The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Fatima’s Blush

Posted on October 30, 2023 by

We were interested to read about this earlier this evening:

Not least because it was the first we’d heard about it. At the time of writing this post we’ve still had no communication from the Standards Commission to alert us to the judgement, which is frankly a bit of a poor show. We might file a complaint with the Standards Commission about it, depending on whether we can be bothered to wait another year and a quarter for the result.

We are of course pleased that the odious Cllr Joji has finally been formally censured for her obnoxious behaviour, but frankly she’s gotten off very lightly.

Because being called names is water off a duck’s back. We’ve called plenty people names in our time and we don’t especially mind getting called names back – even if, unlike us, Cllr Joji is paid by the taxpayer and has signed a code of conduct binding her NOT to behave like ghastly plebeian ruffians such as we.

The much more important part of the complaint, which the Commission appears to have wholly failed to address during its 15-month deliberations, was this one:

But actually Joji didn’t just accuse Wings of “harassing and hounding” members of the SNP’s Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Network (“virtually everyone” in its membership of over 500, apparently, even though to the best of our knowledge we’ve only even heard of three of them, let alone written anything about them).

She accused us of doing so specifically because of their ethnicity.

That accusation of racism is utterly without basis in truth, stupendously offensive and by any reasonable standard defamatory. It is infinitely more serious than just calling someone names, but the Commission appears to have just shrugged its shoulders and accepted Joji’s claim at face value, despite her repeatedly refusing to provide a single shred of evidence for it.

(Because, of course, she could not do so, because it’s an absolute lie.)

After we filed our complaint, Joji arrogantly proclaimed her victory almost instantly:

She then went on to indignantly insist that anyone who thought she’d breached the Councillors’ Code Of Conduct was misinterpreting it in an attempt to silence her heroic truth-speaking.

And that it didn’t matter anyway, because she’d posted the tweets in her lunchbreak from her other job (working for the SNP MP Richard Thomson).

But the Commission wasn’t having it. “Censure” means “severe disapproval”.

Joji, however, seems to be regarding its decision and sanction as an endorsement. Not only has she not apologised, but has tonight tweeted a tirade of self-justification and self-pity in which she essentially repeats the defamation and again portrays herself as the poor brave victim of the story.

Apparently the delicate soul had been provoked beyond human endurance by a string of “targeted and abusive pieces” on this site.

In fact, prior to making the comments for which she’s now been officially reprimanded, Joji’s name had appeared precisely four times on Wings, all of them fleeting passing mentions in articles about other people which when all added together amount to less than 30 words in total.

And as far as we can tell, until the date of her comments the Twitter account we had at the time had mentioned her the grand sum of 0 times.

None of this is unfamiliar to us, of course. When hapless former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale made outrageous false claims about Wings being bigoted in the national press, which four judges found to be completely and unequivocally untrue, she also got away with it, and has also never apologised despite the court finding her claims to be baseless.

(Dugdale was also unable to provide any justification for them in the witness box beyond saying that she believed them to be true, for reasons she could not offer any evidence or explanation of. As far as we can tell, Joji wasn’t even asked.)

Fatima Joji’s response to the Commission’s findings demonstrates precisely the level of dignity, decency and integrity that people have come to expect from the SNP in recent years, so strikingly embodied by the party’s leader this weekend, and indeed from observing Joji’s behaviour in general. We very much doubt her career in the party will be damaged by her being found to have broken the rules.

(Remarkably, she passed vetting even after the Ethical Standards Commissioner found her guilty of misconduct for abusing us, and narrowly missed out on being selected as the SNP candidate for West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine at the next UK election.)

But the findings themselves also demonstrate the woeful lack of proper accountability that afflicts Scotland’s entire body politic, whether it’s the lack of consequences for the indisputable perjury of prosecution witnesses in the trial of Alex Salmond or the casual contempt shown by the Scottish Government for the entities which notionally scrutinise it during the inquiry into the same subject.

(Which are being demonstrated again right now over the administration’s deletion of whole swathes of WhatsApp messages during the COVID crisis.)

Today’s decision seems strangely lenient considering the fact that Joji’s offence was remarkably similar to that of another (now ex-)SNP councillor, Gregor Murray, who was suspended for two months in 2019 for calling people “TERFs” and, like Joji, “scum”. Unlike Joji, he didn’t further compound the abuse with defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations of racism, but got a much more severe punishment.

(Murray naturally turned up to offer Joji his support.)

Wings will now consider further avenues of remedy for Joji’s defamatory allegations of racist harassment. (In its current financial straits, we’re not sure the SNP will rush to her defence.) But in the meantime we are at least pleased that the complaint has been upheld, even if Fatima Joji, characteristically, appears to be far too stupid to notice.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

0 to “Fatima’s Blush”

  1. Lewis Moonie says:

    Fatima who?????

  2. Bill Cowan says:

    “Don’t give them your name Pike!”

  3. Carol Neill says:

    Yet another reason I pay my (paltry ) sum
    We’d never hear of this kind of shit otherwise
    I can post now as I know I’m not going to be abused or insulted !

  4. Dickie Tea says:

    I feel a crowdfunding coming up to sue the Fatima. Many will contribute Stu…not so many will fund her defence…guaranteed

  5. Karen says:

    Yes, sue her for defamation, I will chip in a tenner.

  6. Stevie says:

    Revolting, self-righteous hypocrite – ignorant, self-important git – makes one incensed !

  7. Stevie says:

    I’ll contribute too.

  8. Robert Hughes says:

    But , Stu , she MUST be a victim , she’s a ” person of colour ” ( ain’t we all ? ) in a ” White , White , White ” kultcha , doncha know ?

    This is what you get when notions of – spurious – victimhood are so cheaply dispensed , worn like ostentatious stigmata n used to claim special status , exempt from legitimate criticism .

    The exact culture Nu SNP have done so much to promote and which is wreaking havoc in our societies , rendering the notions of good governance , equality before the Law and ( with brutal irony ) made * race relations * much more fraught than they should be , eg * asylum seekers * being given housing whilst people born and bred here wait often for years to get somewhere to live .

    If * you * can’t look after your own people , you’re not in a position to be so cavalier in the distribution of social services to those from elsewhere . Not saying we – as a country – should not help those in extremis , wherever they come from , but our own people should come first .

  9. Effijy says:

    Very soon that lady will not be a councillor due to this petulant nonsense she pitches.

    In U.K. politics there are no standards just go with the result that supports the union at all times.

    Dugdale result was completely like her bonkers and giving a university post to someone with her worse than pathetic career is unthinkable.

    Her most memorable moment was when she went up the jungle for cash.
    If only she asked we would have sent her money to stay.

    I’ll never forget Lair Carmichael wasting £1 million on a French Gate enquiry.
    The Westminster Standards committee said nothing to answer even when he confessed.

    Standard standards are below acceptable standards for anyone with standards. lol

  10. Cameron Lochiel says:

    I initially read the title without the “L” and felt profoundly nauseous…

  11. Sven says:

    Whilst knowing nothing about Fatima who, and caring less, I’d guess that WoS being attacked by her is a pretty creditable recommendation.
    Nice one Rev Campbell.

  12. George Ferguson says:

    Stu please don’t go for the litigious route. I have no confidence in the Scottish Judiciary System. A point in case someone erroneously claimed Lady Dorrian stated the WhatsApp messages were inadmissible. The Chairman of the Scottish and Uk Covid Inquiry are Lord Brailsford and Baroness Hallett respectively. They will decide what is admissible. There is plenty to come on Scottish Government past cover ups, let’s not waste our time on an unknown Councillor. The SNP are firing off chaff. Its not important however it’s annoying. With respect I am not telling you how to respond. But when they bait you, then you know you are on the correct pathway.

  13. John Main says:

    Ah the good old days.

    We used to agitate against double standards.

