Wings Over Scotland

This was my favourite quote:
“Our first priority is to our audience and our artists,” Hay’s chief executive, Julie Finch, said at the time. “Above all else, we must preserve the freedom of our stages and spaces for open debate and discussion, where audiences can hear a range of perspectives.”

Why were they not stages of open debate beforehand?

I’ll be honest though, really gave me a tingly schadenfreude-eqsue feeling when I first read about the “successful threat of boycott” ?

They’ve already broken just about everything.

Meanwhile Swinney gets the begging bowl out hoping to con the voters.

“John Swinney has pleaded with the public to give money to the SNP after it revealed no reportable donations in the first three months of this year.

The SNP leader gave “a wee handy reminder” to the public that the party is “not in any way full up with donations” during a visit to Glasgow on Friday morning.

The First Minister also encouraged people to donate for the general election campaign “because we’ve got four expensive weeks ahead of us.”

The party received no donations from either individuals or companies of more than £500 in the first three months of this year.

Although it did receive £325,000 in public funds.”

“Paul McLennan, the housing minister, has now ruled out publishing a plan.”

Well, of course.

The SNP are frantically busy hiding political dead bodies (metaphorically speaking), lining their pockets at taxpayers’ expense and working flat out to make themselves unelectable.

They are so ridiculously busy doing nothing worth mentioning that they have been totally incapable/unwilling to publish a plan for independence. And that is despite holding absolute majorities in Westminster and leading pro-independence majorities in Holyrood at the same time for over 9 years.

How dare Ms Regan to demand now from the SNP to come up with a plan for housing in just a few months?

Worth minding that the £325,000 the SNP received from “public funds” is actually still donations from individuals.

Just not voluntary ones.

That cartoon nails Brexit.

@RobertKnight 1.14pm

It really works for most behaviour in Holyrood and Westminster, doesn’t it?

According to the Herald, Swinney says: “Sturgeon has a major role to play in this election”.

That shows how daft the SNP are. A sensible party would not let her anywhere near their campaign – you don’t see BoJo or Liz Truss anywhere near the Tory front line. Or Blair and Brown out front for Labour.

It does seem that authors that have driven off a key sponsor don’t feel they need the help and are ensuring that nobody can get that support in the future. As for the SNP I’m continually amazed by the speed in which they replaced Labour in Scotland, right down to the hatred they have of their supporters.

Yep, it takes far more intelligence to build than to destroy. Unfortunately, the keys to the citadel of civilisation are being thrown to the barbarians.

The race grifters who monopolise the branch of the Arts which I am involved in also eco grift. A current expo which they are promoting is in partnership with an environmental charity and when I went to look up who is behind this charity I could not find a single name published anywhere, not even that of a Trustee at the Charity Register.

Please feel free to add to this list

Swinney’s mistakes

Failing to unite with Alba.

Edinburgh rape crisis centre silence.

Swinney defending Mackay and his ipad.

Failing to appoint somone with professionalism and character like Crag Murray international secretaty and going with the current air miles Robertson

Failing to take advantage of the skills of Joanna Cherry

Mackay still not sacked.

Pulling out of carbon target with no real explanation.

Failing to unite campaign around independence.

Focusing on protecting Scotland’s interests in westminster instead of planning to leave it.

Suggesting nicola has something to contribute.

@ Shug

Swinney is likely still high from buzzing all the marker pen xylene fumes from his redacting stint covering for Stoogeon and her mates in the attempted Salmond fit up.

And you need to amend your list changing Mackay to Matheson for ipad bill related shizzle.

Got to think in his various roles that Swinney surely had a part to play in the ScotWind auction giveaway.

Corrected mackay. He was a nicola error

There is no alba candidate in my area what’s your suggestion for my vote

@ Shug

I’ve been working my way through the alphabet for Swinney related matters and at F I got Freeports and Ferries. At G I had Gupta / GFG Alliance but I digress…

Queen Burner of Mandates did state the buck stop with her re. ferries, but like all the things she said for the simple minds, that doesn’t seemed to have played out.

