat from the jaws of victory right now are Sturgeon and the lumpen wet-nats who think she can do no wrong. However competently folk feel the SNP have performed over the past decade, never forget their light shines brighter due to the fact the opposition is so crap.

      We’d all actually be a lot better off if the crypto devolutionists in the SNP had just been honest and tried to wring the maximum possible in Home Rule out of the British Nationalists.

      If they’d tried to sell Faroese levels of self government as a stop on the journey to ultimate independence, we’d at least be in a better place than we are now, painted into a corner by our own lack of political courage, and facing the imminent threat that the Brexiteer ranters will emasculate devolution for good while Sturgeon and her shills sit on their hands waiting for the stars to align.

    185. Lukas Scholts says:

      We can assume, of course, that they are holding back on the documents relating to they Salmond trial because they are damning. And if they are willing to face inquiries, go to court, and resort to the most unscrupulous games, we can further assume the documents are extremely damning.

      By extremely damning, we can safely assume game ending rather than just game changing.

      Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

      Earlier in the year I assumed that the documents would reveal Sturgeon was highly enthusiastic about the trial and possibly assisted in some way.

      Revelations along those lines, I assumed, would do her no harm in the context of Scotland, with its biased media and public opinion skewed against Salmond, even if it cost her the support of some in the SNP and wider Indy movement.

      If the documents simply revealed that, I don’t think they’d be refusing to hand them over, though.

      The BBC and MSM seem to be playing it all down. Why? The Unionist parties, usually so desperate and keen to find kinks in Sturgeon and the SNP’s armour, aren’t going at it either. Why?

      Aside from the content of the documents themselves and what they might reveal, we appear to be in the middle of an establishment conspiracy to prevent us ever finding out. Why?

      I could speculate that those documents would reveal things that would not only compromise Sturgeon and her government but put the UK government itself, its proxies and agents, in a very dim light.

    186. Breeks says:

      Lukas Scholts says:
      13 September, 2020 at 9:01 am
      “ What’s more important to posters here? To achieve independence for Scotland or knock lumps off the leading political party for Scottish independence?”

      Why, in the name of God, is the craven inaction of the SNP forcing us to choose?

      That’s just grubby fkg blackmail Mr Scholts. The SNP will act like rogues and corrupt conspirators, stick two fingers up to mandate, after mandate, after mandate, squander massive opportunities to bring down the Union and stop Scotland’s subjugation, stab true supporters of Independence in the back, from Alex Salmond to Joanna Cherry,… but heaven forbid, somebody criticises, “they’re“ suddenly the ones putting Independence at risk???

      The SNP leadership is taking us all for mugs, and using Independence as Charter to do whatever they like with absolute impunity. Criticism of the SNP threaten’s Independence aye? Then maybe they should stop warranting criticism and stabbing our people in the back.

      Their scheme isn’t going to succeed. They are Charlatans who have taken Scottish Independence hostage in order to further their shabby manifesto and political careers. This will end in tears, not Scottish Independence.

      So my advice to you Lukas is to redirect your blackmail to the SNP. What’s more important to them, Independence or the covert, science denying furthering of wokist political careers?

      You know what’s important to posters here? Integrity. Having the courage to do what is right, keep your word, even if there’s Hell to pay for doing it.

    187. Lukas Scholts says:

      Andy, the argument of last resort that I’m hearing repeatedly is “looks at the polls”. It’s really pathetic. As said, according to the polls this time last year we were staring right down the barrel of a coalition government, with Swinson as PM.

      Coronavirus has revealed the extent to which Sturgeon is in lockstep with Westminster. Bozo outlines a ‘rule of six’ one day and Sturgeon imposes it on us the next.

      You might say that’s fair enough, we are in the middle of a major crisis, etc., but all along they’ve been telling us that Scotgov has its own strategy and have been doing a better job of it.

      I wonder what else they’ve been in lockstep with over the years.

