Fear Of Failing
Word reaches us, readers, that Nicola Sturgeon was “furious” when she joined the most recent meeting of the SNP’s Westminster group by Skype. Her rage was driven by the suggestion that the party should trigger a Holyrood election to act as a de facto independence referendum, a policy we’re reliably told is supported by a number of MPs who are too scared of being browbeaten by Sturgeon in front of their colleagues to actually speak out in favour of it.
(We won’t mention their names at this point.)
Our source mentioned to us that they seemed to remember an interview in which the First Minister had revealed a possible reason for her extreme antipathy to the idea – one for the BBC’s extensive and rather good three-part documentary “Yes/No – Inside The Indyref”, which was broadcast in August 2019 and never seen again.
It’s not available on iPlayer or YouTube, but fortunately we happened to still have the show recorded on our Sky+ box, so we went to check, and lo and behold our source’s recollection was correct. Apologies for the slightly wonky quality of this video, as we had to record it off the TV screen.
We’ve transcribed it below.
“I’m quite a pessimist in election campaigns, I think it’s because I’ve LOST so many election campaigns that I can never quite bring myself to actually believe that we’re going to win one.
But I continued to have wobbles throughout the campaign, and I think my colleagues will recall the final Monday of the campaign, that I was phoning up, sort of saying ‘Oh no, I think it’s all slipping away’, which was just my natural nerves and pessimism.”
Alert readers will perhaps remember that the SNP actually won the election in an unprecedented landslide, generating an absolute majority which was supposed to be impossible in Holyrood’s electoral system. The victory was never in doubt.
So it may indeed be worth taking a few moments to contemplate why even in the most propitious of circumstances, Nicola Sturgeon simply hasn’t had and doesn’t have the courage to take the necessary risks to win Scotland’s freedom.
.
[EDIT 7.10pm: Thanks to alert commenters, we can now report that the three parts of the documentary can in fact be found on Vimeo. Episode 1, Episode 2, Episode 3.]
impostor syndrome (noun)
the persistent inability to believe that one’s success is deserved or has been legitimately achieved as a result of one’s own efforts or skills.
“people suffering from impostor syndrome may be at increased risk of anxiety”
Out of the mouths of babes….
Stu, I have this saved on my computer I think. I’ll check in the morning and provide a better quality clip if you want.
Is this the programme where the journalists were boasting about lying in the run up to the Indy ref? Or am I getting them mixed up?
“Stu, I have this saved on my computer I think. I’ll check in the morning and provide a better quality clip if you want.”
I’d love a digital-quality copy of all three eps if you have them, and the bandwidth to upload them somewhere. But yeah, just that bit would also be cool.
it makes sense to wait til 2024 whether holyrood or westminster
the movement’s disunited
people are more worried about cost of living
rather do the vote in better times, scottish folk are gloomy
could well be more than 50/50 in 2 years the way the shift has transpired slowly but surely
This is fair comment and, if anything, it makes me fractionally more sympathetic to Sturgeon. But if it’s true of her I certainly don’t think it’s true of Mr Murrell. If anyone needs a bloody good looking into it’s him.
“Word reaches us, readers, that Nicola Sturgeon was “furious” when she joined the most recent meeting of the SNP’s Westminster group by Skype. Her rage was driven by the suggestion that the party should trigger a Holyrood election to act as a de facto independence referendum, a policy we’re reliably told is supported by a number of MPs who are too scared of being browbeaten by Sturgeon in front of their colleagues to actually speak out in favour of it.”
—
No offence, but you can tell your source that using Holyrood elections as a ‘de facto independence referendum’ isn’t going to happen, because there is no provision in the Scotland Act to allow them to be anything other than what the legislation says, which is only to elect individual members.
Scotland Act 2016 is also explicit about the conduct of elections adhering to the legislative competence of the Parliament itself.
UKSC ruling said the union with England is reserved to WM, unless Scotland Act is amended.
Votes tallied together will only mean what they originally meant in law, and will be confirmed so once the courts were involved.
To all those desperate to go down this road, why? It will be unlawful and just another hillwalking exercise to add to the others. If you truly believe that Holyrood elections can be something else at the same time, you are either insane, a member of a cult, or wilfully ignorant of what the fucking legislation actually says and means. Seriously, stop now before even more time is wasted.
The only law that binds Scotland to England is Union with England Act 1707 – something our elected reps never speak to, nor do the rabble rousers in the press. Ask yourself why that would be happening & you’ll see those not really serious about Scotland’s indpendence alongside those serious about preventing it.
Now, laws made at Westminster exclusively for Scotland don’t have
“Be it enacted etc” like English laws, but have form “An Act to…”
..because the laws of Scotland are made with the authority of the people, not the crown.
Let’s reclaim that authority from WM, by petition or referendum run by the sovereign body called ‘the Scots’. It’s the only way to bypass the legislatures and end the fucking constant attacks on our nation by those not from here.
As ever,
yw,hth
How did a big political feardie like that come to be seen as the natural successor to Alec Salmond?
Was AS playing a long game
Whereby he thought he could step back in when she chickened out
Only to find he totally underestimated the ruthlessness with which she would cling to the top job
Wow. 2 weeks back and the wheels are coming off the bus in spectacular fashion. Dont think this is a coincidence. Well done Rev. Best few quid I’ve ever spent.
Scott 6.20
So where does it say Westminster elections can be used as a ‘de facto independence referendum’?
I’ve often tried to imagine Nicola Sturgeon as a suffragette and I just couldn’t.
She always struck me as a little goody goody who would never do anything wrong. You know the type.
As a suffragette she would have said ‘Oh no Emmeline I am not doing that it’s illegal and we could get arrested.
That is definitely not what you want in a revolutionary
leader.
Scott, you undermine your argument calling people insane.
it’s a point of disagreement not mental acuteness. calm doon.
As a point of legal fact, there is no current means for Scotland to achieve independence. We are in the realms of political pressure, not legal assumption. Neither UK or Scottish election has a legal basis of making Scotland independent. The point is to apply moral and political pressure. I’m not sure what legal point you’re trying to make with the letter gibberish. It’s already clear enough. It’s in the political court not the legal one now.
Supported by a number of MPs, that number would be helpful to know, for if it’s one or two, well…however if its thirty-or more, it would restore a wee bit of faith. If it is the latter or even more they really need to man up for the sake of the country.
Maybe they and their Holyrood counterparts could learn something on standing up to Sturgeon from the video of the woman giving her a right good rollicking.
Could it be that Sturgeon is such as scaredy cat that she’s continually putting off ridding Scotland of this rancid union for as long as possible the latest bollock waiting until the 2024 GE.
This news of division and doubt in the ranks over using the next Westminster election as a defacto referendum chimes with the quote from The Telegraph I provided yesterday.
What The Telegraph didn’t say was that the detractors wanted to use a Holyrood election for that purpose. I speculated that they might.
Can we safely assume they want to force that Holyrood election to take place sooner rather than later, too, using the mechanism described by Wings? I think that’s a safe bet.
But if there are SNP MPs and MSPs that are too scared to confront Sturgeon on this, I’m sorry, but that makes them no better than her, as I see it — driven by fear and self interest.
It’s odd all this. Every single time they play the Indy card, they win, and they are rewarded. Why do they hesitate? What are they really scared of?
These ‘goody goody’ types are always very sneaky.
As a suffragette she would have said ‘Oh no Emmeline I am not doing that it’s illegal and we could get arrested then she would sneak off and find some other ‘goody goody’ types and encourage them to report Emmeline to the police.
One might speculate about the significance of this fear of failure when it came to the attempt to jail AS. Presumably un-success was never regarded as a possibility. The fury at the way things evolved must have been truly terrible to witness.
mike cassidy says:
2 December, 2022 at 6:27 pm
Scott 6.20
So where does it say Westminster elections can be used as a ‘de facto independence referendum’?
—
I’ve explained why Holyrood elections cannot be used by referencing the legislation, that’s the issue at hand.
But, given WM is the supreme legislature and we elect 59 members on a simple majority, who can then vote on any piece of legislation on behalf of the country of Scotland which passes into law on a simple majority, why shouldn’t that cohort have the power to effect change so Union with England Act 1707 actually works as intended as a Point of Order? They probably do, but haven’t thought to ask.
I’d accept the union with open arms if we had equal voting power as aour partners in the union. It is a partnership, so the power of the 59 must match that of those reps from England (& its region called Wales). Wales isn’t a country in the way Scotland is, they can bow to English law like anyone else subject to it has to. I’m not, so don’t.
Just a heads up that the three episodes are on Vimeo –
and can be downloaded using something like link to savethevideo.com
Have to say, I can understand why WM MPs might be in favour of triggering a HR election.
Their personal sinecures won’t be affected very much in the short term.
Any “inside dope” on what HR MSPs think? They are the ones who could be signing on at a month’s notice.
Scott, you forget something that’s basic and important: politics supersedes law. Thus;
Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason…
With a referendum that reveals majority support for independence, whether it be in keeping with your precious laws or not, unstoppable momentum would be created that no Westminster government would dare try to impede.
And if you don’t understand any of that, kid, I have to wonder what the fuck you think you bring to the table in a discussion about politics.
YW HTH
I’d love a digital-quality copy of all three eps if you have them, and the bandwidth to upload them somewhere. But yeah, just that bit would also be cool.
Seek and ye shall find Stu:
EP1:
(Your clipped part is at 12m 45s)
EP2:
EP3:
(I took archives before posting, incase they get subsequently nuked)
“it makes sense to wait til 2024 whether holyrood or westminster”
Increasingly of the opinion that you’re a troll. Tread carefully.
“I’d love a digital-quality copy of all three eps if you have them, and the bandwidth to upload them somewhere. But yeah, just that bit would also be cool”
If I have them all (I think I do), I’ll send you a link tomorrow.
Regardless of the legality, opposition parties will fall on the SNP if they stand in an election on only one issue and nothing else. They will also point out that the SNP are cynically using this to get elected by covering up the failures they have caused when in government which will seem plausible with the voting public.
Labour, if they had any sense, would play up their constitutional credentials by clumping in more powers for Holyrood in their overall democratic reforms that they have suggested they are going to with reform of the House of Lords.
I know they have been promising HOL reform for who knows when but again, in light of that perception of SNP been seen to cynically use a defacto referendum solely to get elected, it will seem plausible to the public, particularly when hyped by the MSM.
In that scenario, will these SNP MP’s have a chance of getting re-elected when faced with a resurgent Labour whom the ordinary voter may seem to have a more realistic policy on the constitution?
If I’m right in my assumption and these SNP MP’s are thinking the same, the fear of losing a lavish lifestyle that these MP’s have grown accustomed has miraculously helped them to grow a spine.
I forgot to add that you can download them with yt-dlp (youtube-dl sucessor) available at link to github.com
It is free open source software for the purposes of archiving video.
Some good news. The Charity Commission has opened an enquiry into Mermaids.
“there is no provision in the Scotland Act to allow them to be anything other than what the legislation says, which is only to elect individual members”
Not this again.
Using an election as a de facto referendum has no legal force. ACTUAL referendums have no legal force either. If we’d won in 2014, no court could have forced the UK to abide by the vote.
But nobody can prevent a party standing on a one-line manifesto, and if it wins then it has a clear democratic mandate for the contents of that manifesto, and therefore to make a valid declaration of independence under Article 1 of the UN Charter.
Nobody is suggesting it’s as simple as filling in a form, job done. The Charter has no direct force in law either. But it is a perfectly legitimate route – establish what the will of the people is, then act on it.
ross says:
2 December, 2022 at 6:29 pm
Scott, you undermine your argument calling people insane.
it’s a point of disagreement not mental acuteness. calm doon.
As a point of legal fact, there is no current means for Scotland to achieve independence. We are in the realms of political pressure, not legal assumption. Neither UK or Scottish election has a legal basis of making Scotland independent. The point is to apply moral and political pressure. I’m not sure what legal point you’re trying to make with the letter gibberish. It’s already clear enough. It’s in the political court not the legal one now.
—
The insane bit only applies to those who actually are, so you calm doon.
As a point of legal fact, you are talking out a hole not near your face because we can hold a referendum or petition as a sovereign body, and bypass the legislatures entirely.
Westminster does not own Union with England Act 1707, we the Scots do.
After the Lord Advocate made her reference to UKSC, the ruling/decison that was returned only dealt with it, and the rest (inc SNP intervention) was just procedural comment not a legal ruling, as they weren’t the issues at hand. Scotland might have the absolute right to self-determination, because the question hasn’t been officially asked in court.
After making the ruling, it is clear that Scotland’s status is a matter of law Smart money was on no decision as no bill was laid so a hypothetical and political question, but here we now find ourselves with absolute clarity on the Scotland Act.
It’s staying in the court of law, because the politicians chose that path.
What issue do you have with the sovereign Scots doing what they are allowed to by law [see Claim of Right Act 1689], and challenge by petition the competence of the legislatures as functions of the crown in Scotland? I’m all ears.
“I forgot to add that you can download them with yt-dlp (youtube-dl sucessor) available at link to github.com“
Ah, GitHub, the world’s most accurately-named website 😀
Between “a policy we’re reliably told is supported by a number of MPs who are too scared of being browbeaten by Sturgeon” and the slightly mysterious Blackford situation, is there the merest hint of some rebels within the SNP beginning to find a bit of a backbone, or is it too early or too off-beam to suggest that?
@ Pacman
Re. Labour proposing clumping in more powers to Holyrood.
Well that would be quite something because as I’m sure you’ll recall, they weren’t too keen on doing so with the Smith Commission…
link to twitter.com
Ah, GitHub, the world’s most accurately-named website
Indeed, although Git is a wonderful tool for software development the site’s naming is rather unfortunate and I don’t like Micro$oft’s takeover of it either, but it is what it is.
Anyways, the tools are there, I’m uploading the videos zipped atm, I shall email you the download link in due course, provided you don’t grab them yourself first.
ross says:
2 December, 2022 at 6:29 pm
As a point of legal fact, there is no current means for Scotland to achieve independence.
That simply isn’t true Ross.
As Alf Baird keeps pointing out, it’s a deliberate intention of the Colonising power to make those colonised believe there’s no hope of escape, but it isn’t true.
The only routes currently being “blocked” are those where Westminster holds both ends of the string.
For example, Westminster won’t let you have a referendum, and if you do, Westminster won’t recognise the result.
But that whole scenario is creating a completely false horizon. We do not need their permission.
Scotland IS a Sovereign nation. Fact.
The Claim of Right is an extant phenomenon in Law. Fact.
If it wasn’t true, do you really think the King of England swore fealty to the Claim of Right for any reason besides being compelled to?
Stop believing in the Coloniser’s propaganda and false narratives, (I know, I know, that’s something beyond the capability of Nicola Sturgeon), but get yourself, friends and family signed up to Liberation.Scot
Independence is on it’s way; legally and all above board.
There’s a world of difference between people hoodwinked into believing a lie, and lie not being true.
“Increasingly of the opinion that you’re a troll. Tread carefully.”
Why ? it’s an opinion… Just not one held by you?
Come on, healthy debate should be allowed.
I’m confident this is why only the WM election is being proposed,even with the important disadvantage it has with the franchise,and not a Holyrood election. It doesn’t matter nearly as much if the SNP were to be wiped out at WM. But wipe them out at Holyrood and Nicola herself has lost power and possibly her job. I can’t see anyone being able to convince her to take that risk, even if polls were at 80%+ for indy. And even if she wanted indy….
She doesn’t have what it takes. Why analyse why? She will never do it.
Her tactics are becoming more and more aggressive to her own side. I remember talking to a couple of ex NEC members about her cold shoulder treatment if her wisdom was challenged.