    Now, treble and even quad standards are the norm.

    Seeing just how close she came to becoming SNP candidate for West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine at the next UK general election, it’s very hard to avoid the conclusion that we Scots just aren’t mature, sensible or smart enough to manage our own national destiny.

    Wha’s like us, eh?

  14. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Stu please don’t go for the litigious route. I have no confidence in the Scottish Judiciary System.”

    Well, I don’t have much either, for the reasons noted in the article. But we’ll see what my lawyer says.

  15. Carol Neill says:

    Go for it ,we’ve bought you sweeties and gin , and a nice warm jaiket, well help you fight another twat in court

  16. sarah says:

    @ Rev: frighten her with a lawyer’s letter by all means but please don’t go to court. Dugdale was found to have defamed you and she STILL got away with it.

  17. chossy says:

    I just got an email from the SNP as a response to Ash Reigan leaving…

    I hit reply to give them a piece of my mind but I was a little shocked to see that the reply address is a personal gmail account : / I am pretty sure that’s not exactly legal for a personal address to be used in SNP communications if I reply then someones personal address will scoop up my personal email address.

  18. Al Dente says:

    My goodness. I had no idea there was that much UV in Scotland.

  19. Alf Baird says:

    Robert Hughes @ 8:14 pm

    “our own people should come first”

    Indeed, Robert, it is the colonized who urgently need liberated hence ‘independence is a matter only for the colonized’ (Albert Memmi).

    Its about time we started talking about national identity and national consciousness which constitutes the essential ‘basis of the independence movement’ (Fanon).

  20. Stravaiger says:

    “Is it ‘cos I is black?”

    No, Fatima, it’s because you are stupid.

  21. Ruby says:

    Go for it Stu.

    Would be interesting if Ash Regan also had words with her lawyer.

  22. Merganser says:

    The decision (or lack of one) in relation to your main complaint entitles you to apply for a judicial review. You have three months in which to do this.

    A letter before action requesting that they properly resolve this part of your complaint within 28 days (plenty of time in view of how long they have already had) or judicial review proceedings will follow should focus the Standards Commision on what they should have done in the first place.

    Check this out with your lawyers. Scottish law relating to judicial review has a broader scope than it does in England. A Scottish lawyer would be best. I can think of a firm which is very good – I’m sure you can too!

  23. Carol Neill says:

    Ps I’m missing the animal photies , including yer wee rats

  24. A Scot Abroad says:

    Rev Stu,

    you and I will probably never agree on Indy, but you are a remarkably generous and often forgiving host of WoS. Set up a GoFundMe for any legal costs, and I’m happy to chip in.

    We need more, not less, commentary such as your’s. And I think that on what you write above, you’ve a solid basis for any action you may take.

  25. Carol Neill says:

    What a happy wee site tonight
    Gawd knows why lol

  26. Sven says:

    Carol Neill @ 21.44.

    No idea .. however I’m drinking to “absent friends”.

  27. Antoine Roquentin says:

    Hopefully your lawyer will recommend that no legal action be taken, particularly not in Scotland given what we’ve learned of recent times about the linkage between the judiciary and the ruling party.

  28. McDuff says:

    These people are beyond belief,
    I will contribute to a crowdfund rev if you decide to sue.

  29. A Scot Abroad says:

    Alf Baird,

    oh, please give it a rest with quoting only Memmi and Fanon about colonialism. Both of them were weak-minded, unconvincing, not followed by proper academics, and their theories haven’t been adopted. Day in, day out, all you ever do is to quote those two as though they are your demi-gods. The pair of them were academic muppets, and everyone knows that.

    Can you not find someone more authoritative to quote if you want to push your entirely false conjecture that Scotland has been colonised, rather than doing the colonising itself across the globe, and of large parts of the U.K. establishment?

  30. Effijy says:

    A foreign boxer fighting an American in America has to knock out his opponent with a count
    of 110 before a drawn can be declared.

    Our unionist courts are not as fair as this!

  31. Confused says:

    A dunmer witch with vagina and racism magic can only be defeated with anti semitism and transphobia enchantments

    – high level players only

  32. Mark Beggan says:

    Fatima fell oot the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. Bless

  33. Mark Beggan says:

    I seen a dead junkie at Glasgow central station tonight.

  34. Morgatron says:

    Mark. That is awful to witness.
    Hope you are OK.?

    Stu, bank details for the crowd fund please?

  35. Beauvais says:

    Hey there, Joji girl.

    You and the SNP are not The Seekers….of the truth.

  36. Garrion says:

    Joji. Top contender in the victim olympics

  37. Mark Beggan says:

    Mograton. He had a plastic bag attached to his wrist. His earthly belongings.

    What was your story on the road.

  38. Sandy Bee says:

    Agh she almost won the ballot to be a WM candidate,

  39. Graf Midgehunter says:

    Sounds to me like she’s trying to do a “Dugtale”, goading you until you crack cos she thinks the courts will in the end make you pay up.

    She’s like a junkie, going harder and harder to get you. But sooner or later she’ll completely overdo it and then no court anywhere will get her out of it.

    That’s when you go for the coup de grâce… 🙂

  40. A Scot Abroad says:

    Mark Beggan, @12:01am,

    That’s just awful. While there may be an explicable and sad tale behind him, perhaps some poor choices relating to failed relationships, or tendency to addiction, or just unlucky circumstances (that’s all just conjecture), no one at all deserves to go like that. What a shame that society didn’t manage to put an arm around his shoulders and hold him up, get him on a different path.

    No other words, really. May God take him upwards.

  41. twathater says:

    Unfortunately if we lived in a fair and equitable country idiots like her wouldn’t get away with even applying to be a councillor , she exemplifies how far politics and justice have fallen in Scotland,if there was any chance that this moron would face ANY justice I would gleefully contribute to a crowdfunder but as others have said and you have experienced, the LAW in Scotland is fetid and rancid,Dugdale proved that with her imbecility, ALL you would be doing is lining the pockets of lawyers who know what is going on but refuse to EXPOSE the blatant corruption and bias
    WE who could see this coming are all to blame for refusing to stand up to these do gooders who are too stupid to realise that people will use any means to prosper and get ahead

  42. David Hannah says:

    Sorry for the brain cells you’ve lost having to deal with Fatima.

    She seems like a very stable genius doesn’t she?


  43. Mac says:

    Thick as pig shit with an incredible sense of entitlement. A poster girl for the low IQ dross the SNP actively seeks out and fields these days.

    Sue her fat defamatory arse.

  44. Alf Baird says:

    A Scot Abroad @ 10:31 pm

    “Can you not find someone more authoritative to quote”

    You mean, like somebody (anybody?) from ‘English Literature’; anything else deemed inferior, invalid?

    Somebody/anybody who has only your ‘values’?

    We see what these ‘values’ did for India, Kenya, Ireland, Scotland, Palestine……

    I’ll stick with Memmi, Cesaire, Fanon, Said, Hechter, Freire etc. They know the remedy to colonialism, you only know and value its cause.

  45. Stuart MacKay says:

    On a completely unrelated website, on a completely unrelated topic, more or less I came across this observation:

    > if one of the things you are selling is likability and good vibes, cheering on this kind of vicious reaction every time you get a review you don’t like is probably not a sustainable career path.

    This is completely false. I might even say that it is wishful thinking. Some kind of “long arc of history bends towards justice” make-believe.

    The contrary is almost certainly true: picking fights with well-selected made up enemies is an effective way to promote a brand that is based on virtue.

    And there we have it. A clearer idea into the motivations of the good councillor, and a good many others no doubt. What was her name again?

  46. Johnlm says:

    Name – JOJI, Fatima
    Code name – BLUSH
    Pronouns – who?, why?
    Agent no. 12 for the sinister BAME organisation (membership of 3), led by Ernst Stavro YUSLESS.
    Mission – to gather expenses.
    Weapon of choice – the cutting email (laced with victimhood)

    Check your car for snakes.
    She’s good but she’s no Graham Campbell.