    188. Tinto Chiel says:

      @irsium: thanks for the link to the Escobar article. I wasn’t aware the FM had mentioned the term “The New Normal” but any politician pushing this line is deeply suspect in my eyes. The BBC, as on Radio 4, uses this phrase regularly as a conditioning tactic into accepting more control and restriction.

      The only new normal (or old normal, in our case, pre-1707) I’m interested is independence for Scotland and I wish the SNP would have that as its priority, rather than pursuing lunatic distractions like GRA and the authoritarian Hate Crime Bill.

      @Socrates 9.13: “Sorry, I cannot get my head round that thinking.”

      No but we’ve all met people like that and they are pretty unreachable in their Scottish Cringe. Many PhDs are to be written in the future on this twisted-as-a-corkscrew condition but only if we escape cultural and political obliteration.

      Recently two (remote, admittedly) family members who hate the FM on a spittle-flecked level were singing her praises because, as aged people, they feel safe in her hands compared to Johnson’s COVID incompetence. They, like your friend, remain resolutely opposed to independence because, as Daily Mail readers, they really do think we are too poor to exist as a separate country and wouldn’t have the ability to control our affairs. It’s like talking to a brick wall.

      These will be some of people who will be boosting the FM’s ratings at the moment but mention the I-Word to them and support will disappear like spring snow off a dyke.

    189. Lukas Scholts says:

      Breeks, those words were quoted from a poster above named Brian lucey (if I remember correctly). I was challenging them.

    190. Gullane No 4 says:

      I find it sad that some on here do not recognise that ‘doing nothing’ has resulted in a serious surge of new independence voters.

      How on earth did that happen eh.
      My guess is competent government by the SNP.

      I would like answers with a wee bit of analysis please because I am really confused by so called independence supporters trying to fracture the momentum of Indyref2

    191. Bob Mack says:

      @Brian Lucey,

      What leading party for Scottish Indepdndence? As far as I can see they have run away from the field to go and get help, leaving us to get on with it.

      Leading? I think not.. They are in the rearguard, but not even shouting encouragement.

    192. Bob Mack says:

      @Gullane No 4,

      Certainly I must admit the SNP are becoming very accomplished at doing nothing.

    193. Pipinghot says:

      I find it sad that some don’t recognise that it is the comedy of errors south of the border that has fueled the surge in people wanting indi not the actions of the SNP. The question I want to know is why was so much effort put getting AS. I mean he was out of the way and we had as we thought at the time a pro indy party running the scot gov. Revenge? Spite? Dont think so. Perhaps some of Nicola’s cult followers have the answer.

    194. Beaker says:

      Just watched Blackford on Sunday Politics. The best he could come up with is “minimum pricing will be taken away by Westminster”.


      @Gullane No 4 says:
      13 September, 2020 at 10:20 am
      “I find it sad that some on here do not recognise that ‘doing nothing’ has resulted in a serious surge of new independence voters.
      How on earth did that happen eh.
      My guess is competent government by the SNP.”

      No. It is mainly due to incompetent governance by Westminster, ineffective opposition at Holyrood and a FM who’s every appearance is stage managed and controlled. COVID is what has given Sturgeon a boost.

      Support for independence may be rising, but again I ask the question is why is it only around 55%?

      Let’s see what happens once GRA is implemented, and JKR or some other high profile individual is arrested following a complaint by the woke brigade.

    195. Andy Ellis says:

      @Gullane No. 4

      You must be new here, huh? There’s no shortage of analysis here about the pros and cons of the SNP’s performance and whether it gets us closer to the goal of independence. Competent governance and actually delivering independence are not the same thing. While it is true that incremental increases in pro-independence polling is to be welcomed, perhaps you’d like to give us all your considered analysis (since presumably you agree with the SNP’s current approach?) of the following issues:

      1) What happens when the British nationalists say “now is not the time” to plans for #indyref2?

      2) What is the timescale for #indyref2?

      3) What are the alternatives to #indyref2 when the SNP fail to deliver?