She will never accept a United YES campaign and many Indy supporters will never accept her blackmail tactics to vote SNP if you want Indy.
The external show on stage looks good but the demons inside will always hold her back.
Half the issue is not whether it’s WM or Holyrood.
It’s that the debate has already been shut down because Sturgeon says so for…reasons.
If the party was able to properly discuss both options and rationalise in public why Holyrood was considered but WM was the preferred option, fine. But that’s not what’s happening here.
Breeks, I thought that too til last week.
Most countries havent gained Indy legally but we’re a different animal. Just because there’s no legal route doesn’t mean there isn’t a political one.
Vimeo links now added to the post, thanks all.
Ross @6:29pm
“As a point of legal fact..” etc
If you’re saying what I think you’re saying (that UKSC jurisdiction is a defacto Reserved Matter) that would make the Scotland Act ultra vires and mean (defacto) that its the old Scottish parliament (as opened by Winnie Ewing wth the words “The Scottish Parliament, adjourned on the 25th day of March in the year 1707, is hereby reconvened”) that’s been ruling the roost for the last quarter century..
Happy days for Salvo
🙂
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 6:57 pm
“there is no provision in the Scotland Act to allow them to be anything other than what the legislation says, which is only to elect individual members”
Not this again.
Using an election as a de facto referendum has no legal force. ACTUAL referendums have no legal force either. If we’d won in 2014, no court could have forced the UK to abide by the vote.
But nobody can prevent a party standing on a one-line manifesto, and if it wins then it has a clear democratic mandate for the contents of that manifesto, and therefore to make a valid declaration of independence under Article 1 of the UN Charter.
Nobody is suggesting it’s as simple as filling in a form, job done. The Charter has no direct force in law either. But it is a perfectly legitimate route – establish what the will of the people is, then act on it.
—
Yes, this again because it is fucking important and you seem determined to ignore the nuance involved in the proposal.
1. The Scottish Ministers are only chose by the elected members. They derive a mandate only from the chamber, not the electorate at large, because most seats is’will of the people’ that won’t necessarily mean elected to Government, will it?
2. Because the legislation in Scotland Act says what it does, the opposition will be entirely within their rights to point and laugh at those saying ‘this is a de facto referendum’. The will of the people is only to elect 129 MSPS. That’s the cold, hard facts.
3. Laws don’t care about morals or signals, unless they’re about them. All laws have specific purposes, but what many are advocating for isn’t lawful as a conclusion to reach and will rightfully be viewed as akin to Scotland not being dragged out of the EU against its will.
4. Perhaps if voting took place on different days for Constituency & Regional a case could be argued AT WESTMINSTER to agree ‘in principle or in law’ that will of the people can be extended beyond its sole purpose in law.
5. If you’re so up for new routes to indy, why no comment on petition for change or referendum on the question organised by a sovereign body outside the legislatures called the Scots, via SALVO or whoever? Do you have anything against using rights contained in Claim of Right Act 1689 to achieve independence? As it stands they’d actually have legal force, whereas de facto nonsene won’t.
6. Actual referendums would have legal force if the legislation said so, that’s how laws work.
7. Pretendy mandates aren’t women either.
8. Union with England Act 1707 isn’t owned by Parliament, but by the Scots and should be where the focus lies.
9. Union with England Act 1707 mind.
yw,hth
Stuart, nothing would please me more if that was true. Rightly or wrongly we’ve boxed ourselves into a corner where the ambiguity of our position has now been made clear legally. Winnie God bless her doesn’t make the laws. But we can force change regardless
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 6:57 pm
“and if it wins then it has a clear democratic mandate for the contents of that manifesto, and therefore to make a valid declaration of independence under Article 1 of the UN Charter.”
All well and good but do you seriously think it could ever happen under the leadership of this person who is fearful of losing in a situation where losing is almost impossible?
There is almost zero chance of it happening under the leadership of anyone currently in the SNP, including Cherry, who is no more than a Sturgeon in waiting.
Someone tell me one thing Cherry has done to advance the cause of independence since she became an MP.
Fat good it did to recall the Westminster parliament.
Is she so stupid to not understand that independence is not the aim of the vast majority of current SNP MPs and MSPs?
The only politician who could do it is Alex Salmond, and that is why the tractor lied to her teeth to destroy him politically.
“Anyways, the tools are there, I’m uploading the videos zipped atm, I shall email you the download link in due course, provided you don’t grab them yourself first.”
Cheers, but no need now – I downloaded them all with this:
link to savethevideo.com
“Indeed, although Git is a wonderful tool for software development the site’s naming is rather unfortunate and I don’t like Micro$oft’s takeover of it either, but it is what it is.”
Well, my point was that it’s full of what is undoubtedly fantastically useful software if you’re a crack Linux/Python coder, but totally incomprehensible to anyone else. I downloaded the YT-DLP app but it comes with no instructions and does absolutely nothing by itself, so *shrug*.
Scott , having a petition and calling to Scots has no more legal bearing than an election or a referendum.
It will only legally done with an act of parliament. Straightforward.
You’re idea has a ring of Soverign men about it. Which is another faux legal concept that hasn’t gained any success.
“1. The Scottish Ministers are only chose by the elected members. They derive a mandate only from the chamber, not the electorate at large, because most seats is’will of the people’ that won’t necessarily mean elected to Government, will it?
2. Because the legislation in Scotland Act says what it does, the opposition will be entirely within their rights to point and laugh at those saying ‘this is a de facto referendum’. The will of the people is only to elect 129 MSPS. That’s the cold, hard facts.”
It doesn’t fucking matter what the opposition do. If you get 50%+1 of the vote on a one-line manifesto then that is IN AND OF ITSELF inescapably a mandate for that manifesto’s contents.
Not a “legal mandate” – there’s no such thing – but a workable one for a declaration, and from there the only opinions that matter are those of the international community.
As Craig Murray pointed out exhaustively, you’re an independent country if the rest of the world recognises you as one, and nobody gives the steam off a thimbleful of wasp’s piss what Anas Sarwar has to say about it.
Massive flaw in current approach is Indy is more popular than SNP. They had better come up with an idea to bridge the gap of Labour leaning, greens and Alba types. I hope heads are locked together on this but doubtful. Yes Scotland party or all the parties with same manifesto.
Hatuey says:
2 December, 2022 at 6:49 pm
Scott, you forget something that’s basic and important: politics supersedes law. Thus;
Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason…
With a referendum that reveals majority support for independence, whether it be in keeping with your precious laws or not, unstoppable momentum would be created that no Westminster government would dare try to impede.
And if you don’t understand any of that, kid, I have to wonder what the fuck you think you bring to the table in a discussion about politics.
YW HTH
—
We’re not having an actual referendum you fool, so why bring it up as an example? I know how they work – they follow what the law enacted to enable them say.
Law trumps politics, always. FYI, nobile officium of the Court of Session can declare Acts of Parliament unlawful as means of remedy, so stick that in yer crack and smoke it. That’s how powerful the common law powers we possess as a birthright are in Scotland.
Don’t tell me how to interpret legislation, I don’t actually need lessons, and you really are fucking clueless about Scots law.
yw,hth
Have you watched Nicolas’s speech at the 2019 conference, thought she came across as very nervous, with the awkward pauses whilst she waits for the applause.
It is interesting that Blackford is going and now we find out that it truly IS Sturgeon who is holding everything up, because she is (in her own words) feart of failing.
My goodness, hardly a role model for young women, looking to her to be a ‘strong’ leader. I mean, seriously what is she so very afraid of?? Both her and her husband must by now have sufficient wealth, that even if both lost their jopbs and had to walk away, they could do so in some considerable comfort.
Holyrood is the place for a de facto referendum via election. Westminster would just be a mess, and as we all know the media pretty much ignores Scotland during general elections, and focusses on the red and blue Tories in England. So for Westminster, it would be hard to get the message out. No, Holyrood is the place, and let us hope that these SNP MP’s will finally show a bit of backbone and get this done.
Meanwhile, on here, I see the usual suspects are trying to spread ‘concern’ FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Hey unionists, why not just spell out for all of us just what is so great for Scotland to be run by a government in England we do not elect, and that only wishes to steal our resouces and wealth? Just what are the supposed benefits of this unwanted and wholly undemocratic, laughably titled ‘union’ with England????
I’ll not hold my breath.
“Come on, healthy debate should be allowed.”
Debate is allowed. Repeating assertions over and over without even attempting to address the other side’s points is not debate.
Whether support might be higher in 2024 is a debatable point. We don’t know what might happen in the next two years. Whether there are massive material advantages to using a Holyrood election over a Westminster one is not a debatable point.
In a scheduled UK election we would get tiny scraps of airtime because most of the election will be about UK issues not related to independence. In a Holyrood election triggered specifically for the purpose, independence would be the centre of attention in every debate and all media coverage.
That fact is not up for dispute and anyone suggesting otherwise is not debating in good faith.
“We’re not having an actual referendum you fool, so why bring it up as an example? I know how they work – they follow what the law enacted to enable them say.”
No, they don’t. Referendums are FUNDAMENTALLY AND INTRINSICALLY not legally binding in the UK. They can ALWAYS be overruled by the government of the day, even if it previously said it would abide by them.
“They had better come up with an idea to bridge the gap of Labour leaning, greens and Alba types.”
As I’ve already pointed out in detail, a Holyrood election solves that problem in a way a Westminster election doesn’t. It provides a way for people to vote for both independence and Labour/Greens/Alba without meaningfully distorting the result.
@Rev Stu
So, creepy as fuck misanthrope “Scott” doing what he always does.
If only there’d been some clue about his character and behaviour….
No point in slavishly obeying Westminster in the desperate hope Westminster will change its attitude – it won’t. Start by walking out and staying out. There is nothing to gain in being part of this British establishment farce. Then let the people of Scotland decide if such an action was justified. That would be a de facto referendum in itself.
O/T it appears things might be about to go tits up for the charity Mermaids:
The Charity Commission has launched a statutory inquiry into the transgender charity Mermaids after identifying concerns about its management.
The regulator said the inquiry — its most serious form of investigation — was triggered by “newly identified issues” around the youth charity’s “governance and management”.
link to archive.ph
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 7:35 pm
It doesn’t fucking matter what the opposition do. If you get 50%+1 of the vote on a one-line manifesto then that is IN AND OF ITSELF inescapably a mandate for that manifesto’s contents.
Not a “legal mandate” – there’s no such thing – but a workable one for a declaration, and from there the only opinions that matter are those of the international community.
As Craig Murray pointed out exhaustively, you’re an independent country if the rest of the world recognises you as one, and nobody gives the steam off a thimbleful of wasp’s piss what Anas Sarwar has to say about it.
—
You are very, very wrong about being able to repurpose an election to Holyrood as a mandate for anything other than election of individual members. This point of law matters here because in the context of Union with England Act 1707 and its repeal, there is not a chance in hell that the Court of Session will repurpose a law it is still bound to view the election through – the Scotland Act. There is’t provision in law for it to do so, even if ‘morally’ it felt right to the Lord President et al.
And, again, The Scottish Ministers only derive their mandate from the people who elect them. That matters in law too. The Scotland Act isn’t our friend, it’s a weight around our necks.
There will have to be a vote, or petition, even organised by the people themselves, that both ask & answer the question directly, at which point we do have right to declare UDI if the Ayes have it.
Being recognised as independent by rest of the world can & will only come about when the Union with England Act 1707 is repealed.
I’ll keep making the same points about the nuances of actual legislation until the penny finally drops about HR de facto referendum being a non-starter no matter how many talking heads publicly declare it to be so.
“Debate is allowed. Repeating assertions over and over without even attempting to address the other side’s points is not debate.”
That’s unfair. I’ve already addressed the issues of franchise, timing and international attention of both when it was brought up. It is a debatable point which route to take. To say it isn’t, is an assertion. You’ve mentioned the advantages of HR, there are disadvantages too. Defintely don’t discount HR but it’s a debate.
We know right now, the Indy movement is buckled and I agree it’s the SNPs fault. But I’d rather not stab my nose to spite my face by rushing to a vote before any meaningful healing of the campaign grassroots has taken place. Unless something mad happens, it’s beyond doubt Sturgeon will be leading the campaign now so we need to make our peace with it and use the cards we’re dealt.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 7:51 pm
No, they don’t. Referendums are FUNDAMENTALLY AND INTRINSICALLY not legally binding in the UK. They can ALWAYS be overruled by the government of the day, even if it previously said it would abide by them.
—
Oh dear.
If the legislation that allows the referendum to go ahead contains a clause that makes it self-executing, then it will have full legal effect. The reason the others weren’t was only because they didn’t have such a clause.
Law trumps politics, always
Does it fuck as like! Westminster could rescind the independence of all the former Dominions and colonies tomorrow and nobody would do anything but have a fit of the giggles. You’re all over the place with this quixotic campaign of yours and your own version of a “cunning plan for indy”.
At least all the other cunning plans for indy have a some followers for their windmill tilting. yw/hth
Scott, noone has said any election, referendum or petition creats a law. Got it? The end.
Ross
“Swivel” if you think I’m voting SNP
“As I’ve already pointed out in detail, a Holyrood election solves that problem in a way a Westminster election doesn’t. It provides a way for people to vote for both independence and Labour/Greens/Alba without meaningfully distorting the result”
I agree, it’s a good advantage but I feel the nuance of the two votes is a disadvantage too. Like it or not, the scots barely get the system never mind the rest of the world.
It’s great to read that Wings has contacts at the top of Government. Also credit to the commentary on your blog, so many brilliant contributors.
You’ve exposed Nicola’s obfuscation and bullying around the Independence strategy. She doesn’t want Scottish Independence. You strike fear into Nicola Sturgeon. I’m proud to back truthful honest journalism, the biggest read political blog in Scotland. Thank you.
Ross says:
2 December, 2022 at 7:35 pm
Scott , having a petition and calling to Scots has no more legal bearing than an election or a referendum.
It will only legally done with an act of parliament. Straightforward.
You’re [sic] idea has a ring of Soverign [sic] men about it. Which is another faux legal concept that hasn’t gained any success.
—
The Claim of Right Act 1689 just rang and called you stupid Ross.
Petitioning the King isn’t really my idea, it’s actually just a common law right the Scots have possessed for centuries.
“You are very, very wrong about being able to repurpose an election to Holyrood as a mandate for anything other than election of individual members. This point of law matters here because in the context of Union with England Act 1707 and its repeal, there is not a chance in hell that the Court of Session will repurpose a law it is still bound to view the election through – the Scotland Act.”
What the fuck does it have to do with the Court Of Session?
An election would be triggered, wholly within the rules, and it would be conducted within the rules, with each party choosing what was in its manifesto. The end.
“If the legislation that allows the referendum to go ahead contains a clause that makes it self-executing, then it will have full legal effect. The reason the others weren’t was only because they didn’t have such a clause.”
The Crown in Parliament (in effect the government) is the ultimate authority and can throw the whole thing in the bin any time it likes.
“I’ll keep making the same points about the nuances of actual legislation until the penny finally drops about HR de facto referendum being a non-starter no matter how many talking heads publicly declare it to be so.”
Well, no, you won’t.
Andy Ellis says:
2 December, 2022 at 8:12 pm
Law trumps politics, always FYI, nobile officium of the Court of Session can declare Acts of Parliament unlawful as means of remedy, so stick that in yer crack and smoke it. That’s how powerful the common law powers we possess as a birthright are in Scotland. [sic]
Does it fuck as like! Westminster could rescind the independence of all the former Dominions and colonies tomorrow and nobody would do anything but have a fit of the giggles. You’re all over the place with this quixotic campaign of yours and your own version of a “cunning plan for indy”.
—
See in this imaginary scenario, where a political decision is taken to try and reclaim Israel or USA or Ireland or such, which law prevails that enables all the giggling?