  47. Willie says:

    No religious slur intended but when you see and listen to this woman woman you realise her name spells fat I mm.

    And that is absolutely accurate. A fat head full of indignant vile ranting. Many of us, far too many of us see no colour.

    But fat i am does. Sees herself as poor blackie, poor ethnic, poor minority, hard pressed done done and requiring to be part of a seperate grouping, and a grouping at that sour and hateful of everyone outside their group.

    If a group was set up to promote and disproportionately advantage other members of society then there would be cries of outrage.

    WAMs and or PAMs and or TAMs or GAPs or MANFs would be a start. ( white and majority, prod and majority, Tims in minority, gaels and picts, males and not females) could be groups we set up to compete with the BAMEs.

    Then of course the BAMEs could sub divide into Full Black, Half Black, Tans and other shades, Sikhs and Hindus excluded.

    Sounds insane. Well it is. The width of your nose, or colour of your skin, or distance between your een should be no grounds for division.

    There could even be a grouping for people like the Rev and Craig Murray.

    But that I am afraid where the SNP have gone with BAMEs like foul mouthed fat I am.

    And then we get Humza of the Waki, Waki, Waki rant. Just dreadful.

  48. Spear O' Annandale says:

    She doesn’t like being called out or “attacked” for her actions or what she says and she goes into POLITICS!!

  49. Ruby says:

    A Scot Abroad says:
    31 October, 2023 at 1:23 am

    Mark Beggan, @12:01am,

    That’s just awful. While there may be an explicable and sad tale behind him, perhaps some poor choices relating to failed relationships, or tendency to addiction, or just unlucky circumstances

    Could be an ex service man.

    The Royal British Legion estimated in 2020 that there were up to 4,000 homeless veterans in the UK, another pointer to ex-service personnel struggling to cope with PTSD-type conditions as well as with the very different demands of life outside the service.

    Adam, who served all over the world, including the high-alert area of Helmand Province in Afghanistan, added: “Once they leave the gate, they’re done, and contact just ceases – but they’re still under contract to the Government if a national disaster occurs.

    “If they’re still under contract, the least they can do is a check to see if you’re OK.

  50. Dorothy Devine says:

    Willie, ’tis the distance twixt their ears that concerns me!

  51. Colin Alexander says:

    Sometimes it’s better to sacrifice other valid complaints and focus on one – the most serious issue.


    If someone makes a complaint with several issues of valid complaint in it. There appears to be a trend that the least serious issue will be scrutinised and that complaint upheld ( or partially upheld) and the most serious one/s are glossed over or not upheld.

    I’ve no doubt it’s a well-practised method of public body complaint handlers.

  52. David Hannah says:

    I’ve got ADHD.

    No ones ever given me a guaranteed job based on so-called neurodiversity.

    I’ve had to take pay cuts. Painful as though that is. And accept my limitations to work reduced roles. I’ve been dragged through the coals for years in every job I’ve been in.

    But I accept that people should be hired in their ability. It’s not fair otherwise.

    Unfortunately people like fatima are getting a free ride for being incompetent.

    I say this as someone that’s been cancelled many a time. I am so against equality and diversity roles. It’s never benefitted me that’s for sure. And your employer should have the freedom to pick the best man for the job. That’s my feeling.

  53. Ruby says:

    Willie says:
    31 October, 2023 at 8:16 am
    Many of us, far too many of us see no colour.

    It seems that it’s all the people of colour see.

    Not all of course but you know what I mean.

    The only people bothered about their skin colour is themselves.

  54. Chas says:

    I must admit that I have never heard of this poor, unfortunate victim. She is another of the hundreds of woefully, incompetent politicians in Scotland who are stealing a living.

    It is always good to see some new ‘names’ posting, usually at the beginning of the comments, on any article the Rev Stu produces. However, it never takes very long for the likes of ‘one track’ Baird to pop up with his shite. I expect the other bore to be along shortly with the 300 year old pish. That is assuming the nurses have forgotten to lock the door to the computer room again.

    I am slowly coming to the conclusion that any individual standing under the ‘Independent’ banner, in any election, is possibly worthy of support rather than those from the main political parties.

    Mr Salmond-where are you?

  55. Red says:

    Cllr Fatima Jojo was amazing in that film where she flew the wee boy on his magic bike in front of the Moon. She seemed really life-like as well.

    I can’t remember her telling Elliot or Drew Barrymore “EES RACEEST”, I think they added that catchphrase in with the CGI walkie talkies.

    On a completely unrelated note, I’m away on holiday to Nigeria to see if they will accept any “New Nigerian” politicians from Bathgate wanting to run their country and agitate for lots more New Nigerians to be let in and get free houses. Wish me luck!

  56. Republicofscotland says:

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an apology from her.


    The Greens Lorna Slater doesn’t have a government phone these devices are issued to ministers because they are secure, and all government business must be properly recorded to protect openness and accountability in government.

  57. Republicofscotland says:


    Alf have you noticed in say Scottish news programmes that the interviewee especially in authoritative or expert positions on matters, now tends to be someone from South of the border, I have.

    This is now a common occurrence its most prominent when uni professors are interviewed on Scottish news and current affairs programmes.

    Grouse Beater has an excellent article on this.

  58. Ruby says:

    That accusation of racism is utterly without basis in truth, stupendously offensive and by any reasonable standard defamatory. It is infinitely more serious than just calling someone names, but the Commission appears to have just shrugged its shoulders and accepted Joji’s claim at face value, despite her repeatedly refusing to provide a single shred of evidence for it.

    Could it be the Commission were afraid of being branded racist?

    Fight against grooming gangs hindered by fear of being branded racist, says official

    We have a situation where being racist is a crime, likewise being transphobic and soon so will being ‘misogynistic’ Does that cover everyone?

    Could Stu accuse Fatima of a racist hate crime? Do white people count as a race?

  59. Tom says:

    David Hannah 9.13am

    You wrote:-

    “And your employer should have the freedom to pick the best man for the job.”

    I think you better change that to “best person…”,

    Otherwise the wee fat site feminist Ruby will be on your case all day.

    Just a friendly warning.

  60. Republicofscotland says:

    Scotland’s current Governor General, Tory Alister Jack, has failed to hand over requested evidence to the UK Covid Inquiry on time, Jack had also been granted an extension (more time) to do so, but has still not submitted the required evidence within that deadline either.

  61. Molesworth says:

    I find it hard to believe that the good people of this Aberdeenshire ward actually turned out and voted for this woman. Perhaps they might reflect on their choice before the next election.

  62. A Scot Abroad says:

    Alf Baird,

    we won’t agree, so perhaps let’s stop arguing.

    You’ve got a cod-academic background and a laughable title behind you from a fourth rate institution. You aren’t a specialist in the pish about colonialism that you put forward, you aren’t even very knowledgeable about what you nominally specialise in, and certainly don’t understand international finance, business or commercial logistics. You aren’t widely cited in academic literature, few in academia seem to value your papers, and with the colonial thesis that you have, you seem to be trying to reverse engineer a half-baked and biased concept against the face and into the evidence of historic reality.

    Whereas I can only offer a bit of common sense, a sense of proportion, and a knowledge about how Scots made the British Empire, and nothing more.

  63. James Che says:

    A wee reminder,

    Cllr Fatima (zahra) Joji on the the 4th July 2022, 9: 36 pm is all inclusive of you and I in her Statement.

    Quote, “I will not be bullied into dropping names for you and your followers”

    That is a lot of people, she has describes bullies.not just from Scotland,

  64. Red says:

    Republicofscotland says:
    31 October, 2023 at 9:30 am
    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an apology from her.