      4) How confident are you given the failure of the SNP to achieve anything of substance over the past 5 years that they will protect the Scots people from anything the Westminster government decides to do in terms of diminishing Holyrood’s powers, stripping away existing rights currently guaranteed by the EU or ECHR?

      We’ll wait, because no other SNP fan-boys have come up with a satisfactory answer in years.

      (Hint: the Pete Wishart “Nicola’s got this, just give us another mandate” gambit, or any variant thereof is NOT a valid response).

    196. Dan says:

      @Andy Ellis

      …And here’s a reminder of some of those rights and freedoms it looks like we are on course to lose… 🙁

    197. Daisy Walker says:

      @ Mike Cassidy,

      Re Edinburgh Uni – whitewashing out the name of David Hume.

      What a paucity of wit and imagination – when Glasgow re-named a street – Nelson Mandela Street, it was because of the SA Embassy being located there.

      Now that’s clever.

      Edinburgh Uni – can’t even put some effort into their – no doubt – well intentioned actions. 40 George Square.

      Of course Black Lives Matter, but if you white wash out all the evidence of the players in repression, or the infrastructure built on the profits, are you fighting the cause or editing out misdeeds.

      Scottish lives – and education – and equal rights matter too. You’ll not hear many Scottish accents at Edinburgh Uni, and not too many Scottish academics will get promoted in their employ.

      You can’t be what you can’t see – or hear, and Edinburgh Uni has long tradition of squeezing out the Scots burr.

    198. Andy Ellis says:

      @Daisy Walker

      Little better can be expected of an institution responsible for demolishing more than half of George Square and replacing it with modernist carbuncles and undistinguished concrete boxes.

      I suppose we should be thankful that in these more enlightened times they didn’t manage to have the old Royal Infirmary site razed to the ground too for their new Edinburgh Futures Institute.

    199. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      I don’t know who you are and have no reason to trust you, as you provide no evidence supporting your opinion. At least I provide evidence, where as you want us to accept your word as gospel. So as I’ve said, you take care of your practice and I’ll take care of mine. Mkay!

      btw., you’ve still not told us what your appreciation of the law is, though I’m sure it won’t amount to much.

    200. Andy Ellis says:


      It’s an online blog. there is no necessity for us to be personally acquainted, or to trust one another. You’re just some guy on the internet. Cutting and pasting secondary references from many and various sources for some hortatory purpose may have its place, the question is whether this is the place. Evidence consists of more than simply providing screeds of links to articles that few if any will read.

      as others have observed, if you are not capable of distilling the information you feel is relevant from such pieces, and presenting them here with some actual analysis and argument people can interact with, and (more importantly) demonstrating that it is germane to the subject under discussion, you’re simply taking up space and exhibiting your inability to interact on a personal level.

      I don’t expect anyone to take my opinions or analysis as gospel, and I’m quite happy to debate them. I’m not going to waste my time on a monomaniac with issues. ‘K?

    201. Effijy says:

      Nicola stated that everything is suspended while the
      Scot Gov focused on the Covid Virus.

      Westminster are dealing with Covid too, all be it farcically,
      But they have more aspects to it as we are not allowed
      any control over our borders that they control.

      They are supposedly dealing with the English Channel refugees,
      They are dealing with Brexit, another issue Scots are denied access to,
      They are touring the globe desperately trying to get anything they could pretend is a good trade deal,
      They are filling the pockets of Tory Supporting companies with non disclosure contracts.

      Why is it SNP are only dealing with parts of the Civid Crisis, GRA, and a pathetic hate crime bill when the reason they are in power is to deliver independence?

    202. PacMan says:

      I see that Johnson is planning any trip up here. He has spent a lot of time up here lately, more than previous Tory Prime Minsters. I didn’t see many of them up here when we voted 56 MP’s to Westminster. Nothing to do with opinion polls constantly showing support for independence above 50%.

      I have been posting for the list only pro-indy parties as a way of keeping the SNP honest to their core principle of independence or at least gaining more powers as a way of at lest obtaining it in the near future.