Take your time now….take forever…you’ll eventually see the contradiction that your lack of intellect effortlessly allows.
Not every civil court can overturn legislation, but the Court of Session can and there’s hee-haw politicians can do about it without consent from the sovereign body known as the Scots. That’s why you left that bit out, and why I put it back in.
Sucks to be wrong apparently, yet you excel at it.
Scott, I’m typing quickly, made a couple of spelling mistakes. Wowee.
You’re point is still guff.
Kenny Rogers sang a song specifically about Sturgeon.
“Coward of the County”.
To be played at all SNP rallies forthwith.
With all this talk about whether a holyrood vote on Indy would be ‘valid’, simply because WM doesn’t like it, I wonder what the international view would be IF WM flat rejected a HR plebiscite – the most inclusive democratic event in which Scotland can partake. Let’s frame it slightly differently. In such a case, would the international community recognise a ‘democratic’ ‘united’ kingdom?
I guess the only way we will find out, is if Nicola goes.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 8:36 pm
“I’ll keep making the same points about the nuances of actual legislation until the penny finally drops about HR de facto referendum being a non-starter no matter how many talking heads publicly declare it to be so.”
Well, no, you won’t.
—
I will, just not on here.
You’ve now turned into the self-indulgent “show me the money” grifter many accused you of years ago, by wilfully ignoring what the Scotland Act says about the conduct of elections to the Scottish Parliament, and that the Scottish Ministers only have a mandate from the chamber via the Scotland Act.
If you want to lead the flock over a cliff, wire in. You won’t succeed though, because the law isn’t on your side.
Scotland won’t be dragged out of the EU much like Andy Ellis won’t be warned off this site against his will – that’s now you, that is.
Cheerio now.
I see you couldn’t explain what the law had to do with it.
It’s been said before.
If we played by English Westminster rules regards independence referendums, it is now clear as day that England would be the ONLY nation who could hold a referendum and successfully take it through there Parliament to the full conclusion.
All other nations within the UK would be blocked from leaving the Union, just purely through the weight of numbers in the English Parliament who would vote against them legally leaving the UK.
NOT a Union of Equals by any means.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 8:49 pm
I see you couldn’t explain what the law had to do with it.
—
I have, repeatedly and consistently for a long time. Check my archive.
We the Scots own Union with England Act 1707 – our supreme civil court is the only one with full competence over it’s application and continued existence. WM can only amend, it can’t order repeal, but could effect if Union with Scotland Act 1706 is repealed by England.
Has the Scott person been fucked off now?
Ruby
Did you see my comments to you at 6.37 on the previous article?
Having read Stu’s present article, there may just be an alert child in Westminster willing to speak out about what people are wearing, and who is willing to talk about the elephant.
Remember, it took just one to expose the emperor and cause a pile on. Empress Sturgeon may be about to meet her own exposure moment.
So much for Jo Cherry’s hope of no interference from outside in the choice of the new leader. But she didn’t really think that did she.
Off topic.. The goon that is Pete the Slipper Wishart “celebrating” the 81 first preference votes for Alba in the West Lothian bye election apparently fails to appreciate that a party In a position within Government registered a mere 122 votes ffs.
If this is the reason for the lack of progress it is also the sign of an enormous ego. Independence is a collective endeavour not the task of one person. If it succeeds or fails it isn’t one person who takes the glory or the blame.
I’m of the 1707 route too.
Scotland signed up to the treaty of Union with Scots Sovereignty non negotiable. King Charles acknowledges Scotlands Sovereignty & takes an oath to up hold it which he’s just done.
All we need is right there.
It matters not a jot that the UK state was created. They created it without the Sovereign consent of Scots. The people.
Confront that & there is no UK. Scotlands wishes to end the treaty & job done.
No need for begging bowl of further refs. International recognition that Scotland has withdrawn for its treaty with England as it is perfectly entitled to do.
It’s legal, legit, can’t be tampered with, can’t end up in decades of litigation & cannot be ignored by our abuser.
@ScottieDog
I wonder what the international view would be IF WM flat rejected a HR plebiscite – the most inclusive democratic event in which Scotland can partake.
In the end it depends how many UN members recognise Scotland as independent. If most countries, particularly in the EU, the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia, NZ move swiftly to recognise us it won’t matter if Westminster tries to refuse.
We need to demonstrate that we have both had a clear majority in response to a clear question, and that Westminster was acting in bad faith because we’d taken that route as a result of their refusal to co-operate in a 2014 style referendum.
We were told there would be a referendum in 2023. So the timing of a Holyrood plebiscite in 2023 is exactly what we demand. The latest poll showed a majority support for 2023.
Anyone who uses the cost of living blah blah . As an excuse, is just inventing reasons to delay. We have delayed for 8 years, and there is always something that trumps Scottish independence. When in fact nothing is more important than freeing your country.
The austerity is happening because England blew all Scotlands resources. They stole them, and robbed our people. Its England’s crisis not Scotlands. We need out before any more resources are filtered south.
Just saw a Phantom Power clip of Polly Toynbee suggesting that if Labour won a snap election then let us have a referendum within 6 months as that may sway enough people to stay in the Union. Desperate times, fecking shameful the price of the leccie!
I don’t see the point of a “United for Yes” strategy.
We would end up with ONE pro-indy candidate in a constituency, up against any number of pro-union candidates. All the votes for the pro-union candidates would work against the pro-indy votes.
As I typed a wee while ago,
“As others have commented above, if the SNP come out with “The SNP need 50%+1 in this election to declare independence” guff, then they would be discarding all the pro-indy votes for the likes of the Greens, Alba, ISP and so on.
As I’ve typed btl before, in Dundee West, I could see Chris Law winning for the SNP but with a reduced majority, most of the “lost” votes having gone to Alba.
Why should Alba’s pro-indy votes be ignored? If the SNP go down this route, they will not be forgiven by Yessers.”
The nut has to be screwed in respect of a strategy to win a plebiscite election. I can’t see Nicola having the vision to see ‘the big picture’.
forgot the link…
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Scott
You said the Nobile Officium can ‘declare an act of parliament unlawful as means of remedy’…to the best of your knowledge, has the Court of Session ever done this in modern times (the latter being interpreted however you wish)?
I am asking in all seriousness because it may be you have access to legal databases or texts that I do not.
“You’ve now turned into the self-indulgent “show me the money” grifter many accused you of years ago, by wilfully ignoring what the Scotland Act says about the conduct of elections to the Scottish Parliament, and that the Scottish Ministers only have a mandate from the chamber via the Scotland Act.
If you want to lead the flock over a cliff, wire in. You won’t succeed though, because the law isn’t on your side.
Scotland won’t be dragged out of the EU much like Andy Ellis won’t be warned off this site against his will – that’s now you, that is.”
Mate, don’t throw a tantrum at me just because you can’t make your argument. “WAH WAH COURT OF SESSION WAH WAH SCOTLAND ACT” is not a case. Which section of the Scotland Act? Which paragraph? Who would be invoking it? What would the court be ruling on? What would the outcome be? All things you don’t seem to want to explain.
If you can, feel free. If all you’re going to do is shout the same few lines over and over again, then do by all means piss off.
PhilM says:
2 December, 2022 at 9:17 pm
Scott
You said the Nobile Officium can ‘declare an act of parliament unlawful as means of remedy’…to the best of your knowledge, has the Court of Session ever done this in modern times (the latter being interpreted however you wish)?
—
The power exists is all that matters, no matter the length of time since it was used to that extent. We used to have the convention of estates to this stuff, now just that unique function our supreme civil court possesses. We absolutely have the most powerful civil court on the plant, but absolutely not the most powerful devolved parliament.
The nobile officium of the Court of Session has the power to issue any order necessary to achieve equitable remedy – that’s the limit of its powers.
I’m sure Alex Salmond & Robin McAlpine have both acknowledged that sturgeon should’ve stayed the fk out of the yes movement. It didn’t belong to her & the decades of work they’d done were systematically shut down & blocked.
Sillars also said it & at the time he was vilified as losing his marbles. In a recent interview he was proven correct – fk all had been done to even prepare for a new Independent Scotland even if a ref was called & the MPs at WM should’ve been doing work in Scotland to prepare but instead we see, as we always expected, they are even remote controlled by Imelda.
& She’s fking useless at her job! Painted windows, really? Who was that supposed to fool?
She has undone decades work & she definitely wouldn’t win an indyref. Naw voters already declaring they’d never vote for the nonce party or to give that shower of failures the keys to the country.
@PhilM
…to the best of your knowledge, has the Court of Session ever done this in modern times (the latter being interpreted however you wish)?
“Scott” has been challenged before to cite any back up to his obsessional posting on the matter. The silence in response has been deafening. Apparently in 300 years nary a one has thought to do what Scott insists is something anyone can do.
Odd then that nobody has ever tried, and more particularly that none of legal minds. KC’s, experts in constitutional law and public policy have rushed to commend Scott’s cunning plan.
One might almost think it’s because what passes for his argument is about as attractive as his personality.
Alba have had to move their 10 December gig to a bigger venue. 300 people and a waiting list. Not bad for something planned in 2 weeks, and 2 weeks before Xm*s.
Lol, Yoons be salty.
Coercive control.
It’s a thing.
It’s been applied for 300+ years. It’s what the coloniser does. It creates a false prison to the point the citizens forget thier own rights & start to defend that of the coloniser.
& The cycle continues on & on.
P.S Spot on Ricky.*thumbs up*
They’re more than capable of discussion without a nyaff jumping in.
I’ll Lurk & learn…good luck guys!
Sturgeon is quoted as saying:
“I’m quite a pessimist in election campaigns, I think it’s because I’ve LOST so many election campaigns that I can never quite bring myself to actually believe that we’re going to win one.”
Hardly the inspirational words of a great leader. So on that level of thinking she will never go for IndyRef-2 because she was a part of losing IndyRef-1. If she has an inbuilt fear of failing, she most definitely needs replacing immediately.
There’s a saying about failure:
“One who fears failure limits his/her activities”.
That saying must surely have been created specifically with Sturgeon in mind. 😉 Doesn’t attend pro-indy marches and doesn’t pursue our right to self-determination. And doesn’t work with any other true indy parties. That’s exceptionally limiting considering the ticket that got her to where she is. Imposter!
Sturgeon breached ministerial code over ferry meeting, say Tories
link to bbc.co.uk
And so it begins.
We are witnessing the end. MSM are now getting their teeths into her.
Looks like Elon Musk is about to go nuclear…
Heeeeheeeeheeee
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 9:23 pm
Mate, don’t throw a tantrum at me just because you can’t make your argument. “WAH WAH COURT OF SESSION WAH WAH SCOTLAND ACT” is not a case. Which section of the Scotland Act? Which paragraph? Who would be invoking it? What would the court be ruling on? What would the outcome be? All things you don’t seem to want to explain.
If you can, feel free. If all you’re going to do is shout the same few lines over and over again, then do by all means piss off.
—
That’s because it isn’t the case I’m making.
Simply, the Union with England Act 1707 is the only legislation that binds Scotland to England. Any subsequent legislation passed at WM hasn’t changed that as a fact in law.
The proposal to use election to Holyrood as anything other than the purpose they serve, which is to elect 129 individual members, cannot be legitimate in any way, no matter what manifesto pledges are made. [Keatings case was clear that manifestos aren’t binding on anyone or enforceable in any way]. I get the public image bit about numbers of voters, but in matters of law such as leaving a Treaty based alliance, the original purpose the elections were held for remain the basis for any action afterwards. This is vitally important to understand, hence my repetition.
Also, Scotland Act 2016 is clear that the conduct of elections must be within the legislative competence of the Parliament itself, and since UKSC determined that the union is a reserved matter unless Scotland Act is amended, the de facto referendum declaration cannot be lawful in the eyes of anyone. It may send our morals as a form of performance art, but that’s it.
The Scottish Ministers cannot derive a mandate from anywhere but within the chamber, as only it ‘elects’ them. Any legislation that comes after that is a matter for members individually. They don’t ever need to implement a manifesto pledge of any sort. The so-called mandate is limited by the Scotland Act. This is also vital to understand, when discussing what a mandate actually is and from where it comes. Politicians and their sophistry always need to be challenged for facts.
WM & HR are different when it comes to form, even if legislation is the shared eventual outcome. This is also vital to understand when discussing constitutional law. Elections achieve different things – WM is FPTP or incumbent stays on and election of members. HR is a fresh slate, every time. New Fm, New Govt- even if players are the same they got there by different process to WM The executive is chosen by the electorate down there, but not here.
We see the effects of the sovereign power of the Scots in all legislation created for Scots law in the wordings
‘Be it enacted by his gracious majesty’ is English law, ‘An Act to…’ is Scots law. See laws from Holyrood for further proof. Laws are made on our behalf, not the monarch as in England.
I’m not trying to place obstacles to independence, I’m highlighting them. Scotland Act is one, and elections won’t move us forward once inch.
The route to independence is via Union with England Act 1707 and nothing else. It has to be repealed, otherwise our own domestic courts won’t recognise independence, that’s how it works and really how simple indy is to achieve. The purpose of the union and the intent within the Act were clear but haven’t been adhered to [There isn’t really full provision for separate legal systems in the Act, only for the judicial powers in Scotland to remain as was, but Parliament made it so. All laws were to be the same in both countries, but aren’t. Thankfully time of alleged ‘breaches’ is no barrier to remedy in Scotland, if you can plead your case]
Further reading about Elections & Scottish Parliament from Scotland Act 1998
Part I
Section 12
Power of the Scottish Ministers to make provision about elections
The Scottish Ministers may by order make any provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament, if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, as to—
a)the conduct of elections for membership of the Parliament,
(b)the questioning of such an election and the consequences of irregularities, and
(c)the return of members of the Parliament otherwise than at an election.
Section 37 makes provison for the two Acts of Union to have effect, which is a strange thing to exist, y’ask me.
Part II
Section 46 deals with choice of FM (chosen by the chamber only – the source of any Govt mandate, in law)
Section 47 deals with election of Ministers, approved only by Parliament as a whole, not me or thee
Section 49 deals with Junior Ministers, who only assist The Scottish ministers and aren’t actually part of Government, in law. [Nae luck, Slater & Harvie]
There are other interesting bits – such as the members of SNP who aren’t also Scottish Minister aren’t part of Government either.
There’s hee-haw in it about the amount of sleep a person needs, but I need some now.
Happy reading everyone.
link to legislation.gov.uk
“but in matters of law such as leaving a Treaty based alliance”
None of that is of any relevance to anything. Independence is not a matter of law. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no legal way of achieving independence. It’s a matter of three things:
(1) Establishing it as the will of the people by some democratic means.
(2) Declaring it.
(3) Having it recognised by the rest of the planet.
Anything else is just scenery.
Stoker – we were told years ago that she’s a totally closed shop. She doesn’t engage outside of her clique & her clique only fawn over her. This was dismissed by her flying monkies as crackpots or jealousy.
She told us she suffered imposter syndrome.
She also criticised Salmond as a gambler, on an ego trip, should know when to step aside, shouldn’t be in public office, only has self interest, he makes big claims that don’t stand up to scrutiny & is a danger to the country.
Lolz! Talk about projecting! Everything that applies to her!
She also always said a vote for her wasn’t a vote for indyref2
A nationalist wanting to play in the Unions playground. Indyref2 only a means to keep her there. She should fuck off to Labour. They were always good at hiding under the wrong rosette.
Someone mentioned Alex Salmond giving Sturgeon the FM job. He didn’t because it’s the chamber who votes. Saying that he should’ve looked around him & held on until Smith at least. Maybe he thought Mike Russell would’ve stepped up to the plate? Who knows..