    The Greens Lorna Slater doesn’t have a government phone

    Stop being raceest! Lorna Slater is a True Scot from the Scottish city of Calgary.

    Ok, aye, but she SMELT WHISKY.

    It’s starting to look like our political system is an international jobs fayre for the world’s thickest grifters, but that’s just what raceests want you to believe. I, for one, can’t wait for our first Kalahari Bushman First Minister of Scotland.

    Unlike Humza, Jamie Hepburn, Fatima Jojo or the Canadian female impersonator, Kalahari bushmen have skills irl, and do not believe yer Dad can turn into yer Maw.

  65. Mandy on Sturgeon

    A bit O/T perhaps, but have Wingers noticed the excellent recent destruction of Nicola Sturgeon’s “record” by Mandy Rhodes? This long-ish read is well worth attention for its analysis, blow-by-blow, just like in the Rev’s!,is-sturgeons-legacy-really-worthy-of-applause?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning%20Roundup%20Monday%20October%2030&utm_content=Morning%20Roundup%20Monday%20October%2030+CID_f9196eb88cb850e4d1e5d86fa839be64&utm_source=Email%20newsletters&utm_term=Is%20Sturgeons%20legacy%20really%20worthy%20of%20applause

  66. Red says:

    Molesworth says:
    31 October, 2023 at 9:52 am
    I find it hard to believe that the good people of this Aberdeenshire ward actually turned out and voted for this woman.

    The good people stayed at home, that’s why she’s a councillor.

  67. James Che says:

    How racist can you be Cllr Fatima ( zahra) Joji?

    That all inclusive statement from the Cllr includes all Stu followers,.

    Without knowing them, their nationality or the colour of their skin, that is a broad church of people she is calling bullies,

  68. dasBlimp says:

    Disgraceful! Does the Standards Commission observe no standards? The UK is a sinkhole of the world’s effluent.

  69. James Che says:

    Probably a political internal decision rather than a public vote holding favour, cos we do not get who we vote for,

    I do not remember the greens winning the last election but there they are running Scotland in parnership.
    I do not remember us voting in Humsaf but there he is in Scotland as Snp leader.
    We have had Tories longer than we have voted but there they are,

    So maybe it was a internal political vote rather than merit that screams racism at the drop of a hat in Scotland,

    Apparently we are all being tarred with the same broad brush here, is that racism and indiscrete discrimnation?

  70. James Che says:

    Many of us,far to many of us see no colour,

    That is true, but it seems that some politicians are determined to introduce and instigate it to Scotland,

  71. Peter S says:

    Why,oh why, give this idiot so much free publicity? Just ignore her – perhaps she’ll go away!

  72. TURABDIN says:

    I would urge Cllr Joji, Fatima az zahra, not to play the race card. It has sharp cutting edges, not something you would desire to have flying around in the turbulence of heated discourse.
    Be as your name.

  73. Peter S says:

    For goodness’ sake don’t encourage her. Giving her all this publicity is playing into her hands – it’s just what she wants and why she’s doing it!

  74. James Che says:


    Apologies for my late reply to you from yesterday 2: 38pm.

    Article 111 treaty of union,
    That the kingdom of Great Britain be represented by ONE and the same parliament.

    The Scotland act breached the treaty of union, it is called the Scottish parliament, it is a devolved parliament to Scotland.
    The parliament of Wales is the same.

    So now there is the Westminster parliament, the Scottish parliament.
    NOT ONE and the same parliament.

  75. James Che says:


    I owe you a apology as well for my belated reply re your take on it not being complicated.

    Indeed I tend to agree with you.

    A dissolved Scottish parliament by royal proclamation from within the parliament of Westminster has no say, and cannot have any represenatives.

    If it is dissolved officially and it was.
    A dissolved parliament does not exist.

    A Scottish dissolved parliament does not exist.
    It is not complicated,
    When and what date was the dissolved Scottish parliament ressurected and reopened to have representation in Westminster parliament?

    As with anything it either exists or it does not. It is not complicated.

    Or are you suggesting that the the parliament of Westminster holds a treaty with The parliament of Great Britain.
    A dissolved parliament has no liability.

  76. London Scott says:

    Chossy says:

    “but I was a little shocked to see that the reply address is a personal gmail account”

    I am sure that is a breach of GDPR. Maybe staffers are being encouraged to use personal accounts in case the polis want to look at the official SNP e-mails.

  77. Captain Yossarian says:

    Would the membership of the SNP not have been a lot better served just now if they had elected Kate Forbes to be leader? Her crime, which proved to be too unconscionable to be supported by the membership in the end, was to be a member of the “Wee Free” Church. My point is, instead of delving into the world of progressive politics which we really don’t understand and which gives rise to incidents like this one, just stay grounded in the values that everyone is familiar with. Humza has done well in his reaction to world events, but it is his leadership of Scottish governance that is lacking and that is becoming more and more noticeable.

  78. Liz says:

    It’s about time we ditched all these wee groups.
    People should be elected on ability and yes provisions made if they require aid to help them do their job.

    All this putting people in boxes causes division but maybe that’s the point.
    I’ve seen POC complain that this is another US import and does not help.

    Martin Luther King wanted for his children to be treated for their ability not the colour of their skin.
    It seems we’ve lost that thought.

    Also I’m sick of people who’ve been here 5 minutes getting jobs in politics, not speaking of Joli cos I don’t know where she’s from.
    Speaking mainly of Slater, Chapman.
    Have they been sent to cause disruption?

  79. stuart mctavish says:

    On bright side she’s an SNP member that’s clearly not (yet) been bullied into wheeshting in public, so a winning compromise might be to link her up with Ruby for some comms training – and help ensure we bastards never let her down again.

    In that regard, ensuring that permanent servants and their favourites give elected representatives enough courtesy and respect to NOT lie about everything from common cold to genocide (FFS!) could help pave the way for a most excellent new start.

  80. Anton Decadent says:

    There could be a connection here, did Joji come via the John Smith Institute which Dugdale is now a member of?

    This is a glimpse of the future which awaits Scotland unless action is taken whilst it still has a chance demographic wise. In my own case when I complained about threatening behaviour from imported gangsters who had decided to use my close as a hangout I was threatened by the housing officer I made the complaint to. When I made a complaint to another staff member about the threat they’d made they told me that if I did not like it to move out of the area. The advice to move out of the area is a recurring theme from people in the public sector who I approach and to encourage me to seek pastures new any request I make, including by registered mail, for any repair to my home is ignored. After a completely unprovoked attack which was carried out against me in the street last year, another had been carried out in 2017, my attacker was released without charge within an hour and when I asked the police why they told me “only good news is allowed to come out of that area.” No one was charged for the one in 2017 either despite multiple witnesses all of whom backed my take on it but none of whom would provide statements to the police for fear of retaliatory attacks against themselves, their families or their businesses, that is what the police told me . I know a number of people, including family members, who have been attacked like this in the area and only one has gone to court and at that the defendants just didn’t bother showing up and the case was closed. This race based lack of justice disputes the notion of aw Jock Tamsons Bairns.

    @Ruby, calling for all white men to be killed does not mean that you want all white men killed and you are actually the victim, same as the calls for kill the farmer, kill the Boer are not a call to kill the farmer, kill the Boer. In the killallwhitemen trial the verdict stated that in the UK you cannot be racist to white people because they control all of the levers of power.

  81. London Scott says:

    Red Says:

    “The Greens Lorna Slater doesn’t have a government phone.”

    That is fishy. I can belive that she will use a government landline a the office and might be provided with one at home, but how do her staff, civil servants, parlimantary collegues etc contact her when she is on her travels?If they use her personal mobile to discuss government business (by voice, text, Whats App) then her behaviour is suspicious. Trying to have such discussions under the radar in case of FOIs, public enquiries etc.Hmmm.