      However, it has occurred to me another reason for the list only party is obvious that it will get rid of a whole lot of blue and red Tories. It seems to be that the only thing the Tories can be brought to any sense is through the eroding their already thin legitimacy of claiming political power here.

      It does look like Westminster is going to receive a humiliating slap down from the EU now that it looks like they are finally taking their gloves off. If so, it will show how weak Westminster’s power really is.

      There has been a lot of talk about an independent Scotland’s currency. Regardless of what it will be, it needs to be tied to the rUK in some way as we do the majority of our trade with them and that is a fact that nobody can deny.

      There is also a fact that can’t be denied that we are going into negotiations with a far larger entity that has shown over the last few years that they aren’t afraid to walk over small countries and go back on already negotiated deals.

      If we do get independence then we need to be taking the gloves off from day when it comes to negotiating with Westminster and that means there needs to be a bit of realpolitik on our parts.

      The single biggest bargaining chip we have is the nuclear subs on Faslane. I live not far from there and don’t want them near me nor in Scotland but reality is that an independent Scotland would need to loan that base out to the UK for the near future until alternative arrangements can be made. Alternatively we can walk away from any negotiations, keep the nukes and make a deal with Russia to get rid of them under multilateral disarmament talks.

      The second option isn’t going to happen but the first one. However, that is something an independent Scotland would need to ruthlessly pursue to get a bit more level playing field when it comes to negotiating with Westminster.

      In that way, currency in whatever form it takes isn’t really that big a point provided of course an iScotland government had the strength to see it through.

      I see the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon playing a big part in the independence movement but even I am not filled with confidence that they can do what I had said.

    203. leither says:

      your links are really getting to the yoon trolls on here cam, keep up the good work 🙂

    204. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      You’re just some random who think they know it all. Away and learn something about critical education theory, before trying to talk down to me.

    205. susanXX says:

      I think the SNP have lost their way: too keen to be seen as “woke”, destroying the fabric of society and replacing it with a socially engineered dystopia. I’m born Scottish as are most Scots, I’m white, as are most Scots and I’m female. I’m ashamed of none of these things nor will I be guilt tripped into thinking otherwise.

    206. PacMan says:

      susanXX says: 13 September, 2020 at 11:17 am

      I think the SNP have lost their way: too keen to be seen as “woke”, destroying the fabric of society and replacing it with a socially engineered dystopia. I’m born Scottish as are most Scots, I’m white, as are most Scots and I’m female. I’m ashamed of none of these things nor will I be guilt tripped into thinking otherwise.

      I’m not sure the SNP is specifically to blame but a symptom of the malaise in the general social progressive movement.

      There are a lot of inequalities in our society but most of the bigger issues like racial, gender, minority equality etc have been won, at least in argument and just needs to be implemented.

      The problem is where does it go from here? They are refusing to acknowledge real inequality like poverty, food banks and homelessness because it isn’t ‘sexy’ enough and need other battles to win. Now, it is focusing on issues like GRA and pushing existing issue like race to even more extremes in light of BLM. In short, the social progressive movement is eating itself.

      I’m not sure how to deal with this and what it is the way forward. It is going to end up with a lurch to the right which nobody in their right mind wants. Personally, I can only think that a list-only pro-Indy party that campaigns on specific issues is something that can be focused on until hopefully, everybody comes to their senses and we can have a healthy, stable political environment to work in.

    207. Breeks says:

      Gullane No 4 says:
      13 September, 2020 at 10:20 am

      I would like answers with a wee bit of analysis please because I am really confused by so called independence supporters trying to fracture the momentum of Indyref2…

      Because you’ve put all our eggs in one basket, done NOTHING to sustain the wider YES movement since 2014, forfeited Scotland’s sovereign Constitution and democratic rejection of Brexit, done NOTHING to defend Scotland’s Constitution or European Citizenship, and now ask us for yet another mandate, having ignored the previous 6, to hold a Referendum over which you have conceded Boris Johnson has a veto.