Yes I did Merganser.
‘Sturgeon says she has taken the safety of women and girls more seriously than any other issue in her political career.’
What does she mean by women & girls? She must mean transwomen & transgirls.
She is taking their safety so seriously she appears to be obsessed.
Another truth from Sturgeon.
She takes the safety of transwomen & transgirls more seriously than she does independence.
Yeah she has definitely bought the magic suit too afraid not to.
Pretty soon everyone will see she is as naked as the day that she was born.
Viscount
They’re emboldened now by her utterly stupid move to the SC.
I’d to turn off WM as they all gloated to a demoralised shell of an SNP who have been deliberately kept in thier box via zoom.
I hope the whole lot is brought down because even if we held a Plebiscite vote there is not a cat in hell’s chance we’d win it, imo.
I think the treaty is the way to go or at least build from & it’s started. A convention belonging to the ppl, not politicians. That work should never have been disbanded.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
2 December, 2022 at 11:02 pm
“but in matters of law such as leaving a Treaty based alliance”
None of that is of any relevance to anything. Independence is not a matter of law. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no legal means of achieving independence.
—
UKSC only actually ruled on the reference from the Lord Advocate, as it was what it was asked to do. Referendum Bill isn’t within legislative competence of Holyrood without Scotland Act amendment is the only decision made.
Commentary on the pleadings from AG or SNP intervention remain just that and do not hold legal force, as they are part of the procedure. They get to choose what ‘added on drivel’ they include in the preamble.
Scotland’s status really is a matter of law – Union with England Act 1707 is that law. Politics can effect change, but politics isn’t restricted only to the legislatures. Scots have common law powers, enshrined in CoRA1689.
Prosecute Parliament in Court of Session as a function of the crown in Scotland and seek the remedy of repeal or amendment to meet original intent with all that ensues. It can be done that way, there’s no barrier.
The legislatures aren’t above the people of Scotland, they derive authority from us by consent.
Your earlier assertion that the Crown in Parliament can do what it wants, and unmake a law to make it have no effect isn’t totally accurate. It can’t do it absolutely, as Scots law doesn’t allow arbitrary use of power that the monarch doesn’t even possess. Claim of Right Act 1689 is clear about the power of the crown, its reps and its limits. The Scots are a sovereign body, individually and collectively, with power to remove the government and others representing the crown via the court.
Declaring independence still needs to be lawful in Scotland, which means removing the blockage from statute. Who confirms repeal of UwEA1707? WM can’t, nor can HR as neither own the legisaltion. We the people do, so the Court of Session – the place where the Orders in Council go for ratifying etc – and our supreme civil court will issue the declaration.
I’ve just provided evidence that Patrick Harvie & Lorna Slater do not form part of the Scottish Government, but politicians say otherwise because they lie as we all know.
The evidence that ‘SNP MSPs not a Scottish Minister’ also don’t form any part of the Scottish Government is there in the Scotland Act too. See funding – If Scottish Greens were officially part of Government, then only the 2 ministers would receive additional funding unless PO provides otherwise. Same would happen to LAB/CON/LD if any of their members were Ministers. And same happens to SNP members not Ministers, they get no extra help unless PO has provided for it.
Nuance is important, it’s what wins and loses court cases in Scotland.
Maybe we can fashion some sort of scabbard out of those old parchments, Scott.
We’ve got a chance of independence but since it wouldn’t be in keeping with some pish written over 300 years ago we’ll need to call the whole thing off… because we all know the British Government is a stickler for honouring the law and agreements, don’t we?
Crackers.
A party full of degenerates. The Sturgeon, Murrelet and Harvey triple alliance. link to bbc.co.uk
“Nuance is important, it’s what wins and loses court cases in Scotland.”
Sigh. WHAT court case? Brought by WHO? On WHICH grounds? In response to WHICH events? With WHAT outcome?
Very very bored of you repeating irrelevancies. Last chance to actually make the argument.
Hatuey says:
2 December, 2022 at 11:41 pm
Maybe we can fashion some sort of scabbard out of those old parchments, Scott.
We’ve got a chance of independence but since it wouldn’t be in keeping with some pish written over 300 years ago we’ll need to call the whole thing off… because we all know the British Government is a stickler for honouring the law and agreements, don’t we?
Crackers.
—
Union with England Act 1707 – link to legislation.gov.uk
Claim of Right Act 1689 – link to legislation.gov.uk
Royal Mines Act 1424 – link to legislation.gov.uk
Legislation applicable to Scotland is searchable, and no parchment crackers were pulled. There’s 1at least 109 separate pieces of legislation from the ‘Old Scottish Parliament’ still in existence (some repealed in recent years but still viewable, like Deeds Act 1696)
I assume Scott is saying the UKSC ruling means no party in a Holyrood election can put independence in their manifesto.
Is that the case?
Hatuey,
Has the monarch & the UK parliament dropped all that 300 years pish?
ie elections must be within the competencies of the Scottish Parliament and independence isn’t, so indy can’t be part of the election.
if that is the case, we’re truly f*cked
A manifesto isn’t legal & binding.
It’s only a pledge of what they plan to do if elected.
Example “vote for me for indyref2”
Win
Then say fk that. Let’s all push for self-ID instead – who’s with me?
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
3 December, 2022 at 12:01 am
“Nuance is important, it’s what wins and loses court cases in Scotland.”
Sigh. WHAT court case? Brought by WHO? On WHICH grounds? In response to WHICH events? With WHAT outcome?
Very very bored of you repeating irrelevancies. Last chance to actually make the argument.
—-
I’ve copied and pasted this from an earlier comment.
Scotland’s status really is a matter of law – Union with England Act 1707 is that law. Politics can effect change, but politics isn’t restricted only to the legislatures. Scots have common law powers, enshrined in CoRA1689.
Prosecute Parliament in Court of Session as a function of the crown in Scotland and seek the remedy of repeal or amendment to meet original intent with all that ensues. It can be done that way, there’s no barrier.
I can raise the case on behalf of myself and all others affected by averred breaches of intent and purpose of Union with England Act 1707. It is the only law that binds Scotland & England.
Those opposed to the case can seek to register to do so.
Scots law is easy to navigate in the court room, and the good thing about the procedure is that, those pleading their own case are entitled, in law via function of HMA, to full guidance from the bench to ensure the case isn’t prejudiced against them through lack of knowledge. Judges actually like that aspect as it keeps them on their toes. And it keeps costs down for the appellant.
The worst that would happen is no change, and the best is it wouldn’t be led by lying politicians. What’s not to like about that?
Action via the legislatures may be the conventional way, but not the only way. Direct petition of the King is also allowed – individually and collectively. Ancient rights remain in place to be claimed. They don’t follow us around blowing whistles, but do still remain available for the evident utility of people of Scotland.
I gave you every opportunity. I’ve been extremely patient, even in the face of a level of personal abuse I wouldn’t normally tolerate. That patience is now exhausted.
I thought he answered your question, ie take the Westminster government to the Court of Session over breaches to the Act of Union and propose that the only ‘equitable remedy’ was for them to repeal the act.
Would be a brave Court of Session that said they had the power to end the Union…
Of course, you’d need a very clear list of breaches. I’m no lawyer, so have no idea what would constitute a breach where the only ‘equitable remedy’ was repeal…
“I thought he answered your question, ie take the Westminster government to the Court of Session over breaches to the Act of Union and propose that the only ‘equitable remedy’ was for them to repeal the act.”
WTF does that have to do with holding a Holyrood election?
(Also, shortest court case ever. They’d probably put the petitioner in jail for wasting their time.)
Didn’t he already answer the Holyrood election point?
ie Holyrood can’t legislate on the Union, and any election must be about what Holyrood can legislate on. Since it can’t legislate about independence, a Holyrood election can’t be about that either.
A passionate debate.
No wonder Sturgeon steers clear of it.
She wouldn’t know a fight even if it skelped her right between the eyes.
Why is Joanna Cherry not aggressively taking this up with Sturgeon?
The gutless, spineless SNP,,, every fuckin one of them.
They are all looking after their own personal bank accounts.
They all want to emulate Cosy feet Pete.
They want to accumulate the same wealth as him. So they all keep their heads down.
Don’t rock the boat is the SNP motto.
Geri, as I’m sure you’re aware, the UK government respects laws when it suits it to do so and ignores them when it doesn’t suit. The law might be carved in stone but stones are quite easy to ignore.
My argument here isn’t that the law doesn’t matter, though. My argument is that politics supersedes law, and it simply does. We know that because laws are generally created by politicians.
According to GDR law it was illegal for the people of East Germany to break down the Berlin Wall. Should we jail them? Should we un-unify Germany?
There are literally thousands of such examples in the history books.
It’s simply absurd to suggest that some interpretation of a 300 year old document should stand in the way of Scottish independence, negating the democratic will of the people today.
That original 1707 treaty didn’t have any democratic authority underpinning it either. None whatsoever by todays standards. It was concocted at a time when women were being burnt as witches in Scotland.
I’ll be happy to argue it out with the original signatories when I get to heaven.
Gregory beekman 12 58
I think the point the Rev was making was that if the SNP run on a single issue of Scottish Independence,,, you could then take it to the UN,,, bypassing Westminster.
Wouldn’t the breach be that Sovereign Scots are being denied from exercising thier own constitution which is still in force? That it’s the Sovereign Scots who give consent to this Union. It’s not for an English parliament to take that right away from them. That’s a direct breach of terms. It was guaranteed by both parliaments & that right was non negotiable & was part of the treaty that they’ve just inserted their tacky boots all over.
Rab Davis 1:19
But Scott’s point was that the Scotland Act prevents the SNP from doing that.
ie the UK Supreme Court ruled that Holyrood can’t legislate on anything regarding the Union, which includes independence. Separately, the Scotland Act says elections can only be about what Holyrood can legislate about. Given Holyrood can’t legislate about the Union, no Holyrood manifesto can be about independence.
That’s my understanding of what Scott has been posting. If that’s true (that you now can’t even mention independence in a Holyrood manifesto), then that’s a real kick in the teeth.
Which means the only legal route for a de-facto indyref is via a Westminster election – which has all the faults the Rev mentioned.
A sad state of affairs.
Geri
Why are lawyers like Joanna Cherry not taking this further then?
Why is this only being discussed by a few punters on Wings Over Scotland?
This is where I get totally confused.
It all sounds so simple and straight forward,,,so why are we still stuck in this stinkin fuckin Union with the detested English bastards.
And while am at it,,,C’mon Senegal.
Gregory beekman
Holyrood can’t do that, only from a Westminster point of view.
That is the point of bypassing Westminster.
Okay, so, in order to honour the memory and rights of Sovereign Scots, the Scottish people need to suffer… on principle, right? Great argument. It’s actually a quasi-religious argument, and essentially fundamentalist.
Here’s a better idea; why don’t we forget all that bullshit and do whatever suits the majority of people alive today who live in Scotland?
There is two scenarios running here.
One is the Holyrood option, where we win a majority on a Scottish Independence ticket, then take it to the UN.
Then there’s the sovereign people option,,, that option totally confuses me.
Does that option also end up at the UN?
I think what is becoming clearer is that we must take the final decision on Scottish independence out of the hands of the English and go straight to the UN,
Why the fuck should the decision on whether we become an independent nation rest with the English?
The more you think about it,,,the crazier it sounds.
Hatuey
Your democratic will has just been removed from you.
As Neale said the other day in WM – the Scottish parliament is being denied agency & quoted Joanna ( regards the prorogation of parliament) “The union between Scotland & England may have created a new state but it didn’t create one nation”
They shouldn’t be acting like they have.
It’s not a sad state of affairs, Gregory, because nobody is talking about legislating.
And it doesn’t logically follow that because Holyrood can’t legislate on something then it can’t be mentioned or included in a manifesto. Manifestos often included references to things that are beyond the scope of respective parliaments, war, global warming, trade, the global economy, etc. In Scotland that happens all the time because almost everything is reserved.
It’s generally accepted that parties can stand on any manifesto they want in democratic elections and that voters decide if those manifestos are worthy. I’d love to see the Tory party write the SNP manifesto for them, though, that’ll go down well.
Rab Davis 1:38
You can’t bypass Westminster because they are the law (I wonder if that was the inspiration for Judge Dredd?).
If they say it’s illegal for Holyrood to bypass Westminster, then what?
Scott’s points were that Westminster have rigged the system so that Holyrood can’t LEGALLY do anything without Westminster’s permission.
He then suggested a legal route to end the Union via the Court of Session – this bypasses both Westminster and Holyrood.
Hatuey,
It’s in Scots common law. There is no higher authority than YOU.
Rab, as far as I know Alba is? They released a St Andrews day document to sign. I haven’t been to look at what they intend to do with it or if WM SNP duds have signed the one opened in Westminster on St Andrews day.
Hatuey 2:01
Yes, agreed – manifestos normally say whatever they want, with no legal restrictions.
But that might be because that’s what they were like for a Westminster election, so they just copied them. Westminster has all the power, so you can mention anything in a Westminster election manifesto.
That may not be the case for Holyrood manifestos on a strict interpretation of the law. Normally, I guess Westminster wouldn’t bother about what was in a Holyrood manifesto. But if a Holyrood manifesto was a one-liner about independence, they might go to court to stop it via a strict interpretation of the Scotland Act.
I guess SNP could just do it anyway in their Holyrood manifesto and wait to see if the UK government challenged them in court over it.
As I’ve said, I’m no lawyer but just find it interesting. Has the UKSC put us into an even worse straight-jacket than we realised? That’s the sad state of affairs.
Geri
So does this St Andrews document lead to the UN as well?
I got an ALBA email,,,I haven’t read it yet.
That’s my understanding Gregory.
It’d be treated like Catelonia.
They’ve not only crippled Holyrood but have replaced it with no other means completely.
We’d have to go the legal route & challenge that bullshit. All they’d do would be to close Holyrood & if we did vote overwhelming for yes – they’d just refuse to hand of our purse which would cripple the country too. Bastards..
Gregory Beekman
Don’t you think that if Westminster stubbornly refuse to give us our right to decide our own destiny, that we must have another way,,, that being going to the UN?
Rab, I don’t know. I haven’t looked yet. I sighed it but I haven’t read what they intend to do with it. They have a conference in a few weeks and apparently it needed a bigger boat lol!
Why don’t you leave the Unionist to make their own arguments?
When Scott first mentioned this I actually thought he was being sarcastic or something. I didn’t realise he was actually a member of the People’s Front of Judaea.
Geri 2:17
Yes, agree.
The court case may have been the worst thing to have happened to indy, although hindsight is a wonderful thing.
But prior to UKSC, we could all just accept the fuzziness of the constitutional situation. Now there’s no fuzziness, no debate – Holyrood is in a straight-jacket of Westminster’s making.
Rab 1.54
That crazy shit is exactly what they’ve done – or think they can. They’ve removed all avenues & provided hee-haw route other than to ask them nicely & it may be granted sometime never.
That breaks Scots law, the treaty of Union & International law on the right of self determination.
Neale gave an excellent speech the other day in WM.
Can anyone tell me what the fk Brendan was playing at? He interjected with irrelevant shite which threw Neale off his stride for a moment…
Rab Davis 2:21
What if Westminster says you can’t go to the UN?
And they will say that. And then back it up with a court challenge to prove Holyrood can’t take it to the UN.
We can only do what Westminster allows us to do. Unless that Scott chap was right and the Court of Session can somehow just pull the plug on Westminster. I’d like to see some legal experts debate that.
Actually, if the Court of Session was shown to have the legal power to repeal the Act of Union with England, wouldn’t the UK government just pass a law that removed that power?
So even that highly theoretical route would be blocked.