  82. Stuart MacKay says:

    Here’s an informative and entertaining read about why people believe in things like gendernormative, racial oppression, etc. etc. ad nauseum. It’s all about status:

    Luxury Beliefs are Status Symbols, Rob Henderson,

    Such concerns are ideal to distinguish oneself from the white, working class, scum that infest sites like this one. It put one on a higher plane of existence – above mundane, day to day concerns.

    Humour aside, this has interesting implications on the quest for independence. It’s been said here before, many times, that independence for the working classes is very much about bettering their situation. For the higher up classes, the Union offers a similar set of opportunities with out the inherent risk of rolling the dice of change and striking out on our own.

    The SNP demonstrate this amply. There’s endless time available for promoting the wearing of women’s clothes in public but very little time for independence.

    So, with politicians keen to demonstrate their concern for fringe causes that simply wouldn’t be entertained for a nanosecond by people keen to feed their kids and put clothes on their backs, it seems the interests of the political classes are fundamentally at odds with making a better world for all Scots. It’s unlikely they can be slapped to their senses, so wholesale replacement seems to be the only option.

    This we all know. What’s needed is a cohort of politicians who understand altruism and prefer it over self-interest. Whether society can deliver that is left as an exercise for the reader. I have my doubts that it can.

  83. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Otherwise the wee fat site feminist Ruby will be on your case all day.

    Just a friendly warning.”

    Here’s your friendly warning: keep up the personal abuse and you’ll find yourself on the pre-moderation list.

  84. Dan says:

    Please don’t get stuck on repeat again like a moth endlessly banging its head against a lightbulb.

    Will just copy and paste my previous comment as a reminder from that last link to save typing something similar out.
    (NB Various comments by poster Dan Yell and responses are not to be conflated as myself.)

    An inevitable conclusion imo.
    I bucked the trend and stated after the initial verdict I was against making the appeal for various reasons.

    Namely, the initial verdict effectively cleared you, albeit it in their couched terms and ways.
    You’re playing on their pitch with their rules.
    I understand the principle of taking it further to make a point or collectively build a pile of contentious verdicts to highlight bias, but it was clear then as it is evermore now that anyone Pro-Indy appears to be treated differently from other folk that maintain the status quo.
    It was always going to hoover up funds such is the massive disparity in the costs per hour of legals compared to say you’re average worker. The poor can’t afford lawyers and all that…
    I also felt your skills and time could be far more positively utilised on something you were motivated to do for the movement on your own terms.
    My last but main reason was for that of your health and well-being with the negative stressful effects you would be enduring through the quagmire of an appeal process. The fact you now elude to suffering anxiety and taking some medication confirms I wasn’t far off the mark.
    Don’t let the buggers grind you down.

  85. Confused says:

    Weird coincidence, fatima is clearly a new scot er, of old nigerian descent and am reading about the nigerian civil war, an awful bloody mess caused by the bloody british empire, with lines on maps creating a “country” which was a “union – unfit for purpose”; 3 main groups, different cultural, different religion – and multiculturalism was the problem. The brits did this divide and conquer thing which inevitably led to bloodshed. No one seems to make the connection – multiculturalism = divide and conquer.

    – the igbo are curious, seen as “the jews of africa” and some claim to be related to the hebrews; they are renowned for their commercial acumen, let’s just say.

    Nigeria now has 200 million people and could have a billion on its own by 2100; they have moved to other countries in africa, south africa, but upset the locals and been violently attacked. Seen as shifty, crooked – well, they did invent the email fraud, about 5 minutes after email was invented.

    The nigerian civil war is worth reading about because it shows the hand of empire, the techniques, the failure of democracy for people with nothing in common, and that the real differences between people should lead to different states, and because it is all “black people” (no such thing as black, or african or BAME) who see themselves as different we can remove the false accusations of “racism”. Lots going on – christian v muslim, coast v inland, different languages and culture; a “union” setup which meant rule by one group only.

  86. Republicofscotland says:

    “Would the membership of the SNP not have been a lot better served just now if they had elected Kate Forbes to be leader? Her crime, which proved to be too unconscionable to be supported by the membership in the end, was to be a member of the “Wee Free” Church.”

    Captain Yossarian.

    No Forbes crime is one of NOT wanting Scottish independence, her plan is the same as Yousaf’s to keep on asking Westminster for an S30, knowing fine well they won’t get one.

    Forbes isn’t interested in Scottish independence.

  87. James Che says:

    I have gone out of my way today an researched several dictionaries including the Cambridge english dictionary with the following question,

    Describe the word, Dissolved.?

    The overwhelming results describing the word “dissolved” also includes it relating to government regards the Collins dictionary.

    Dissolved, An act of Breaking up Officially an organisation or institution, or of formally ending a parliament,
    Government, An order issued by the head of state terminating a parliament,

    The Scottish parliament was Dissolved in 1707. By Royal proclamation.

  88. dasBlimp says:

    James Che says:
    31 October, 2023 at 12:32 pm

    I have gone out of my way today an researched several dictionaries including the Cambridge english dictionary with the following question,

    Describe the word, Dissolved.? ………..

    What? With no mention of the plight of a sugar cube immersed in a cup of tea? Trot ye out and purchase another dictionary.

  89. Keppoch69 says:

    What a delightful person! It sounds like she has crawled out of a similar toxic swamp as the Mrs Yuseless creature.

  90. stonefree says:

    The wording in the last box by Murray has a familiar look about it,
    I’m certain it’s been used at least twice before maybe a couple of words different

  91. Ruby says:

    Otherwise the wee fat site feminist Ruby will be on your case all day.

    I’m not really terribly fat. A wee bit fat ‘cos I do like my sweets.

    I’m currently into ginger, ginger gummy bears, crystallised ginger,chocolate ginger, ginger ginger, ginger bread, ginger nuts & ginger gin!

    The great thing about the ginger is that it’s really good for you. There are many health benefits! You can’t say that about ‘cherry lips’ or ‘floral gums’

    Feminist? Naw I don’t think so.

    I’m just a medium sized woman who likes to be treated with respect and not expected to fulfil the role of replacement mother for adult men or take part in any weird male fetish.

  92. ruby says:

    Anton Decadent says:

    @Ruby, calling for all white men to be killed does not mean that you want all white men killed and you are actually the victim, same as the calls for kill the farmer, kill the Boer are not a call to kill the farmer, kill the Boer. In the killallwhitemen trial the verdict stated that in the UK you cannot be racist to white people because they control all of the levers of power.

    Cheers Anton 🙂

    Interesting read!

  93. Livionian says:

    As is life nowadays, you will be called a racist or right wing for daring to be anything another than unflinchingly agreeable towards the radical left.

    You would make for a very good guest on the podcast triggernometry by the way Stu you are exactly the right type of person.

  94. Xaracen says:

    James Che said;

    “The Scottish parliament was Dissolved in 1707. By Royal proclamation.”

    James, it doesn’t matter, the dissolution, abolition, or permanent proroguing of the Scottish Parliament, or however it was done, it didn’t involve the sacking of its MPs, since they were just relocated to the new Parliament of Great Britain when it opened. The old Scottish parliament was never supposed to be ‘represented’ in the new GB Parliament as the Scottish parliament in Westminster, the Treaty didn’t require it and operationally it made no practical sense. With no MPs in it it served no purpose any more.

    Its former MPs were explicitly intended to represent Scotland itself in the new Parliament, just as they used to represent Scotland itself in the old Scottish parliament, and as England’s MPs represented England in its old parliament, and continued to do so in the new one, alongside the Scots.

    I have no issues with that. The only real issue, and it’s an absolute whopper, is that England’s establishment used Westminster’s old voting system to usurp Scotland’s sovereignty within the Union by enforcing an inappropriate interpretation of democracy that took Scotland’s sovereignty out of the hands of Scotland’s MPs and put it at the disposal of England’s MPs.