      It ‘seems’ the SNP is embroiled up to its neck in a despicable attempt to smear, discredit Alex Salmond and see him sent to jail as a rapist, and now the SNP is trying it’s hand at a whitewash / cover up.

      If one conspiracy isn’t enough, there’s another conspiracy with the NEC being overpopulated with Wokists who delight in rigging the odds of getting themselves election candidacies at the price of people of Joanna Cherry’s caliber.

      You claim credit for swelling support for Independence, which is akin to a Witch Doctor claiming his rain dance made it rain.

      It seems too it is now SNP strategy to auction off Scotland’s future as producer of renewable energy to the highest bidder, robbing Scotland of sovereign wealth through a State owned Energy Company like Norway’s Statoil and associated Capital Wealth Fund. More Tory than the Tories eh? 30 years from now will we be reading a McCrone Report about Scotland’s great oil energy robbery?

      Land reform seems to have got lost in translation. Another promise we weren’t meant to take seriously eh? Like all those promises to hold a referendum we weren’t meant to take seriously.

      The SNP only wakes up and get’s out of bed when there’s an election in the wind. Everything else? Fk it.

      I’m Curious Gullane No 4, instead of just crowing about how the SNP is responsible for the surge in support for Independence, perhaps you’ll be good enough to break it down for us what the SNP has actually done throughout these five long years under Sturgeon to bring the dream closer.

      I’m pretty sure it won’t take you very long.

      And then you can answer how you’re going to negotiate a workaround for the Section 30 veto you dropped into Boris Johnson’s lap.

      Or is slagging off people as “so called Independence Supporters” just the limit of your repartee?

    208. susanXX says:

      I agree PacMan, but at what cost in the meantime? These issues are just so nonsensical and damaging. How can I take the SNP seriously when they appear to have no grip on reality?

    209. PacMan says:

      Daisy Walker says: 13 September, 2020 at 10:54 am

      Scottish lives – and education – and equal rights matter too. You’ll not hear many Scottish accents at Edinburgh Uni, and not too many Scottish academics will get promoted in their employ.

      You can’t be what you can’t see – or hear, and Edinburgh Uni has long tradition of squeezing out the Scots burr.

      Edinburgh isn’t a typical Scottish city as much as London isn’t a typical English city nor New York is a typical American city. They are international cities and in the bigger ones, almost city-states in their own right.

      I don’t actually mind the cosmopolitan vibe of Edinburgh and as long as they keep the tourist tat to a minimum and stop vandalising it’s historical heritage in the name of getting more rental income for the council, I will still continue to visit there from time to time.

      While saying that though, it isn’t a place I wouldn’t want to live or work in.

    210. susanXX says:

      Hear! Hear! Breeks.

    211. CameronB Brodie says:

      Right, I’ve had enough of disparaging comments about progressive social policy. Please don’t disregard liberal government because of the bad taste the SNP’s incompetence has left in your mouths. The GRA amendments are as far from woke as it gets, as the proposals are intensely misogynistic and anti-democratic in nature.

      If the SNP had competent management, they might have appreciated the dangers of anti-foundational law, before letting a bunch of radical trans-activist thugs destroy cohesion within the party.

    212. Clydebuilt says:

      Gullane No 4

      David Pratt in the National wrote that around that around the world he has seen many Independence movements splinter and fail. Once they divide , its over!

      The enemies of Independence know this.

    213. PacMan says:

      susanXX says: 13 September, 2020 at 11:33 am

      I agree PacMan, but at what cost in the meantime? These issues are just so nonsensical and damaging. How can I take the SNP seriously when they appear to have no grip on reality?

      GRA is a prime example of the social progressive movement is eating itself. It is pursing GRA and self-id on an almost fanatical basis but is doing so they are destroying woman’s rights. In terms of BLM, they are doing the same by middle class luvvies going overdrive with the white guilt and totally alienating white working class folk who naturally gravitate towards this movement by totally ignoring their plight and in fact, totally removing them from the conversation.