Gregory,
I think she knew exactly what she was doing. ‘Get indy off my desk so I can rule forever in my we bit of unionist utopia. That indyref2 mob are getting on my last nerve & they’ll never go for my begging bowl of more devo’
As was said by various Alba members it was the wrong court, wrong question, wrong time. It’s can only be concluded that she knew all along or her advisers set her up for a good kicking. The fact she hasn’t pissed off out of falure yet suggests she was in on it?
link to archive.ph
Possibly the worst load of patronising and misinformed tripe I’ve ever read in the Holyrood magazine.
Sturgeon could have written it herself.
”… Those in the Yes movement have once again started referencing the 1988/9 Claim of Right, a declaration of Scottish sovereignty which would help form the basis of the campaign for a devolved assembly. The document, which was never about securing Scottish independence, was signed by nearly all of Scotland’s Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, including future Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Pure ignorance in every word.
From what I gather Scots law says the Scottish people are Sovereign. This was incorporated into the claim of right 1689 as a guarantee & ratified in both parliament’s as a precondition to the Act of Union. Charlie has just sworn to uphold it.
Supreme court has just trashed it? Overruled it? Erased it? And imposed England’s Sovereignty as supreme & you’ve no path out. They’ve gone full Franco on us? & There was us plebs worrying about thier new Act of Union? I think we’ve just seen it.
So they’ve broken the conditions of the treaty.
Neale has recorded his speech for the record in Westminster. It’s available to watch on the Alba channel on YouTube.
Keatings has said this is now ‘problematic’ lol!
I’ll say!
Gregory Beekman says:
3 December, 2022 at 2:41 am
Rab Davis 2:21
What if Westminster says you can’t go to the UN?
And they will say that. And then back it up with a court challenge to prove Holyrood can’t take it to the UN.
We can only do what Westminster allows us to do….
Get off your knees Mr Beekman. Go and read what sovereignty means in a dictionary.
What Westminster giveth, Westminster can taketh away.
But Westminster doesn’t giveth Scotland it’s Constitutional Sovereignty, it isn’t theirs to give, it only tries to taketh it away.
A more astute and competent politician than Sturgeon could have consolidated Holyrood as Scotland’s institution, but instead her stupid, craven capitulations have rendered Holyrood impotent beneath the will of Westminster.
It doesn’t alter the Sovereignty of Scotland, it just means Westminster’s colonial beachhead in Edinburgh is now a Trojan Horse attempting to encroach upon Scottish Sovereign Territory.
Trust the sovereignty Mr Beekman. It is Scotland’s legal status and it is extant, as witnessed when England’s new King was obliged to swear fealty to the Claim of Right.
When a Colonial usurper plonks themselves in your capital city and declares themselves sovereign over the Realm, it is the coward’s response to capitulate and lie at their feet, but in Sturgeon, a constitutionally illiterate coward and lickspittle is what we unfortunately have.
It now falls to others to defend the sovereignty of Scotland, and they will do it with firm resolve and bravery, with or without your support. However it will easier for them to do it with your support. So get you and your family signed up to Liberation.Scot
As for Sturgeon, may her political epitaph read the words of Samuel Adams, one of America’s Founding Fathers…
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our
countrymenFirst Minister.”Breeks
It’s confusing having both called the same thing. I wonder who did that to confuse matters? Scott put me wise the other day that it’s the 1689 one we should be using & not the modern one.
If the people are sovereign, and Holyrood is legally controlled by WM, then the people have a sovereign right to challenge or ignore both WM and Holyrood, right? If WM has no right to rule over us, then their little “legal” baby doesn’t either. Holyrood is illegitimate. WM’s bast..d. I suppose WM can say that the people had a choice and voted for devolution in 1997. However, independence was not an option on the ballot paper then if I remember correctly. If it had been, Holyrood might be in a stronger position today.
There appears to be a slowly increasing awareness that Holyrood, not WM is the big roadblock to independence, especially under the current leadership. Tony Blair knew what he was doing, back in the day.
Geri says:
3 December, 2022 at 4:32 am
From what I gather Scots law says the Scottish people are Sovereign. This was incorporated into the claim of right 1689 as a guarantee & ratified in both parliament’s as a precondition to the Act of Union. Charlie has just sworn to uphold it.
Supreme court has just trashed it?
First, that isn’t what the Claim of Right is. The Claim of Right is synonymous with sovereignty; 1689 was merely one implementation of the Claim of Right, in other words Scotland’s sovereign rights asserted.
Second, and this is an important watershed; the Supreme Court has ruled that under the Scotland Act, Holyrood cannot legislate on a Constitutional matter reserved to Westminster.
The Scotland Act is the constitution of Holyrood, It is not the Constitution of Scotland.
In the context of my pigmented sovereignty argument, what we have is a white sovereignty Supreme Court ruling that a white sovereignty devolved assembly codified by a white sovereignty Scotland Act written by the white sovereignty of Westminster, cannot exercise it’s own freedom.
Thing is, in the Realm of Scotland, sovereignty isn’t white, it is red. It rests with the Community of the Realm. It is red to denote the flesh and blood of the Scottish people.
We, the people are sovereign in our Nation, NOT the colonial imposter in Holyrood, so the entire exercise with the white Supreme Court was all theatre designed to hoodwink Scots into believing the fabricated lie that Westminster is sovereign when it is not.
The irony is Kafkaesque, because Sturgeon had already conceded her referendum was advisory and non binding, when in realty, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to overrule Scotland’s red sovereignty, so it’s the Supreme Court’s ruling that which isn’t binding over Scotland. It is only binding over Holyrood, and even that assertion is constitutionally unsound, because the Scotland Act itself is a constitutional paradox.
We thus have a pretendy Parliament and an equally pretendy Supreme Court, both set up to pretend Westminster is sovereign over Scotland, when it’s only really sovereign over the Scotland Act it wrote. (Except even that is arguably untrue).
The Supreme Courts ruling is what we commonly describe in Scotland as a “Pig in a Poke.”
White Sovereign rules have no authority in Red Sovereign Scotland. The only purchase white sovereignty secures is NOT SOVEREIGN,, but merely influence over those dullards who do not know the truth and allow themselves to be conned out of their rights.
Yes Luigi, you’re getting it.
Holyrood is a roadblock, but a roadblock on a detour we’ve no need to be taking in the first place.
It is confusing Geri, because the Union was designed to be; it needs a bewildering sophistry maintained to stop people working out the nonsense.
The Union was a con from the outset, and it’s been a con throughout every second, minute, and hour of it’s miserable existence.
That’s why we only have Union TV indoctrinating our people 24 – 7 and neither TV, radio or newspaper actually informing Scotland’s people of the truth.
You get articles like that Holyrood piece I posted above, which quietly denigrates the Claim of Right with a casual abandon which any drooling Unionist would be proud of.
And yes I agree Geri, calling Scottish Sovereignty the Claim of Right is confusing.
It’s just the flowery language of it’s time to make it sound more pompous.
Scotland’s Claim of Right by the Community of the Realm is simply a long winded way to say the Scottish people are sovereign.
The 1689 Claim of Right would be much less confusing if described “In 1689 the Scottish People asserted their Sovereign right….”
Sorry can’t shut up this morning…
Maybe that last statement isn’t quite right, because in 1689, I’m still not sure the Claim of Right was the same thing as our modern concept of sovereignty. It’s more complicated.
I think, in 1689, the focus still wasn’t that the great unwashed were sovereign people, but that the serving Monarch wasn’t .
Our modern concepts Democracy and constitutional Sovereignty were still evolving, although the principles were set.
Yes. Holyrood is WMs child. It was never a reconvening of the Scottish parliament. That was a con to shut up the natives & to appease the European Council.
I’ve often said we need to ditch that & reconvene the real Scottish parliament. That we’d get nowhere in Holyrood because it is deliberately set up to thwart independence & anything good. It’s stuffed full of WM minions whose sole purpose is to fk everything up while spying at the same time. Thier boss is the PM of London, not Sturgeon or any other acting *administrator*
A case of ‘Oh lookie everyone, the Scots are so stupid without us! They can’t even run a wee diddy Micky mouse parish council meeting without fking everything up! Imagine what they’d do if we gave them full control! Best stick with us running the whole shitshow eh! Thank yer lucky stars for us Scotland. You dodged a bullet in 2014 eh?*
Exact same elitist colonial bullshit they pull with other countries ancient & priceless artifacts – only they have the superiority to take care of them – yer not getting them back. You’re too stupid.
It’s not out of a sense of care. It’s cause they’re priceless & so is thier cash cow, Scotland. It keeps paying out like a rigged cash machine.
These early morning chats can be so enlightening lol. No trolls around to sow confusion. I sleep well, maybe too well- I often wake up in the middle of the night thinking of independence.
Did that Skype spat, or whatever it was, have anything to do with Blackford’s resignation?
Breeks above,
I agree with all the points you make. What people cannot seem to see, is beyond Westminster, as though Westminster is Lord god almighty. If Scotland had a vote of some kind for indy that was democratic, then it would declare independence and seek recognition from other countries (not England).
I find it odd, that folk, even within the indy movement, seem to think that with such a vote result, that somehow some kind of ‘permission’ or enactment by Westminster would be needed. It really, really, wouldn’t. When a sovereign country decides on independence, following a democratic decision, it simply makes a declaration of independence. From that second onwards, England/rUK is a different country, and would be treated as such. Of course technical arrangements would need sorted out, but given England has stolen so much of Scotland’s wealth for decades, Scotland would have a very strong hand in negotiations – England would still neeed our oil, electricity and water, but would need to start paying for it.
Of course, in advance of such a change, Westminster, like the wizard of Oz, would (and currently does) present itself as some high and mighty arbiter of such change. Of course they do, it is what England has always done, with every single one of its colonies, with their lords and privvy councils and queen in council and all that claptrap. It is, like L. Frank Baum’s creation, all done with smoke and mirrors.
Colonies were ALL told, they cannot do this or that, and certainly cannot end London rule, without England’s approval. So they just went ahead and did it anyway. They were savvy enough, so why the f*** isn’t Sturgeon.
You do not declare independence, then scuttle away to London to seek ‘approval’. Once done, London, although they will never admit it, would just have to ‘suck it up’. Just like they had to do with the other 52 colonies that told them to get the f*** out of their country.
Sandra at 0651am,
Well, That really is the question. Sadly, I do think the SNP Westminster have all gotten rather attached to their cosy lives, with free flights to London, second houses paid for in London, 5k salary after tax per month, subsidised food and drink. Yip, it’s a cosy club is Westminster. Pet Wishart for example, has spent Twenty years down there doing diddly squat for independence.
Maybe the SNP MP’s have finally located their curiously missing backbone? Who knows.
Geri at 0614am,
I agree with what you say, about ditching Holyrood, and reconvening an actual Scots parliament, that would NOT be under the whims of perfidous albion. However a quicker route to indy, is Sturgeon dissolving her government, forcing an election as a de fact referendum on independence. Assuming a yes majority, then declare independence. Job done.
You just need a clear democratic decision on indy for the WORLD to see. That is why England is currently doing everything in its power to prevent such a vote. THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOSE, AND ARE FEART. England right now is like a jealous abusive partner, who is blocking the door to stop the battered abused partner leaving. They are in all reality, abusive thugs. And Scotland has had enough.
I think, I stress just my opinion tho, that the bullshit they’ve just pulled with the SC needs sorted first for these reasons..
1. It would be deemed unlawful. There is no legitimate exit except through them. You & I know that’s bullshit but at time of typing that’s thier ruling.
2. The ppl need educating on the lies or they’ll just vote naw again. As you say, they think WM is thier god & they’re currently doing acrobats in celebration at the SC ruling. The Dumbo’s haven’t computed it to thier noggin yet that it relates to them as well. D’oh!
3. If a Plebiscite happens & we lose? Aye, no damage done regards parly but the next pro indy administration is fecked until that ruling is confined to the bin where it belongs.
Just my own opinion – it’s subject to change as those who know more than I do on the pros & cons of it…
They are feart. They conducted a survey on what the Scots thought of the Union and obviously didn’t like the result. Refused to release it stating it was no one’s concern & was a matter of national security.
If indyref2 was held they’d have lost so they’ve concocted to remove It altogether.
But now we have the problem of Sturgeon & her perverts charter FFS! No women, the core support of Yes, will vote to end thier rights in the hope they’ll get them back later, like sometime. never.
Neither will staunch no voters.
Sturgeon has to go. That nonsense halted & a credible, acting FM making sweeping changes from the top right down to the fkn tea lady…
International law states that independence is recognised via “a democratic event”. Holyrood elections are democratic events, therefore they are able to be recognised as expressions in favour of the independence of a people by other countries. The principle is very simple.
“ie Holyrood can’t legislate on the Union, and any election must be about what Holyrood can legislate on.”
[squeezes bridge of nose between thumb and index finger]
Where has this batshit idea that elections are legally “about” something come from? If an election is required under the rules (eg because a government’s term has expired, or because there’s no First Minister), you have an election. What it’s about is then up to the parties standing in it, all of whom will have a different opinion on that subject. The Tories might think it’s about cutting taxes. The Greens might think it’s about giving grants to paedophiles. Etc etc.
The only thing an election is LEGALLY about is having an election. Who is it you imagine would be bringing a court case to stop an election happening because it was “about the wrong thing”? Has everyone been eating special fucking mushrooms this week or something?
From the start of Holyrood, WM kept a finger in all the pies so they could thwart us. But they overlooked planning law, hence not able to burden us with new nuclear power. How about using planning law to ban the flying of the butchers apron? Like XR we have to get creative and start making a fuss!
Robert Louis says:
3 December, 2022 at 6:51 am
Breeks above,
…..What people cannot seem to see, is beyond Westminster, as though Westminster is Lord god almighty..
Absolutely.
Way, way, back, when I wrote that stuff about red and white Sovereignty, rather than using pigment to demark the boundaries, I had a half written variation on the script along the lines of “forget about Westminster and England and let’s say in 1998 it was the Romans who invaded Scotland, set up a forum in Holyrood, and told the Scots, Right! That’s your Government, got it?. Ok, to sell it to the clans, we’ll agree to “say” you’re all sovereign, but anybody in the senate who plots rebellion against Rome is for the colosseum”.
It wasn’t a better metaphor than the red and white pigment on the whole, but I thought it better emphasised the “invasive” nature of foreign parliamentary protocols, which is exactly what Westminster protocol is; an invasive Constitution forced upon Scotland from outside, with a Roman forum which the Romans need to govern the place. It wasn’t a thing they built for the Scots.
That’s what Holyrood is. A Roman Forum the Romans need to administer “top down” Roman government.
Scotland doesn’t need it. We’re sovereign and can rule ourselves. Take your Roman forum, and while you’re at it, take your Roman Supreme Court too, and shove them both up your arse.
” Has everyone been eating special fucking mushrooms this week or something? ” . Lol
Washed down with a few pints of opium tincture ? Hence the Burning Bushes .
The bold Scott must be knackered after staggering down from the mount carrying those tablets of stone ; wherein it’s etched ….
THOU CANNAE DAE THAT , IT’S AGAINST THE LAW .
Fortunately , Laws are not of divine origin , but man – made ; n what is made by man can be unmade by man . To state the ‘kin obvious . And if they can’t be unmade , they can be bypassed/ignored .
If no laws were ever changed , ignored or bypassed we’d still be living in Feudal conditions
The sturgeon has never had any intention of leading Scotland to independence, it was never her intention. But would we really want her to handle the complicated logistics of separation getting the best deal for Scotland when she hasn`t the commitment and certainly not the brains, she is not a bright woman.