    That has never been properly addressed and is THE most outrageous constitutional crime in the history of these islands.

  95. Stoker says:

    Rev wrote: “But the findings themselves also demonstrate the woeful lack of proper accountability that afflicts Scotland’s entire body politic,”

    I doubt very much you will write a truer sentence this year.

    And i fear the problem runs far far deeper into every Scottish nook-and-cranny. You only have to look at bodies such as The Scottish Public Service Ombudsman to see just how much of an impotent toothless Croc it is. Compared to the English system it’s a laughing stock. The sum of its powers? It can ask organisations to apologise. That’s about it.

    I suspect bodies like the SPSO exist to protect the organisations while deceiving the public into thinking they are there for them. You only need to trawl through their sites casefiles to see just how many actually result in favour of the organisations. No real accountability whatsoever.

    Fat Maj is a self-serving attention-seeking proven liar, we all know that. But do the folk who live in her council area?

  96. A Scot Abroad says:


    you’ll never make any headway with your “Scotland and England get 50% of the votes and are equal in Parliament” argument.

    For a start, that ignores Northern Irish and Welsh MPs.

    Secondly because it’s a democratic nonsense. Give Scotland, with 9.3% of the U.K. population, an effective veto over England? It would never happen.

    Thirdly because nobody else supports it, and it’s been that way for 316 years.

    And fourthly, because there isn’t a single MP from Scotland in Westminster who’s actually worth listening to. Scotland needs to elect better representatives.

  97. Xaracen says:

    “For a start, that ignores Northern Irish and Welsh MPs.”

    No, it doesn’t, they both fall within the Kingdom of England.

    “Secondly because it’s a democratic nonsense. Give Scotland, with 9.3% of the U.K. population, an effective veto over England?”

    And why should England be given an effective veto over Scotland, just because it’s bigger? England’s sovereignty doesn’t outrank Scotland’s, and it has no legitimate authority over Scotland in the first place, so any form of democracy that lets England subjugate Scotland at will is fundamentally abusive. Is democratic abuse kinder than other abuses?

    A democratic system must reflect the form of the polity it is used in. The democratic system used in the House of Commons makes no attempt to reflect the constitutional structure of the Union. The English establishment’s interpretation of ‘democracy’ basically usurped Scotland’s sovereignty by taking it out of the hands of Scotland’s MPs and putting it into the hands of England’s MPs.

    This is unconstitutional, undemocratic, unlawful, and clearly a major breach of the Treaty. And a major injustice doesn’t stop being a major injustice by simply lasting long enough.

  98. Alf Baird says:

    A Scot Abroad @ 9:54 am

    “You’ve got a cod-academic background and a laughable title”

    At least I have a PhD, and I’m not a pseudo academic like Dugdale, Gethins, that MI6 Lockerbie trial pseudo ‘prof’ and hundreds of other selected British state ideological watchdogs running colonial institutions in Scotland?

    As Albert Memmi said: ‘none of the colonizer’s institutions are appropriate for the colonized’.

  99. A Scot Abroad says:

    Alf Baird,

    a PhD is pretty meaningless. All it signifies is that you’ve wasted time and public money for 4-5 years to achieve nothing of value to anyone apart from to your own ego. What you need is some common sense, and to actually work for a living, achieving something useful to society, not to sponge off the public teat.

    There aren’t any colonial institutions in Scotland. You are conjuring up fantasies to suit your own ends. It’s a total nonsense, man. And you know it. You are trying little more than to keep your nose in the public trough for a few more years.

  100. A Scot Abroad says:


    9.3% is 9.3%. That’s all the say that Scotland gets. Suck it up, buttercup.

    iScotland within the EU would get around 1.2% of the say on the over 85% of Brussels votes decided upon by Qualified Majority Voting, and (depending which other countries join ahead of iScotland) maybe 3.125% (1/32nd) of the vote on anything else. It’s even doubtful that Scotland would even get its own native Commissioner: the EU is trying to slim down to around 20. Scotland could well end up being told – not asked, but told – what to do by a Portuguese or a Croatian, and be unable to say anything about that.

    iScotland outside of the EU would have a 100% say in being an utterly irrelevant and poor place on the arse end of Europe.

  101. Bumsrush says:

    Apologies, Rev. At first I took the photograph as Fatima before she transitioned. Brave girl, I thought.

  102. Robert Louis says:

    What I have noticed over the years of reading wings, is this, stupid people in politics find it impossible to correctly interpret the English language.

    Kezia was a case in point. A very, very well known joke used correctly within context by Revstu, was interpreted by Dugdale as homophobic. It simply wasn’t. I’m gay, and I am telling you, it wasn’t, and I would not hesitate to use the same joke myself. For her to suggest it was ‘homophobic’ indicated an inability to correctly understand the nuances of the English language.

    Some people, it seems, are just too stupid to be allowed to read wings, since their lack of English language comprehension will lead them to be ‘offended’ 24/7. Such people are a liability to themselves and others, and should ideally never be in public elected office.

    As for the councillor above, well, way too often we see folk from the SNP simply re stating lies they have been told by others about wings over scotland.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  103. Xaracen says:

    A Scot Abroad said;


    9.3% is 9.3%. That’s all the say that Scotland gets. Suck it up, buttercup.”

    1 sovereign kingdom in a Union of 2 sovereign kingdoms is 50%. Scotland’s territory and the wealth it generates belongs to Scotland, not England.

    Majoritarianism isn’t democracy, and neither is fraud.

    And every member of the EU gets a veto precisely to prevent majoritarianism. Maybe you should ask them why.

  104. Alf Baird says:

    A Scot Abroad @ 10:53 pm

    “conjuring up fantasies”

    You mean like: the ‘British’ nation? British ‘union’? British ‘Crown’? British ‘values’? British ‘culture’? British ‘language’? British etc etc etc?

    Soonds like a muckle pile o ‘Brutish’ fantasies tae me.

    Substitute the word ‘British’ with ‘English’ and you have the reality: an oppressed Scottish nation in the process of perishing, unless leeberated.

    Those paid to defend such fantasies must believe in them, like yersel. Many Scots opt to believe ‘the colonial hoax’, necessary to maintain their privileged positions. A ‘colonial mindset’ and thick skin tells them it is the thing to do.

  105. A Scot Abroad says:


    you should probably educate yourself, but as a heads up, not nation apart from Germany and France has a veto on anything. Even their vetoes are just soft, not laid down in law. iScotland certainly isn’t ever going to get a veto if it were to join the EU, because it’s an utterly irrelevant country in EU terms.

    Alf Baird,

    you seem to be in utter denial of reality. Rooted in our language, buttressed by our history, and Scotland being domestically irrelevant within the UK, it’s a fact that modern Scotland is nothing more than a region of a bigger whole. It’s not worth the candle.

    I am proud to be ethnically Scottish. There’s lots of good things that I like about Scotland, but as a whole, it’s no better or worse than Yorkshire or Wessex or East Anglia. Some of the people in Scotland seem to be vastly up themselves and to retain a sense of huge grievance, and to dribble on nonsensically about being a colony. You are one of them. Face the facts man: Scotland ceased to be important on a global stage in 1707 af the very latest. Arguably, several hundred years before then. It’s just a conceit these days. A region.

  106. James Che says:


    Dissolved parliament,

    Institute for government org.Uk.

    Mps under dissolution no longer have a seat to represent their constituents and lose access to parliamentary facilities and resources,
    They can no longer refer to themselves as members of parliament,
    When a parliament is dissolved, all unfinished business falls- including any Bills that have not received royal assent, they cannot be carried over From one parliament to another parliament, reflecting the convention that no parliament can bind another successor,
    This differs from prorogation.