      I’m not sure what can be done but we need to be careful where we tread because that shiny faced, bearded character from the SNP that pops up in here from time to time is right in that he says that we are potentially sharing a platform with the right which is no friend of any sensible thinking indy-minded person.

    214. Andy Ellis says:


      As a native of Auld Reekie who returned in 2018 from the deepest darkest Blue Home Counties after 25years I feel constrained to leap to its defence! Having thought long and hard about where to relocate after deciding to leave Sussex, we ultimately chose Edinburgh over anywhere else because it worked for us.

      Like all cities it has its downsides as well as its upsides, but having had a few years to re-acquaint myself with my home town I can honestly say I wouldn’t now want to live anywhere else.

    215. ahundredthidiot says:


      So, if the ‘right’ think paedophilia is wrong, we shouldn’t agree for fear of sharing a ‘platform’?

      That right there is the very definition of stupidity. Bearded man/woman/thing is a loon…….pay no attention…..or get trapped in their delusion.

    216. ahundredthidiot says:


      ‘Nicola stated that everything is suspended while the
      Scot Gov focused on the Covid Virus.’

      Please start using it’s correct name – SARS Cov-2.

      SARS2 for short.

      or maybe that doesn’t suit your agenda.

    217. Ronald Fraser says:

      Interesting movie on Talking Pictures at the moment about Parnell and the English landowners evicting the Irish from their homes.

      And the true beginnings of Irish republicanism.

      If only the Scots had a similar fight in their bellies.

      Fuck,,,we can’t even bring down our only Independence party.

      What chance do we have against Westminster???

    218. CameronB Brodie says:

      So what’s your agenda then, if not to support the right-wing?

    219. CameronB Brodie says:

      Of course, if the Scottish government was getting competent legal advice from the Lord Advocate, Scotland would not be about to loose any claim to being a democracy.

      Anti-Foundationalism, Deliberative Democracy, and
      Universal Human Rights

    220. Gfaetheblock says:

      If you are wondering what thehundredidiot is going on about, he is referring to the official name of the virus. Important to note re SARS and COVID, ‘ While related, the two viruses are different.’

    221. CameronB Brodie says:

      And another, which will hopeful shed some light on our peril.

      Towards a Natural Law Foundationalist Theory of
      Universal Human Rights

    222. Effijy says:

      100 idiots.

      You sure picked the right name.

      Should I name the virus in Latin with a series of digits after it?

      We all know it as Covid-19.

      You are an ARSE not SARS

    223. kapelmeister says:

      The main line of defence employed by Sturgeon fans – and I say fans instead of supporters, since they seem to view her with reverence – is that in-fighting will finish off the independence movement.

      To begin with let us leave aside the cold hard fact that the 86 year history of the SNP is positively littered with squabbling and in-fighting. It’s what the Gaels do best after all!

      The divide and rule argument is trotted out daily, on this forum and elsewhere, and its proponents appear to believe that it is some iron law of history. A better candidate for an iron law might be that an independence movement succeeds when is led by the most focussed and determined faction, not when controlled by careerists and time-wasters.

      So, do these iron law believers not realise that a divide and rule strategy can boomerang as easily as it can succeed? There really are no iron laws of history. No blueprint that an independence movement must follow. Come up with a better argument guys.

    224. leither says:


      dont you be telling Cameron how to do his job, he doesnt come over to your place of work and try to show you how to sweep up ?

    225. susanXX says:

      As long as the various factions agree on the primacy of independence, divide and rule shouldn’t apply. That way people vote for the policies they want and aren’t blackmailed into supporting shite just because independence is also dangled. I DO feel blackmailed by the SNP because I have no alternatives, though with a suitable list party that would change.

    226. Alec Lomax says:

      How’s the alternative independence party coming along?

    227. kapelmeister says:

      Labour’s Rachael Reeves on the Marr Show suddenly became very nervous and tongue-tied when asked about the grabbing of powers from Holyrood and the Senedd. She couldn’t get away from the topic fast enough.