@Rev Stu 8.39 am
This kind of guff has been going on for months though. The unlamented (hopefully?) late BTL poster “Scott” was only the most visible, voluble and vituperative of the advocates of “cunning plans for indy”. The plans might come in lots of variety, but they all share certain common characteristics:
– they come largely from amateurs who have done a bit (or lots) of reading and searching on-line;
– they have absolutely no peer reviewed evidence, or any academic or subject matter expert evidence, or journal articles or papers from e.g. experts in constitutional law, public policy or international law, that their hobby horse cunning plan has any validity, intellectual coherence or applicability to the case for Scottish self determination;
– virtually all of them will insist that anyone who disagrees with them is a closet unionist, a Sturgeonite stooge or is “colonised”.
Why most of them seem to have taken agin’ plebiscitary elections I’m not quite sure?
Despite the many protestations of “I’m no expert, BUT…” there are an awful lot of idees fixes on show BTL here.
I have a prediction to make.
All the novel, fanciful and desperate ideas to-
1) Obtain a referendum
2) Gain Independence by some ‘cunning’ route
will fail miserably, having never even got off the ground.
The ‘discussions’ around 1) and 2) however will give the BPHB hours of endless fun arguing the pros and cons. There is also the added bonus of the 300 year old stuff to add into the argumentative mix.
It would be helpful to the Independence cause if those unseen exhibits in the Museum of the Missing ie SNP politicians in Holyrood and Westminster would actually do something positive for once. Actually there now appears to be some green shoots of activity within their ranks. We shall see.
Angus MacNeil, Joanna cherry and Douglas Chapman have all challenged Nicola sturgeon in the past, to look for alternative routes to independence and Joanna cherry at least has challenged her on GRR act. It’s so frustrating that the other MPs don’t work with these 3 as this would create a powerful political force against Nicola sturgeon and the rest of the leadership
Robert Louis @ 6:51 am
“Colonies were ALL told, they cannot do this or that, and certainly cannot end London rule, without England’s approval.”
The role of the colonizer, according to Albert Memmi, is to make any prospect of independence seem impossible, much as we see. The colonized must ignore this and remember only that “colonization is, above all, economic and political exploitation”.
Upon independence nothing of the colonizer is any longer appropriate for the former colonized people, including his colonial assemblies, his imperial statues, or his language.
@Chas
Indeed. It strikes me that if half the effort being expended by the BPHB, cunning plan advocates and Scotland-as-colony Patent Snake Oil salespeople was expended on (say) securing the earliest possible plebiscitary elections, or changing the SNP, or campaigning for Alba, we’d be a lot closer to independence than we are.
I know you see some folk getting awfy excited about Salvo and Conventions of the Estates. Discussing the minutiae of constitutional politics and pirouetting ever more frantically on the head of Brigadoonesque fanatasies and magical thinking about storming the gates of Holyrood doesn’t seem to be resonating much with the man on the Clackmannan omnibus does it?
Andy Ellis @ 9:42 am
“they have absolutely no peer reviewed evidence, or any academic or subject matter expert evidence, or journal articles”
There are actually very few peer-reviewed academic works which get anywhere close to explaining the nitty gritty or brutal reality of Scottish independence. This is usually because of the failings of a too faur gaun culturally assimilated bourgeoisie intellectual class who are unable to see the wood for the trees. In addition, anti-colonial literature tends not to be welcome during the period of colonisation – though is usually revered after independence:
link to cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com
@Colin McKenna
Imagine what might have been if Cherry, Chapman, MacNeil and a few others had defected to Alba when it might actually have made a difference? I think folk will look back on that point and see it as a huge missed opportunity for the movement.
Although I have a lot of time for Cherry and MacNeil (…not so sure about Chapman?) I think they’ve done themselves and the movement a huge disservice by not biting the bullet and helping to politically defenestrate Sturgeon and her acolytes.
When the British Empire started falling apart in the early 20th century they resorted to arguments along the sort of lines Scott makes above; you can’t have independence because it’s the law…”
When people resisted the first thing the colonial governor did was apply for London’s approval to use force which came in the form of a special legal order such as “The Riot Act” or a “Declaration of Martial Law”.
It was delusional then to think you could paste over the contradictions and cracks of ‘liberal imperialism’ with such scraps of paper, and it’s delusional today; a feeble and desperate attempt to make fleecing and plundering respectable.
It failed back then for the same reason it fails today: there is no higher authority than the people of a country.
If the Claim of Right is in any way relevant to this debate, it is because it confirms the inalienable right of the people to ignore the Claim of Right. And that’s not a contradiction.
@Alf Baird
Sorry Alf, I’m still not buying the “Scotland as colony” snake oil, and I reckon it only appeals to a small minority of Scots. Worse still those it does appeal to are already convinced supporters: to most undecideds it just sounds barking.
The idea that there is no SME within Scotland capable of doing this because they’re too “doon hauden”, or that there aren’t many experts abroad who could do it in their absence, seems outlandish to me.
Being a meme generator for Memmi and other post colonial theorists doesn’t really help your case when its foundations are built on sand in any case.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
3 December, 2022 at 8:39 am
Has everyone been eating special fucking mushrooms this week or something?
Nope, it’s you getting a taste of what the rest of us have been having to put up with for months on end and you’ve allowed them to become so emboldened they did it in turn to you, having zero fear you will ever ban them.
In the words of John McClane, “Welcome to the party, pal!”
Andy Ellis says:
3 December, 2022 at 10:15 am
@Colin McKenna
Imagine what might have been if Cherry, Chapman, MacNeil and a few others had defected to Alba when it might actually have made a difference? I think folk will look back on that point and see it as a huge missed opportunity for the movement.
Although I have a lot of time for Cherry and MacNeil (…not so sure about Chapman?) I think they’ve done themselves and the movement a huge disservice by not biting the bullet and helping to politically defenestrate Sturgeon and her acolytes.
They didn’t do it for the same reason “Chicken George” Robertson never joined the Social Democractic Party back in 1981 despite backing everything it stood for – the terror of losing their safe seat the second they lost the all important brand label which guaranteed it. Once they’re in the cosy Westminster club, they don’t ever want to leave.
Everyone can wax lyrical about Joanna Cherry as much as they like, but when push came to shove she put her purse strings before her principles. The rest of them like MacNeil came as no surprise.
The SNP leadership replaced Labour as colonial administrators for the Imperial UK Crown. To maintain this, the SNP leadership must maintain the balance of the colonial administrator / Imperial Master relationship.
The indy carrots must be dangled when needed but the donkeys can never be allowed the sweet taste of independence.
Over 700 years ago, King John Balliol swore to be the servant of King Edward I of England (which the English Crown regarded as placing all of Scotland’s people under Edward’s control).
The UK is still very much based on the feudal England of Edward I as amended by the English Civil War; it’s not just ancient history.
The first act of Scottish MPs and MSPs, apart from seeking payment, is to play the role of Balliol in swearing allegiance to the English Crown as their feudal overlord. Like Balliol: Sturgeon, Blackford and Salmond recently were at the front of the queue of Royalist sycophants to swear their allegiance to King Charles as their overlord and sovereign.
Sturgeon has repeatedly emphasised that independence must be done legally; she is expressing that the SNP -as colonial administrators – fully accept and defend England’s “Crown in Parliament” constitution.
Hatuey @ 10:16 am
“When people resisted the first thing the colonial governor did was apply for London’s approval to use force”
Postcolonial theory has much to say on the matter of ‘force’. For example, Frantz Fanon said that “decolonization is the meeting of two forces, opposed to each other by their very nature”. Professor Edward Said describes colonialism simply as “geographic violence”. And here Aime Cesaire reminds us that “a nation which colonizes, that a nation which justifies colonization – and therefore force – is already a sick civilization, a civilization which is morally diseased”.
Mark Boyle @ 10.30
” Everyone can wax lyrical about Joanna Cherry as much as they like, but when push came to shove she put her purse strings before her principles. The rest of them like MacNeil came as no surprise.”
Aye , that’s the * conclusion * ( it’s not set in stone ) I’ve arrived at re J Cherry .
My partner – like others – thinks she may be playing a long game ; possibly in anticipation of some Post-Sturgeon elevation – if not to FM , then a more prominent position .
I’m not convinced this is the case , but even if it is – this still entails putting her own interests above those of * Independence * per se . The cause of which is in great peril , the chances of which are being eroded by the hopelessness of Nu SNP and the – recently emboldened ( SC ruling ) Brit State’s increasing intrusions into Scottish Affairs .
Her undoubted skills are urgently required in the defence of Scotland , not squandered in participation in yet more WM Committees and/or personal ambitions
Andy Ellis says:
2 December, 2022 at 5:32 pm
impostor syndrome (noun)
the persistent inability to believe that one’s success is deserved or has been legitimately achieved as a result of one’s own efforts or skills.
Imposter Syndrome is only a syndrome if you are not an imposter!
Does that not apply to everyone posting on here?
I tend to skip over all the arguments about the constitution because I haven’t a clue who has got their facts right.
The only way I could tell who I might believe is by doing a bit (probably lots) of reading & searching on-line.
I am not prepared to do that so I just more or less ignore everyone.
Word reaches us, readers, that Nicola Sturgeon was “furious” when she joined the most recent meeting of the SNP’s Westminster group by Skype. Her rage was driven by the suggestion that the party should trigger a Holyrood election to act as a de facto independence referendum, a policy we’re reliably told is supported by a number of MPs who are too scared of being browbeaten by Sturgeon in front of their colleagues to actually speak out in favour of it.
I was going to make my life simple by saying anyone who is a member of the SNP can’t be a good guy that includes Joanna Cherry & Angus MacNeil but then I read the first paragraph of this article and wonder who it was who gave Stu this information.
Perhaps there is good reason for the good guys to stay in the SNP.
Is Scotland a colony or not?
It certainly seems like it.
Is there any reason why someone can’t ask the UN?
The UN have Gibraltar listed as a colony but the UK objects to this.
Is it the coloniser who decides if you are or are not a colony?
People in glass houses………….
Can you define what you mean by ‘the rest of us’?
It’s so cowardly. Even if you lose, you often win – see the indyref for example. Some would say it was crazy to go for it with indy at 25%. But it was that campaign which normalised independence and shifted it to 50%. Sinn Fein battled away on constant losses against the Redmonites until finally Ireland realised the Redmonites were never going to deliver and shifted wholesale to Sinn Fein.
The only way you can be guaranteed never to win or succeed is if you never even bloody try.
What is resonating with the man on the Clackmannan omnibus?
“This kind of guff has been going on for months though. “
“Nope, it’s you getting a taste of what the rest of us have been having to put up with for months on end and you’ve allowed them to become so emboldened they did it in turn to you, having zero fear you will ever ban them.”
Comments were not monitored when Wings was retired. If there was unacceptable behaviour going on in them, IT WAS UP TO YOU TO TELL ME ABOUT IT. That’s what the Contact form is for.
“The only way you can be guaranteed never to win or succeed is if you never even bloody try.”
Exactly.
If it is the case that being registered as a colony by the UN guarantees a legal and binding referendum then why would you be so opposed to Scotland being named a colony.
If Gibraltar is a colony then why wouldn’t Scotland be?
Anyone got any info re Gibraltar’s franchise. Are Spaniards (new Gibraltarians) allowed to vote?
I know that when Spaniards visit Gibraltar they take a stone with when they leave. They are hoping to move Gibraltar to Spain stone by stone.
Can we tell you about them now? :-). Can complaints be backdated?
Only kiddin’
The folk complaining about unacceptable behaviour weren’t exactly well behaved themselves.
A Mike Russell quote from the link below. Interesting to see that he is using the much-dreaded (by some btl commenters) ‘C-word’.
” There has been much debate about the use of colonial comparisons since the Supreme Court judgment. The usual Unionist commentariat desperately ridicules such language, asserting that the people of Scotland are not oppressed, that democracy is not being denied and that any view to the contrary is self-indulgent posturing for political purposes.
Scotland certainly does not meet the classic definition of a colony but the way the Westminster government and Parliament behaves towards Scotland now has strong parallels with the approach taken during the last years of the colonial era.
Accepting the principle that independence can be chosen if a nation so wishes, but ensuring that those in charge should be, and should always remain, the sole arbiter and gatekeeper of the process is straight out of the colonial playbook. “
link to 12ft.io
Colin McKenna says:
3 December, 2022 at 9:55 am
Angus MacNeil, Joanna cherry and Douglas Chapman have all challenged Nicola sturgeon in the past, to look for alternative routes to independence and Joanna cherry at least has challenged her on GRR act. It’s so frustrating that the other MPs don’t work with these 3 as this would create a powerful political force against Nicola sturgeon and the rest of the leadership…
What happens next to these three individuals is pivotal to what happens to the SNP, and whether it can be resurrected as a force acting for Independence rather than a hindrance acting against it.
Of the three however, I think it is Cherry who has the greater capacity to put the fear of God into the opposition; whether that’s Tory Opposition or SNP Opposition.
Cherry in command at Westminster, and the Westminster SNP Front Bench standing in resolute defence of the Claim of Right and SALVO’s approaches to the UN, and Scotland is back on the right road to Independence and actually well advance towards securing it.
If however Blackford is replaced by another Sturgeonite who starts waffling about a Referendum that can’t be denied, then the only representation Scotland has at Westminster is Kenny MacAskill and Neale Hanvey.
“IF” the planets line up and Cherry does become Westminster Leader, I think we’ll finally see the back of Sturgeon. Sturgeons own feckless stupidity and constitutional illiteracy has seen Holyrood downgraded to the status of a Parish Council with nothing to say on the matter of the Scottish Constitution, and she’s nobody to blame but herself. Brilliant, well not brilliant, but an expedient way to make Sturgeon’s importance peripheral. We should seize on that as a gift from the Gods.
I’m old enough to remember a 60s entertainer called Danny La Rue. His act consisted of an over-the-top portrayal of a woman. He appeared on mainstream variety shows on ‘normal’ TV, not on children’s programmes.
We all knew he was really a man – he even appeared on chat shows in ‘civvies’.
Nobody ever referred to him as “she” because he was a man. I don’t believe he ever complained about the use of the “He” pronoun.
He was what is now known as a ‘drag queen’.
drag queen
noun informal
a man who ostentatiously dresses up in women’s clothes.
from Wikipedia…
A drag queen is a person, usually male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes.
That’s why the story linked to below is disturbing. A drag queen was to present a children’s storytime event. Why a drag queen? Why not a normally dressed man or woman?
The National goes against the understanding of most of us as to what a drag queen was/is by referring to the drag queen as “She” in the story.
” DCA: “We are very sorry to say that today’s Drag Queen Storytime event was unable to go ahead because of the hateful and intimidatory behaviour of a small number of people online, which led to the performer feeling unsafe.
“We are appalled that she and members of our team have received abusive and threatening messages this week, and have reported this behaviour to the police. “
link to 12ft.io
Laughing at someone like Danny La Rue in our ‘modern’ society is transphobic.
Any media like Tootsie and Mrs Doubtfire that leans into laughing at the “man in a dress” trope is fundamentally flawed and transphobic
Mrs. Doubtfire is coming to the West End’s Shaftesbury Theatre from 12 May 2023.
Look out for protests from the ‘Pampers Brigade’
Are you confused?
Just remember ‘no laughing at a man in a dress’
🙂 Testing to see if the smiley are working.
@Brian Doonthetoon
This has been going on for some time now – many of us have been warning about it.
The national and all the other papers go along with this pronoun fallacy, the instigators of this dangerous ideology captured the press watchdog early on even the Mail and Express use the wrong pronouns.
Maybe ‘Miss Peaches’ was a ‘man in a dress’ and the hateful comments came from the transgender community.
Anyone got any helpful hints on how to stop yourself from laughing?
link to tinyurl.com
Is Miss Izzard’s comedy career over?