    Westminster parliament Dissolved the Scottish parliament in 1707. Not prorogued,
    So the 1707 Scottish parliament was,
    Ceased to exist.
    Was Dismissed
    Was Disbanded,
    And discontinued. From Westminster parliament, thus resulting in removing the Scottish parliament from the treaty of union, at that time,

    As unfinished business cannot be carried over from one parliament to its successor, reflecting the convention that no parliament can bind another,

    The Scottish parliament and its representatives was removed from Westminster parliament and the treaty of union,
    When the Scots barons and peers entered the Westminster parliament after this, the Scottish parliament had already been dissolved, they entered Westminster as ordinary citizens from Scotland.

    The terminated, dissolved Scottish parliament was not bound to hold or carry over its business as continuious in the treaty of (a) to the newly named Westminster parliament of Great Britain.

    And could not act as a terminated dissolved Scottish parliament to elect representatives to the next Westminster parliament.
    Nor could Westminster parliament no longer extract/ elect representatives from a dissolved Scottish parliament to represent Scotland.

    As the Scottish parliament had been dissolved by Queen Anne’s proclamation in England, the treaty of union agreed to by the now terminated dissolved parliament was not binding to Scotland or binding to its old parliament as one parliament by convention cannot be bound by a previous parliament.

    Neither the dissolved and terminated 1707 Scottish parliament nor its representative of that parliament could automatically forward themselves into the newly named Westminster parliament of Great Britain by PROXY of Westminster parliament,

  107. Kev says:

    Careful,Stu…she’ll now be accusing you of stating that all black people are stupid!

  108. James Che says:


    There is no Scottish parliament or Scottish mp representatives in the Westminster parliament after it was dissolved in 1707, because after dissolution MPs no longer have a seat to represent their Constitutuents and lose all access to facilities and resources in Westminster,

    With that said, no previous parliament can bind its successor and once the Westminster parliament dissolved the Scottish parliament, the Scottish parliament was not bound to the treaty of parliamentary union,

    Queen Anne of England gave Royal assent to the treaty of union, certainly for Westminster parliament of England,
    However in the same instance in the same year dismissed and terminated by (royal proclamation) the 1707 Scottish parliament from Westminster Parliament,
    The parliament of Scotland was never reinstated or reconvened to be joined in a union or treaty with the Parliament of England.

    A ( dissolved terminated ) Scottish parliament cannot bind its successor, it cannot join another parliament, in any legal matter, including carrying over any subject matter to the next parliament of Scotland or England,
    A dissolved parliament cannot thereafter produce out of thin air representatives for it Contitutuents, from its dissolved parliament after dissolution.
    As mentioned to you previously Etymology and its processes counts.

    Westminster parliament allowing and electing wealthy citizens from outwith a (dissolved Scottish parliament) are nothing but ordinary citizens and not representatives from a Scottish dissolved parliament,

    No previous dissolved Scottish parliament can bind Scotland to a treaty it was dissolved from in England, if Scotland was to open a new parliament of its own,

    Especially as the Crown of England was not in a union Crown with Scotland officially, or of great Britain that gave royal assent to dissolve the Scottish parliament.
    And the monarchy of England was not acting in a official capacity as Anne Queen of Scots or their territory.having never been coronated or gone through any sort of ceremony to become so.

  109. Xaracen says:

    James Che said;

    “Westminster parliament Dissolved the Scottish parliament in 1707. Not prorogued,
    So the 1707 Scottish parliament was,
    Ceased to exist.
    Was Dismissed
    Was Disbanded,
    And discontinued”

    So was the 1707 English parliament, James, though a little later, and in a different manner.

    “thus resulting in removing the Scottish parliament from the treaty of union”

    Not possible, James.

    The Scottish parliament was never in the Treaty, it only ratified it once it had been negotiated, agreed, and signed. That ratification along with England’s ratification is what authorised the dissolution of both former parliaments as distinct formal institutions. Its absence did not invalidate the Treaty any more than the absence of England’s old parliament did.

    The GB parliament was a brand NEW parliament, and it was designed expressly to take over the functions of the two old ones. Both parliaments agreed to this, and when the new parliament became active, the old parliaments had no purpose anymore. They were redundant, surplus to requirements, irrelevant to the Union, shorn of power, and empty of all functional and operational significance. BOTH of them.

    “The Scottish parliament and its representatives was removed from Westminster parliament…”

    They were never there in the first place, James. Scotland’s MPs went down to the new GB Parliament as formal representatives of the Kingdom of Scotland to participate directly with the formal representatives of the Kingdom of England in the joint governance of their new Union. They did not go there as representatives of Scotland’s old empty purposeless parliament!

    That is the point, James, that is the whole point of Scotland’s MPs being at Westminster, to represent the Scottish half of the Union, in a face-off with those who represent the English half of the Union, and you keep missing it.

    They did not go down there to represent their constituents in a faceless English bureaucracy, they have formal constitutional agency! They are Scotland’s authorised agents who are required to actively participate in the joint governance of the Union itself, and to do so for the interests of the sovereign people of Scotland and their kingdom.

    The outrageous usurpation of Scotland’s sovereignty by England’s establishment, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish, and it should have killed the Union stone bloody dead on day one!

    The details of how that actually happened we may disagree on, but that it happened and that it was and still is an ongoing grievous constitutional crime against Scotland and its people is beyond rational dispute, and one day the English establishment will be brought to answer for it.

  110. James Che says:


    What date was the Westminster parliament by Queen Anne proclamation dissolved, to be specific.
    (Not progued)
    I can not find a queen Anne date for “proclamation” dissolving Westminster parliament in England as it has a specific date for Scotland.

  111. Xaracen says:

    A Scot Abroad said;

    you should probably educate yourself, but as a heads up, not nation apart from Germany and France has a veto on anything.”

    I think that’s an oversimplification, though I’ll follow it up as it’s been a while.

    However it still doesn’t answer the point that majoritarianism is a serious generator of unfairness which can frequently arise in democratic systems, and needs properly addressed in any democracy that deems itself to be one, and the EU undoubtedly made a serious attempt to do so. That the larger nations like France and Germany don’t like being constrained by it, at least for those matters where it applies, is exactly why such compensatory vetos matter. It’s because fairness matters. Funny, that, England used to claim fairness was a well-known English attribute, they were famous for it, or was that also ‘unwarranted’? Of course, you never hear them saying that these days.

    “Even their vetoes are just soft, not laid down in law.”

    Whatevs, a soft veto is still a veto. Scotland’s sovereignty within the Union of the UK should have given it an automatic veto against English dominance, but England’s establishment wouldn’t dream of acknowledging that Scotland has any such thing as sovereignty. They think only England’s sovereignty matters in what they think of as ‘their’ Union. But it’s not their Union.

    England doesn’t need a veto in Westminster because its huge MP numbers give it an automatic equivalent anyway in the Commons’ grossly majoritarian voting system, and they have zero intention of allowing Scotland’s MPs to challenge English MPs’ unwarranted domination over their partner’s nation, either by acknowledging Scotland’s sovereignty or by recognising it needs a formal veto. England’s dominance over Scotland is fraudulent, unlawful, and seriously abusive, but that seems not to bother you in the least, does it?

    But it’s not as if England’s establishment is unaware of the importance of fairness in democratic systems, is it?

    Given England’s unwarranted ten to one MP voting majority over Scotland’s MPs, England’s MPs were so scared of Scotland’s MPs’ capacity to outvote them on matters they considered important to them, that they felt the urgent need to invoke EVEL to protect them from Scotland’s ‘unwarranted dominance’!

    We only have a ten-to-one majority, how unfair is that, what can we do? Oh, we need a veto!

    Those same miserable and utterly oblivious buggers saw not the slightest need to permit the Scots MPs a veto for far more obvious and serious reasons? Yeah, right.

    “it’s an utterly irrelevant country in EU terms”

    So is the UK.