    228. kapelmeister says:

      Alex Lomax

      How’s the woke/ ask nicely for S30/only game in town party?

    229. mike cassidy says:

      Even by genderwoowoo standards

      This is way out there

      An abortion poster that does not mention women

      But does mention ‘men with uteruses’

      This has been a glimpse of Scotland’s future

    230. CameronB Brodie says:

      The WOS ‘old guard’ may have stifled debate, but their absence has unfortunately provided space for the radical right, and SNP ultras, to air their prejudice in public. That at least gives me a platform to articulate a critical point of view though.

    231. CameronB Brodie says:

      Why am I so persistent? It’s because I’d like to end my days in a democracy, and I’m unable to relocate from Scotland, which is not a county of England.

      Human rights and health

    232. Andy Ellis says:


      Who are you, his carer? Sheesh.

      This isn’t his work place, just someone else’s blog he comes on to and spaffs secondary cut and paste journal article links on.

      From all the evidence, despite his much vaunted prowess in sundry topics and wish to impart his pearls of wisdom to the masses he couldn’t instruct his way out of a wet paper bag.

    233. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      You appear to be a narrow minded prick, but don’t let that stop you.

    234. Andy Ellis says:


      You appear to be an abusive troll with some form of mania. Most of us wish something would stop you until the meds kick in.

    235. CameronB Brodie says:

      Andy Ellis
      If I thought you had the faintest idea of how to change political behavior, I might take you more seriously.

      IFMSA Policy Document
      Human Rights, Democracy & the Rule of Law

      Policy Statement


      Humans, regardless of ethnicity, sex & gender, nationality, religion, occupation and a myriad of identifying characteristics, are entitled to be equal in their rights, freedom and dignity. This is both pivotal and universal to all human beings.

      Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law are essential and indivisible concepts that are the vital components that have been devised thus far with an aim of achieving an order of equality and accountability.

      It takes an immense understanding of both the positive impacts and the shortcomings of democracy in addition to the relationship between all three components (HR, D & the RoL) in addition to a comprehension of the relationship between various political governance mechanisms and healthcare system design to be able to build the future generation of medical diplomats who are strong advocates of equitable and accessible healthcare….

    236. ahundredthidiot says:

      Effijy @ 12:23

      looks like you’re the arse – the disease is COVID19….. the virus is SARS Cov-2.

      every hundredth idiot answers the question right, you’ll be one of the other 99.


    237. ahundredthidiot says:

      The harsh reality is that some people are just loving SARS2, loving it, their lives suddenly have some sort of drama or meaning or just plain old interest.

      The Community that responds to the virus is getting fed up…frustration is boiling over into rebellion, just look at Australia where one of their top cops has gone on air to say his department was not even consulted with on a regional curfew.

      Politicians, here, are over-ruling the very community paid and employed to make decisions. No dissent is permitted, people, rightly, fear for their jobs/pay/pension so prefer to keep quiet.

      We’re being played people – pick a conspiracy, any one will do, but this coordinated media effort is not for SARS2 – Heck, the Press aren’t even allowed to call the virus by its official name, just think about that for a second, unless you have an agenda to make money from the fear (and fair play to you if you are) no right minded person could look at all this nonsense and believe it, not for one single second.

      Now you know how the good people of Germany felt when their troops were marching into Holland.

      This will not end well. Our Countries economy isn’t about to break, it’s already broken.

      Imagine I took 30% off your pay and increased your level of debt by 30% and you might start to get some idea of where we are.

    238. mike cassidy says:

      So BBC Scotland let the coordinated media effort down badly by cancelling the virus briefings


      They’ll have to spend time on the tinfoil-hat naughty step for that one

    239. twathater says:

      Cat litter now jumping to cam b’s defence from other posters when previously he was the one ripping the pish out of cam b
      Cat litter you are trying to cause upset so you can brag about it to your other sycophants BUT WE SEE YOU

    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