The odd position of Scotland in the world is already recognised at high levels –
in case anyone has never seen the formal definition – “give it a name”
link to en.wikipedia.org
The term was coined in 1983 by political scientist Jacques Leruez in his book L’Écosse, une nation sans État about the PECULIAR POSITION of Scotland within the British state. It was later adopted and popularized by Scottish scholars such as David McCrone, Michael Keating and T. M. Devine.[8]
– and we are “fourth world”, which was a new one to me.
Of course INDY IS QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD IF YOU INTEND TO DO IT; tell voters your intent, win an election, declare it, get recognised (*)
But if yer “no really intae it” any number of obstacles and baroque necessities can be conjured.
@ Ruby
” Anyone got any helpful hints on how to stop yourself from laughing? ”
Naw , * sorry * . It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at that snap of E Izzard . He looks utterly ridiculous .
Are his * moobs * identifying as mammary glands ?
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
3 December, 2022 at 12:17 pm
“This kind of guff has been going on for months though. “
“Nope, it’s you getting a taste of what the rest of us have been having to put up with for months on end and you’ve allowed them to become so emboldened they did it in turn to you, having zero fear you will ever ban them.”
Comments were not monitored when Wings was retired. If there was unacceptable behaviour going on in them, IT WAS UP TO YOU TO TELL ME ABOUT IT. That’s what the Contact form is for.
I for one told you till I was blue in the face via the Comments form. Was roundly ignored. Ergo, gave up. Cause and effect.
You’ve let things get to this stage from your own volition: and don’t even start the whole “Schrödinger’s Retirement” line – like a certain columnist at The Herald, it doesn’t wash.
You knew damn well what was going on: you made the occasional Neville Chamberlain threats about “having had enough of this shit”: but every time you had your bluff called by the usual suspects before the hour was up … surprise surprise Cilla all hell kept breaking loose.
FFS, you can’t even be bothered to put a stop to Gregor’s antics of using your website as a free advertisement board for all manner of sinister conspiracy theory websites it was flagged up yesterday on The Snake That Ate It’s Own Tail page by both myself and Stoker. Which he’s still doing, to no one’s surprise.
Stop passing the buck for not caring a flying f**k, then being surprised “Scott” and his multiple alias gave you grief last night. Having been an online admin for longer than I care to remember, what happened was all too predictable.
(And no, I am most certainly not putting myself forward for admin duties, I’ve more than enough more productive things to do with my time outside the confines of WoS, thanks.)
It’s your website, ergo your responsibility to get your house in order – no one else’s. Otherwise your excellent posts on the trough squad north and south of the border will count for nothing when people glance below the lines at what looks all too often like an Irvine Welsh fanfiction page. Stop making life easy for your detractors.
Andy Ellis says on 3 December 2022 at 9:42 am:
“Why most of them seem to have taken agin’ plebiscitary elections I’m not quite sure?”
Simple, really! A combination of factors. They don’t like you and i believe some of them are Sturgeonistas pretending not to be. Then you have ones like Scott who simply passionately believe in something you don’t. But that group are thin on the ground on here. They’re usually to be found holding Court in pubs up and down the land with nobody like Rev to challenge them and their message. They don’t normally frequent sites like this.
I for one am sorry to see Scott go because he was one of the more interesting contributors on here. And although i’ve always been a supporter of plebiscitary elections, his recent contributions had me interested in what he had to say and as far as his points were concerned i was very much in the ‘Ruby’ camp, ie; clueless, until Rev called him out on evidence he wasn’t supplying. Shame that interaction ended the way it did but there can be no complaints if one’s just going to revert to personal abuse.
Which brings me to my other point. You state:
“Indeed. It strikes me that if half the effort being expended by the BPHB, cunning plan advocates and Scotland-as-colony Patent Snake Oil salespeople was expended on (say) securing the earliest possible plebiscitary elections, or changing the SNP, or campaigning for Alba, we’d be a lot closer to independence than we are.”
“I know you see some folk getting awfy excited about Salvo and Conventions of the Estates. Discussing the minutiae of constitutional politics and pirouetting ever more frantically on the head of Brigadoonesque fanatasies and magical thinking about storming the gates of Holyrood doesn’t seem to be resonating much with the man on the Clackmannan omnibus does it?”
100% accurate point! But tell me, Ellis, just exactly how many converts on here are you expecting to achieve with your constant passive-aggressive personal abuse of anyone with a differing view of yours? And if you’re not interested in converting anyone on here to the plebiscitary route then why is it such a big deal to you what others want to dedicate their time to? And all while wasting your own talent.
As i’ve repeatedly said, it’s important to have more than one iron in the fire but you cannot keep repeatedly insulting those you wish to bring on board and at the same time question why nobody is listening. What you’re doing is creating more division at ground level, and a serious dislike of you and anything you’ve got to say. Maybe try focussing more on repeating the message, as you have done before, that, by all means support Salvo etc, but if Yous want a quicker route to indy, then also fight for the plebiscitary route.
Maybe that way we accelerate the support for real plebiscitary action. Or it could well be you’re too far gone and are seen as an arrogant tosser on here? Either way you are talking about a handful, at most, of folk who post that have a serious problem with you. The bulk of the readership, 99% if i recall correctly, never contribute btl. Or it’s only 1% regularly contribute?
My point is, play to the gallery (some would say that’s exactly what you’re already doing) but not in your usual smart-arse arrogant insulting manner or you can forever keep wondering why you’re getting nowhere with your message. And folk will continue just to do what they know winds you up, whether they truly believe in plebiscites or not. And just to bolster my point, there are 1 or 2 on here who now appear to be against the plebiscitary route who i am sure supported it not that long ago. Can you tell me why that is? I’m not convinced they suddenly stopped supporting plebiscites, they’re winding you up because of your relentless insults of them and anything they contribute.
And if on here btl is to be taken as any kind of measure, re support for plebiscites, then f@ck knows what kind of damage is being done among the gallery. As usual, you can take or leave anything i’ve said but don’t say nobody told you. Stop coming across as an obnoxiously arrogant know-it-all brown-noser (and that’s coming from someone who has nothing against You or Stuart). Learn to read the room, Ellis. For one so talented your delivery leaves a lot to be desired. And from one so intelligent? Well, that triggers my suspicions.
Still hoping to get on to the emailing list Rev. Sad I must have been removed.
“Still hoping to get on to the emailing list Rev. Sad I must have been removed.”
Nobody has been removed. WordPress is horribly broken and there’s nothing I can do about it.
Brian Doonthetoon @ 12:49 pm
“A Mike Russell quote from the link below. Interesting to see that he is using the much-dreaded (by some btl commenters) ‘C-word’.”
Looks as if the decolonization penny may have finally dropped for the SNP elite, having nowhere to run after the predicted UKSC outcome. Still, all those wasted trips to the oppressor’s lair in Whitehall when all that was needed was to knock on the door of the UN Decolonization Committee (C-24), or the even more rapid and lawful road to independence – withdrawal of all SNP MP’s from Westminster.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
In Scott’s case it might have been prescription drugs. I believe the man suffers from multiple sclerosis.
I’ve never had special fucking mushroom this week or ever. I’ve had portobella, shiitake, oyster, button & Heinz cream of mushroom soup. Out of all of them the soup is my favourite but normally I prefer Cream of Chicken.
I noticed in the past few weeks Scott has been pretty bad tempered & abusive. Prior to that he was fine & very witty. I did ask if he had developed Ellisitis. 🙂
Of course like me he did call Ellis a cunt so he wasn’t popular with the the non BPHB.
What did Gregor do?
Karen 8:46
Even better. Stop planning permission until Scotland is a Independent country.
We’re currently building windmills, & ruining our landscape for only the plunderers benefit.
We’re giving them houses too.
Has Scott been booted? That’s a bit ott is it not? I bet that’ll be right up Andy’s street. The BTL fkn pub bore & sickening teachers creep.
@Rev Stu
Comments were not monitored when Wings was retired. If there was unacceptable behaviour going on in them, IT WAS UP TO YOU TO TELL ME ABOUT IT. That’s what the Contact form is for.
To echo Mark’s point above I sent a number of complaints via the contact form to absolutely no avail, particularly in relations to the creepy as fuck behaviour of he-who-shall-not-be-named stalking not only me but my (for reasons known only to himself) my daughter.
Unsurprisingly the usual suspects in here never gave a flying fuck about that, despite some of them going on about women’s rights and protecting their rights. The same thing happened WRT to Ruby after you very publicly admonished her and me in your best exasperated parent mode that we’d BOTH be banned if we referred to each other again. Despite me scrupulously abiding by your injunction, it took all of 12 hours for Ruby not only to break your rule, but publicly bait you for not banning her.
Again unsurprisingly, allowing individual posters to repetitively cunt-call people tends to provoke a response. Don’t give me that “just ignore” it shite either. It’s hardly surprising that following the example of barely verbal know nothings like Ruby, you now have anti-English racists like Rab Davis peppering virtually every one of his posts with abuse of those he doesn’t like and comments about the English that would get him instantly banned virtually anywhere else.
Maybe some of the complaint emails went astray. Maybe there is an excuse when the site wasn’t being monitored. But now? Not so much.
Alf Baird.
They colony deniers are institutionalised.
I’m peeing my pants laughing!
link to youtube.com
Poor Stuart! I think I might increase my subscription.
Lets see if we can convince Stu to give Scott another chance.
Ruby @ 3.21
“I got all excited when I read that.”
Yes, its quite a day when the President of the National Party finally realises that independence is decolonization. Maybe one day soon the leader will also figure it oot.
Stu’s comment has revealed the Gestapo LOLz!
@Stoker 2.44 pm
100% accurate point! But tell me, Ellis, just exactly how many converts on here are you expecting to achieve with your constant passive-aggressive personal abuse of anyone with a differing view of yours?
So you think I’m absolutely right, but don’t like me because you have a personal animus about me calling people nativists or conspiracy theorists, and because I bite back when folk constantly cunt-call me or indulge in stalker-ish behaviour, or simply pepper their responses with allegations that I’m “English Ellis” or must be a secret yoon, or Sturgeonite, or MI5 operative?
An interesting take. I don’t expect to convert the pieces of work indulging in that sort of behaviour. For good or ill most of them are already independence supporters. As I argued on a number of occasions, the quality of the debate and the nature of the responses of the usual suspects to being called out, was a far more problematic issue, and far more likely to scare the undecided voters away than me ridiculing their regressive nativism, covidiocy and/or support for Uncle Vald and his nice bunch of lads.
I wouldn’t accept your analysis or your assertion that the message isn’t getting across. How would you know? There are obviously a hard core of folk in here who agree with the likes of Ruby, Republic of Scotland, “Scott”, Ian Brotherhood, Alf Baird, Breeks and yourself. Good for them. There are also others who agree with me. who represents the wider readership, or more of the movement as a whole is open for debate.
If you honestly think the kind of fringe views espoused by some of the folk in here will appeal to more of the voters we need to convert to Yes, than mainstream views like mine, I have bridges and magic beans you’ll definitely be interested in.
I have read the room. I don’t accept that a trimmer like you represents it, any more than I accept that some of the low lives I’ve crossed swords with in the past represent the room, still less the movement as a whole. Try raising your eyes above what is just before your feet and you might have a better grip on reality.
What suspicions is it that are being triggered Stoker and why? Are you just going to come out with the old saw: “Hmmnn..I don’t think you’re a real independence supporter at all”? Is that really it? Stun us with another.
Take your faux “Oh, I have nothing against you personally, I just think you’re an obnoxiously arrogant know-it-all brown-noser” and stick it OK? Unlike some of those you and others in here are all to happy to actively egg on or passively support I won’t cunt call you, or claim that you’re secretly working for the other side.
If the past few months of un-moderated BTL posts have shown anything it is that with some of those on our own side, we have no need of enemies.
Yes Stu – please reconsider.
Andy – remember the correspondence market “Latest Jackie Baillie pish”? I suspect Stu has a similar file. LOL!
@Briandoonthetoon
The apposite part of the piece from the National is surely this:
Scotland certainly does not meet the classic definition of a colony but the way the Westminster government and Parliament behaves towards Scotland now has strong parallels with the approach taken during the last years of the colonial era.
Despite the valiant efforts of the “Scotland as colony” narrative, the fact that a now semi-detached and largely discredited SNP grandee has seen fit to band the “C word” around, isn’t the bright new dawn many have so ardently hoped for.
Behaviour…..having stong parallels with…. is not the same as actually being a colony, however desperately Alf Baird and others wish it were so.
There’s a huge difference between the crass behaviour of Westminster politicians towards the SNP contingent in the HoC, or the (largely unsurprising) recent decision of the UKSC on Holyrood holding a referendum without consent, and actually believing that Scotland is a colony in the same sense the former Imperial possessions of the UK were.
Indeed I would go so far as to say that those making the false equivalence are as wrong headed in this respect as those people in the past who equated the position of chattel slaves in the USA and South America with poor workers in the mills and factories of the UK and Europe, or with those who now claim that TWA(literally)W.
Making rhetorical use of our position being pseudo-colonial, or hyperbolising that our status has parallels with colonialism is one thing: appropriating the suffering endured by actual colonies to make a political point is quite another.
Perhaps when the UN has accepted our status and added Scotland to the list of non-self governing territories more people will be open to the argument?
What part of plunder don’t you grasp?
Nothing of Scotland belongs to Scotland.
@Geri 5.00 pm
As Confused said upthread @ 1.44 pm
Of course INDY IS QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD IF YOU INTEND TO DO IT; tell voters your intent, win an election, declare it, get recognised (*)
But if yer “no really intae it” any number of obstacles and baroque necessities can be conjured.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Be less baroque.
We’re not puir wee natives.
This isn’t the 19th century.
Compared to most other peoples throughout history and anywhere in the world seeking to exercise their self determination we have the easiest ride in history.
Andy Ellis
What is the classic definition of a colony?
Is brown skin a requirement?
Do you have to apply to the UN for colonial status?
Could something say like the SC ruling mean Scotland’s colonial status only became obvious to the UN on 23rd Nov 2022?
I don’t know the answer to these question do you?
What are puir wee natives?
Hi Andy Ellis.
Here are two sentences:
1. Scotland is a colony.
2. Scotland is being treated by the UK establishment as if it were a colony.
They do not mean the same and should not be conflated. 2 is a perfectly valid opinion for anyone to hold. If you, personally do not agree with 2, then state your case.
@BDTT (6.36) –
Nicely put.
Unfortunately, you won’t get a civilised response.
Ellis uses the issue as cover for the same old personal abuse we’ve become accustomed to.
He deploys ‘nativist’ as a synonym for ‘racist’, ‘xenophobe’ and/or ‘bigot’. If he used any of the latter then his intention would become too obvious and he’d run the risk of being hoofed.
Reading all the comments as a Unionist I see the problem independence supporters have. Ms Sturgeon said 4/5 years ago a majority of 60% of Scots voting yes would be required to win an independence referendum due to slippage to NO during the referendum. The SNP know if they lose another referendum they would no longer have any reason to exist and like Quebec the independence debate would be dead after a second defeat. If independence ever happens the current YES voters need to convince about 10% of NO voters to change to YES and the current SNP government performance is not helping you.
@Brian Doonthetoon
That’s an odd circumlocution. People are entitled to their opinions, whether those listening to them find them valid or not. I don’t believe it’s valid to say Scotland is a colony. I’d certainly agree that Scotland and the interests of her people are being held in contempt by the British nationalist establishment and indeed by many Scottish unionists.
Whether that represents being treated as if it is a colony, or simply that the treatment has some parallels with the high handed way an imperial power would deal with a colony is more open to question.
There is of course a place for using hyperbole as a rhetorical device even if the person using it doesn’t actually believe in the literal truth of the comparison. That’s pretty different from actually accepting that Scotland today is an actual colony, or as good as one, in the way that British colonies were in the heyday of Empire.