    Bottom line, ASA, democratic voting systems are not automatically fair systems, their fairness has to be designed in, and it isn’t always straightforward. The UK’s voting systems are systemically unfair, and in several instances, unfair by design.

  112. A Scot Abroad says:


    It ain’t ever going to happen. 9.3% is all Scotland is ever going to get. It would be far less if iScotland was in the EU, and a disaster for iScotland if it wasn’t in the EU.

    I can see that you are arguing from a point of what you see is a principle. I’ve never met anyone who sees the same principle that you try to argue. I don’t think it’s a real thing. I don’t think that anyone else does, either. Therefore, on balance, my argument is that Scotland gets 9.3%.

  113. Dan says:

    Notice how NuEnglish likes to state the current 9.3% figure, but won’t aknowldege the matter that there has been a pretty continual population growth disparity over the course of his beloved union between the two kingdoms of Scotland and England.
    Terms of union stated that no constituent part should have an economic advantage over another, yet clearly that has been the case as there were considerable economic benefits to the KoE to support that larger population growth rate from around 5 times larger than the KoS at the start, to approximately 10 times larger now.
    And of course that current figure doesn’t really deal with the situation of many English folk moving to Scotland.

  114. Alf Baird says:

    A Scot Abroad @ 5:50 pm

    “my argument is that Scotland gets 9.3%”

    By 2030 an independent Scotland’s exports will be equivalent to over 30% of UK export trade, taking account of renewable energy production in Scotland.

    Part of that is a function of Scotland having two-thirds of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone, i.e. Scotland is twice the size of England’s EEZ.

    What this means is that Scottish exports per capita will be far in excess of that in England, and that Scotland will likely have a very positive trade balance, unlike England.

  115. Xaracen says:

    James Che said;

    “What date was the Westminster parliament by Queen Anne proclamation dissolved, to be specific.
    (Not progued)
    I can not find a queen Anne date for “proclamation” dissolving Westminster parliament in England as it has a specific date for Scotland.”

    James, I found this on Wikipedia;

    “The 2nd Parliament of Queen Anne was summoned by Queen Anne of England on 2 May 1705 and assembled on 14 July 1705…

    By the second session (December 1706 to April 1707) the ‘Union with Scotland Act 1706’ was ready for royal assent, which was duly received on 6 March 1707 during the third session.

    On 29 April 1707, after the session had ended, a proclamation was issued to declare that the present Parliament would henceforth be known as the ‘First Parliament of Great Britain’.

    It’s only Wikipedia, but there isn’t anything particularly contentious here, so it should be fairly reliable.

  116. A Scot Abroad says:

    Alf Baird, at 6:37pm,

    what utter nonsense. Your argument just doesn’t stack up in very many ways, but let’s just concentrate on energy exports.

    Who is iScotland going to sell energy to? Oil and gas is going away – and the current Scottish government are trying to make it go away very quickly – and there’s nobody within 500 miles who does not also have the same potential to create their own renewable energy from wind, solar, tidal, or hydro. 500 miles takes you to as far away as Belgium, and they are putting up lots of their own renewable infrastructure. So too are Holland, Germany, Denmark, and Ireland. Norway already exports excess hydro capacity, Iceland does the Icelandic thing and uses geothermal and has all it needs. Beyond 500 miles, you are into serious engineering mega projects for undersea HVDC transmission and boosters, all of which makes the cost of Scottish energy more expensive than local production. So who’s going to invest in that?

    Apart from locally generated energy that it can’t sell, Scotland’s huge EEZ is nothing but fish. Scotland doesn’t any longer have a fishing industry of great scale, and if iScotland were to join the EU, that would become a common resource under the CFP.

    Your problem is that you haven’t a brain for business. You see a theory, without ever seeing how it’s going to make money on a sustainable basis.

  117. James Che says:


    Re our conversation on the treaty of union,
    Please forgive my persistence on the subject and remaining on one of Stu’s post as I am trying not to interfere with his newer posts,

    It is a vague analyses to say that Englands Westminster parliament was dissolved at a later stage and date than Scotlands parliament and rather a presumption without evidence.
    Thedates you provided from wikipedia do not state the old Westminster parliament of England is now dissolved
    But rather implies it may have been with no confirmation.
    And the question arises why was it not done on the same date of Scotlands parliament being dissolved to create a united parliament and country,
    One being dissolved prior to the other does not immediately create a new united parliament of Great Britain,

    I can further evidence that the old Westminster parliament continued on without the Scottish parliament being in Westminster, if indeed still you are willing to discuss and debate the subject on further on here,
    Thank you for responding thus far with politeness and respect.
    Much appreciated.

  118. Xaracen says:

    James, the renaming was the dissolution. The proclamation basically confirmed that the English parliament had now formally ended its old role, and adopted its new role as the GB Parliament along with its new name of the Parliament of Great Britain.

    My view is that that was a reasonable thing to do, given that the Palace of Westminster was to house the new Parliament anyway, with all of the old parliament’s English MPs and take on Scotland’s MPs, too. And as long the new institution complied with all of its Treaty obligations, I see no significant problem with the way that the changeover actually happened.

    The real issue of course is that the new Parliament’s compliance with the Treaty got off to a bad start and went downhill after that, with the usurping and subjugation of Scotland’s sovereignty by England’s MPs, something the Treaty clearly did not authorise, and which was never within the powers of the English parliament nor of the new one.

    It is that unwarranted usurpation and how to undo it that we should be focussing on, to understanding how that usurpation works and how it is maintained in practice, so we can bypass the English establishment and force the return of our sovereignty from the thieves that took it.

  119. Onlooker says:

    Good to see the wee race card player was at it the minute she got elected:

  120. James Che says:


    Thank you for your kind response regarding treaty of union detailing.

    The presumption that the parliament of England ceased to be active at the same date and time as the parliament of Scotland dissolved may not be accurate for the following reasons.

    1: queen Anne transferred the westminster members of the old Parliament of England directly into the the new named parliament of Great Britain without a election process having been undertaking in her last speech before the new full re- Brand name to Westminster parliament of Great Britain.

    2: The Old Westminster parliament of England continued the “Triennial Act” ( elections every three years) for the process of electing members to the English parliament until 1708. These following dates of Englands Westminster parliament General elections will be of assistance for the parliament of Englands simple conversion into, without dissolution, to The Westminster parliament of Great Britain.
    The Old English Westminster parliament members were the same parliament members whom ran from pre-union until after the treaty of Union, continuing the English parliament under their “Triennial Act” until 1708.

    Thus we find the parliament of England and its old members of that parliament of England not ( dissolved) but still acting and active in the newly re- branded Westminster parliament of Great Britain.

    While the parliament of Scotland was (officially dissolved by Proclamation) of Queen Anne in 1708 a full year in advance previously .

    It is also revealed that,
    The 1707 summary of Constituencies The Scottish members to enter Westminster parliament were not elected from Scottish constituencies, but from a previous co-option of the last prior Dissolved parliament of Scotland,
    You will find this info on wikipedia also under, 1698 English general Election, sub heading,
    Summary of Constituencies.

    So Scotland has no representatives in Westminster parliament except a selection of ordinary weathy men that no longer claim they were members of a dissolved Scottish parliament or representatives of their Scottish Constituencies,

    All these details are of serious concern to Scotland, as records unfold if we are to find a genuine connection to Scotland actually being part of the treaty of union on the same date with Englands Westminster parliament.

    So far I find no connection in parliamentary union with the Scottish parliament ending by official proclamation of dissolution, a full prior year to Englands parliament of dissolution in 1708 under the law of England triennial act for General Elections elections taken place every three years.

  121. James Che says:


    Please excuse date error printed on line “While the parliament of Scotland was officially dissolved by proclamation by Queen Anne in 1708?
    Correction to year date being 1707.

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