I don’t know if Irvine Welsh meant Rankin’s words in Trainspotting to be taken literally or if it was meant as an acceptable piece of exaggeration when he wrote:
Fuckin failures in a country of failures. Its nae good blamin it oan the English fir colonising us. Ah don’t hate the English. They’re just wankers. We are colonised by wankers. We can’t even pick a decent, vibrant healthy society to be colonised by. No..we are ruled by effete arseholes. What does that make us?
@Brotherhood
Unfortunately, you won’t get a civilised response.
So much for your powers of prediction, huh?
Ellis uses the issue as cover for the same old personal abuse we’ve become accustomed to.
If I’ve stooped to the same level as some in here on occasion it’s been in response to their abuse. If you can’t see the difference between (just to take a random example you understand) Ruby cunt-calling me with tiresome regularity and me correctly calling someone a nativist when they promote franchise restriction, that’s your problem not mine.
He deploys ‘nativist’ as a synonym for ‘racist’, ‘xenophobe’ and/or ‘bigot’. If he used any of the latter then his intention would become too obvious and he’d run the risk of being hoofed.
Some of those promoting nativism undoubtedly ARE those things though. Doubtless not all of them, but for sure some of them. “Scott” openly advocated denying anyone not born in Scotland the vote. That’s the very definition of blood and soil nationalism. I never once heard you or any of the usual suspects call him out for his xenophobia and bigotry.
Similarly Rab Davis has been peppering his inputs on here for days with comments about hating the English in terms that undoubtedly would have gotten him hoofed from most sites. However not only is he tolerated here, once again I’ve never seen any of the usual suspects who have aneurisms about being described as nativists disown his posts or take issue with his racism.
Come down off your high horse Iain, you don’t have the seat for it.
Brian Doonthetoon says: 3 December, 2022 at 6:36 pm
Here are two sentences:
1. Scotland is a colony.
2. Scotland is being treated by the UK establishment as if it were a colony.
They do not mean the same and should not be conflated.
Agree entirely. The problem is, as I’m sure you’ll agree, that it is too easy – from the more “emotive” elements of nationalism to the lazy cadre of what passes for journalism in this country – for the second statement to be “rationalised” into the first; with all the dangers inherent.
It’s a matter everyone from George Orwell, Noam Chomsky and Enoch Powell all touched upon over the decades, albeit they were doing nothing more in contemporary times what Socrates had ranted about in ancient Greece.
It does hold a particular resonance in 21st century Britain, where the spectre of New Labour and all its Newspeak and Doublethink still cast a shadow, especially in the antics of the Orville the duck lookalike in Holyrood. The population isn’t cured of that madness yet, where reality – let alone words – are twisted to the user’s convenience without shame or censure resultant.
We are, after all, living in an age where the inhabitants have become so devoid of basic reasoning processes by “Mandelsonization”, we behold daily the spectacle of the so-called “left” using science to prove climate change is a reality, then dismisses that same scientific reality over transgenderism – and the so-called “right” do the vice-versa!
And of course, the “treated as a colony” argument is both nothing new and in the messy saga of the British Isles nothing unique.
For example, back in the days of the old Regional Councils, Strathclyde drew heavy criticism as the Labour junta in charge frequently treated much of it as milch cows to improve Glasgow’s lot at the expense of the rest. The argument at the time was as so many were dependent for their work and services on Glasgow, it deserves more than its fair share of the largesse – an ironic carbon copy of the “London first” dictum often heard from Westminster. Plus ça change …
Are these difficult questions?
What is the classic definition of a colony?
Is brown skin a requirement?
Do you have to apply to the UN for colonial status?
Could something say like the SC ruling mean Scotland’s colonial status only became obvious to the UN on 23rd Nov 2022?
HI Andy Ellis.
You typed,
“That’s an odd circumlocution. People are entitled to their opinions, whether those listening to them find them valid or not. I don’t believe it’s valid to say Scotland is a colony. I’d certainly agree that Scotland and the interests of her people are being held in contempt by the British nationalist establishment and indeed by many Scottish unionists.
Whether that represents being treated as if it is a colony, or simply that the treatment has some parallels with the high handed way an imperial power would deal with a colony is more open to question.”
So, you are agreeing that Scotland is treated as a colony?
Pin your badge to the wall, why don’tcha?
Why argue over loose change when the whole cash cow is yours to begin with?
@Brian Doonthetoon
What do you need….a diagram?
Or shall I get the the toy farm animals out for a Father Ted style “Small…..Far away” discussion?
The reason WM says we can or not do something is because we allow it.
Once again, the ToU is voluntary. We can withdraw any time want, and no amount of political handwringing, and bluffing “legalities” can change that.
A FM worth his or her salt should have said, when the sham brexit ref took place was: “Nope, this is fucked, and corrupt, we’re leaving.”
1. We have a Holyrood election. Parties state their manifesto.
2. The election is held, and an indy manifestoed party is elected to govern.
3. We turn up at the doors of the UN, with a crate of Scotch, and a document that says “an indy party won”, and we declare our independence.
If most every nation on the planet says they recognize our independence, then we’re good, but that’s the nice outcome. If a few recognize us, then we’re still recognized, and if it’s the EU, and a few others, of which England ISN’T one, then we’re good. We’ll be able to do all sorts of stuff FOR OURSELVES, without the neighbours being involved. (whether they want to be or not.)
Most importantly of all, we conduct ourselves, for ourselves. WE don’t have to consult the colonialists, the CLaim of Right, and the ToU tell us that.
What we lacked at brexit time, and a couple of events after that is political courage, something Sturgeon and her cult are short of, for their own benefit. Because our independence isn’t decided in the courts, no matter what the english establishment want us to think, it’s decided at the ballot box, by the people.
The ToU is a political document, and should be viewed as such, and we should make any decisions based on that premise.
Have you thought about going for therapy?
I’ll pay. I really didn’t think that calling you a cunt would end up with you being a broken man.
You’ve called me loads of names ie scheemie, foul mouthed harridan with tourettes, know nothing, pork (as in you cant educated pork) uneducated, illiterate, pubes, menopausal maggie (oh no maybe that was your friend Chas from the non BPHB. I’ve had a fair amount of abuse from all four of you.
Honestly I’m fine I don’t need therapy. I’m not going on and on about it and emailling Stu every 10 minutes to complain. I don’t understand why you are so upset about being called a cunt. Get over it!
I thought referring to someone as a ‘scheemie’ was a pretty despicable hence the reason I decided you were a cunt. You can hardly complain about someone being racist when you discriminate on the grounds of post code.
Also making fun of someone because of their disability is also a pretty cunty thing to do.
Thank you for making me famous I am now ‘Ruby the Cunt Caller who broke Andy Ellis’
Will I always get a starring role in your posts?
Good Luck Andy I hope whatever is preventing you for having a sense of humour passes soon.
The French would recommend a good strong laxative probably suppositories. The French do love their suppositories.
Bye!
Ruby
Colony:
…a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country.
Why are my comments awaiting moderation?
It was only an entry from a dictionary?
I think the site owner is rather fond of the cunt word.
It’s probably framed somewhere as the wee four letter word that brought twitter to the verge of crashing.
I hardly thinking he’ll be crying into his beer.
Yer always name calling & dishing derogatory remarks then run to teacher when it’s returned. Grow a set. No one sticks up for you because ppl can see you are indeed a cunt!
Geri you comments are awaiting moderation because you posted a word that triggers the mad auto moderation bot.
😉
Ah righto!
Thought I was up for a stoning..
Testing…
Andy – remember the correspondence marked “Latest Ja*kie Baill*e pish”? I suspect Stu has a similar file. LOL!
Yay! I can rest easy. So it doesn’t like full names either..
What a difference a couple of weeks makes. It seems like just yesterday I was being scathingly attacked for suggesting Scotland’s relationship with England (or the UK if you’re the sensitive type) shared a lot of the characteristics common to colonial relationships.
Now it seems everybody agrees, even high ranking members of the SNP and experts in here.
I could say a lot more about the plan we seem to have ended up with, which strikes me as being very cunning indeed, and one or two of the people in here who seem to have embraced the reality of our situation at last, but I wouldn’t want to be accused of stirring anything up.
It feels like we have turned a very important corner to me, though, with more and more people waking up to the contemptuous reality of our vassal status within the UK.
I expect that trend to continue as the recession unfolds and more and more people find themselves face-to-face with the big question; why when our country is so rich in resources are we the people so poor?
Hi Andy Ellis.
You typed,
“That’s an odd circumlocution. People are entitled to their opinions, whether those listening to them find them valid or not. I don’t believe it’s valid to say Scotland is a colony. I’d certainly agree that Scotland and the interests of her people are being held in contempt by the British nationalist establishment and indeed by many Scottish unionists.
Whether that represents being treated as if it is a colony, or simply that the treatment has some parallels with the high handed way an imperial power would deal with a colony is more open to question.”
You also typed,
“What do you need….a diagram?
Or shall I get the the toy farm animals out for a Father Ted style “Small…..Far away” discussion?”
Why did you feel the need to attack my intelligence, rather than the point I was making?
You have an overbearing sense that your opinion trumps everyone else’s opinion and it has become boring, even after months of skimming past your input btl here. I occasionally pick up something from your literal diarrhoea that I rarely respond to but you are so predictable.
If it doesn’t go along with your premise, you insult the contributor.
I think I’ll go back to skimming past your $h!t…
Ruby 3:52
Stu, can I also add my name to that appeal?
My original went into the sin bin so while this article is still active.
Cheers.
Breeks 4:40 am
I’m not on my knees.
If we need a legal route to independence, then we need to discuss what legal routes are available. Why can’t you see that?
Rev. Stuart Campbell says: 8;39 am
eating mushrooms? I wish!
But it’s an interesting legal point – is Westminster free to have any kind of manifesto but devolved administrations not allowed that same freedom? The reason being because Westminster set up devolution that way. Don’t expect them not to have rigged it.
Love all the ostensible ‘adults’ here self-righteously sniping and whining and ranting he-said-she-said shite at each other constantly. Genuinely beyond hilarious. FREEDOM YA BAS! 😉
link to youtube.com
The debate and the route to independence been discussed now via a single issue election fail to take into consideration one important factor THE VOTER
Moving in circles of wholly independence driven people who would risk all for the chance for an independent Scotland it seems to me that you forget that the vast majority of people are just trying to survive right now. Concerns are for pay and jobs, feeding the family and keeping heads above water. They may say that they want independence but at what cost is a SNP government fully in charge based on its track record a great prospect, it lies and hides facts and looks financially inept
The devolved system was set up to make Holyrood fail but the SNP seem to court this failure to highlight blame on Westminster .The facts are your average man or women or man identifying as a squirrel do not do much research and are wholly concerned at not been worse off
In short they will always be a large number of people who will be scared to make the jump the current economic situations will make that number larger .The track record of the SNP will make it larger again, does it not need the whole independence movement to agree and campaign together before a single issue election is feasible
@Hatuey 10.54 pm
It feels like we have turned a very important corner to me, though, with more and more people waking up to the contemptuous reality of our vassal status within the UK.
I expect that trend to continue as the recession unfolds and more and more people find themselves face-to-face with the big question; why when our country is so rich in resources are we the people so poor?
It’s probably a good thing that folk have been disabused of the idea that we are now, or ever were, in an “equal union”. Ever since the SNP and other hard of thinking folk started on with the nonsense about why brexit should only proceed on the basis that all 4 parts of the UK agreed, it’s been obvious that some folk were living in la-la land.
Being treated badly in Westminster, and the fact that the UK system is a creaking crypto medieval anachronism that could and should have been swept away decades ago doesn’t support the ridiculous and frankly pretty offensive argument that Scotland is a colony. It makes those spouting the narrative look like the political equivalent of the drunk fan after the football match.
Hopefully you are right about worsening economic circumstances leading to change, but people said the same about being wrenched out of the EU against our will.
What happened to that surge for indy?
How about any increase in pro-indy votes as a result of years of the worst and most incompetent Tory government in any of our lifetimes?
Things may get worse, but if your prognosis / prediction is right, why haven’t we seen a significant uptick in support for indy given all the evidence there is of falling living standards over the period since we left the EU?
Hopefully your predictions of increased indy support will be more accurate than your certainty about the imminent invasion of Taiwan. How many days is it until that again….21?
@Brian Doonthetoon
If you don’t want to be taken for a lackwit, stop acting like one. You already knew what my position was on the fanciful “scotland as colony” narrative. So either you were trolling for reactions or you’re just not that bright.
You’re just another one that is content to whinge on about the input of folk you claim only to skim over, then spend post after post trying to get a rise out of, or droning on with your own hot take on the issue.
I don’t think my opinions trump everyone else’s. That’s just one of those things the usual suspects say because they lack the intellectual capacity to engage in any debate on the issues in good faith. Of course I think my take on the issues under dispute is right, and theirs is wrong where we’re on opposing sides. Nobody is stopping them or you airing your wrong opinions: happy now?
As for you not reading my input, devastating as the news is doubtless I’ll soldier on somehow through the wreckage of my life without your invaluable contribution now that you have rendered my whole existence pointless.
No one is living in laa laa land but you wishing as always to turn everything into fitting your gripe is.
We’re under NO illusion that we’re living in an equal partnership. An equal partner doesn’t need permission to leave when theyve have enough.
Now here’s the important part, pay attention, WE ARE an equal partner. In a treaty that can be dissolved just in the exact same way the EU treaty was dissolved. Your colonial master has brainwashed you into believing that they reign supreme.
We can hold a legal referendum, perfectly legit & we have those powers.
Member writes a bill. Parliament passes it. Legal challenge accepted – advance to court of session – royal petition – court makes a ruling.
Referendum goes ahead…or na, na, na…Okay, off we pop to either suck it up or advance to UN decolonisation department.
You always trash ppls ideas as moonhowlers but I notice you never have any of your own other than suck it up sunshine, just fkn campaign more as our larger neighbour assimilates the population with English. Yes, ENGLISH because we’re not in a fucking union with anyone else are we?
Decolonisation is probably the better option because they have very strict rules on the franchise, external media influence, protections of the original Nation & election observation.
All the stuff the coloniser likes to always control. Gone.out of thier hands. A referendum is now a level playing field.
Gregory
WM would just shut it down with a statement..
“Look, Jockos. You aren’t behaving in the way this parliament was intended. You were only ever supposed to vote Yoon & it was a wee glorified parish council to have a wee chin wag. The SNPEEE have spoiled it. (Names the villain for angst) It is with deep regret (naw it isne) That Allister Jackass will now take over full control from (here’s one we prepared earlier) Queen Elizabeth House until further notice”
“Hopefully you are right about worsening economic circumstances leading to change, but people said the same about being wrenched out of the EU against our will.
What happened to that surge for indy?
How about any increase in pro-indy votes as a result of years of the worst and most incompetent Tory government in any of our lifetimes?
Things may get worse, but if your prognosis / prediction is right, why haven’t we seen a significant uptick in support for indy given all the evidence there is of falling living standards over the period since we left the EU?”
Ellis, it’s possible, I would say likely, that you have seen a surge in support for independence but it isn’t revealed in the headline figures. I’ve already covered this.
What you need to bear in mind is that while support for independence was increasing as a consequence of Brexit and Tory mishandling, we can speculate that a lot of people were turned off by Sturgeon and her mishandling (as a consequence of the gender stuff, etc.), thereby effectively offsetting any net effect to a large degree.
It’s pretty basic stuff. We would need more data to quantify accurately but I don’t think you’ll find many here who would argue that Strurgeon has not negatively impacted on support for both independence and the SNP. And everything falls into place once you factor that in.