Maybe add Mackay back into your list though. He gets a mention for proceeding with the dubious ferry contract, and Swinney checked it for “banana skins” so you got to think the ruling cabal of the Party had an inkling of what was going on.

link to en.wikipedia.org

“Nicola Sturgeon: Buck stops with me over ferry contract row”

link to bbc.co.uk

TBF though, does this considerable and diverse range of matters that have been badly dealt with by certain individuals not just highlight how badly current “government” works in Scotland.
It is unrealistic to think that one individual would have the nous to fully understand the finer and often complex details of all the matters they oversee. You’d hope that a Minister with a specific remit would at least have some past life experience in that area which should mean they are more up the curve for when it comes to making decisions. If it is jist going to be some parachuted in zero life experience politics uni grads then is it any wonder we end up with what we have now.

…. You’d hope that a Minister with a specific remit would at least have some past life experience in that area…

Some hope Dan. This is the thunderdunce SNP who sacked Joanna Cherry from Justice, and replaced her with Anne McLaughline.

These balloons would need antihistamines just to be in the same room as someone actually competent at doing something.

I just want to let everyone know. I went to Hampden Park yesterday to cheer on Scotland with the natives. And support the real heroes of our country – Steve Clarke’s the man and his team.

Scotland are on the map with the Tartan Army. And not the crooked SNP.

Our football team are heroes. Not the crooked SNP politicians that 10 years on failed to cement their place in history as the people that liberated Scotland. Instead of immortal status the SNP will take their place in the history books of despised individuals.

Scotland did us proud. The football team make me proud. There was a buzz in the air. The fans were singing at Glasgow Central station as we queued up for the train to Mount Florida.

Unfortunately waving from the booth just below the clock and next to the Saltire – was the transgender flag!!!

At which point I shouted out – Fuck your transgender Flag – And I didn’t care who heard me.

Our flag’s the Salitre. Tell SNP rail we’re Scottish and get the globalists to fuck.

Thank you.

link to bbc.co.uk

One of the Scottish ferries has been launched by the Turkish workers of the Turkish shipyard.

It’s another ferry with no windows in it. So it’s clearly not complete either.

Who’s the Scottish woman smashing the bottle of Champagne off the side of it. “God bless her. And everyone who sails on her?”

Who are these twats. The ferry isn’t finished. Another SNP launch by the look of things.

The Unionist calling the election on the 4th of July, American Independence Day. If the Labour party wins their going to set up a new energy company with the idea of putting its HQ in Scotland and calling the company the Great British Energy company. It amazes me how the SNP membership can’t see the Unionist are saying the SNP is capitulating and that the SNP has SOLD Scotland cheaply and you have the likes of Scot goes pop and The Rag saying Stephen Flynn was the winner of the debate no he wasn’t Scotland was the loser.

46 supporters have now contributed to Flynn’s crowdfund.
£1780 of £2000 raised.

@ John Main

Hopefully your Transit isn’t the 2.0 with the wet timing belt setup that degrades and sheds fibres that block the oilpump pickup pipe resulting in no oil pressure and a trashed engine.

I’ve got an ever growing list of folk that society should deal with in a Fargo chipper stylée to curtail them from causing further problems.

Maybe we could have a break out of unity btl and folk can add their suggestions to the society improving list.

Wet timing belt engine designers.
Folk that make bread slices that don’t fit toaster and toasty machines correctly.
The twat that made those red onions that you always end up needing to peel off more layers than you think.

“I don’t like cowards who kidnap women and kids and then use them as human shields to preserve their own miserable skins, augmented by walls of their own women and kids to make extra sure.”

Main aka Hatey.

Again the above is laughable as the Zzio-m-ons–ters have kidnapped at least 8,000 innocent P–al-est–inians in the Wee-st B–ank and that just since last Oct, since 1948 they’ve kidnapped Christ knows how many and tortured them without charge in the Zzzzi–o Mon–s-ter– occupying military regime.

The Z–zio–devils really are the personification of evil, and odious vermin like supports them.

“David Hannah
Ignored
says:
8 June, 2024 at 6:05 pm

Because Patrick Harvie wants to shut us down and contain us in 15 minute cities.”

I like the original thinking behind 15-minute cities. One trouble is that in many places they’re not possible because the local council has given planning permission to convert shops into flats; another, workplaces are demolished and student flats built on the sites. Terry Pratchett mentions a “doughnut theory” of cities, in that people live in the suburbs and work in indutrial estates further out; in the middle is left nothing…

Princes Street is largely empty department stores, tartan tat shops and American sweet shops.

The supermarkets have recently – finally – conquered Roseburn. The Co-op closed recently; it was the last shop selling food/drink/groceries/ingredients… apart from the Tesco metro. I won’t shop there.

Surely the more SNP MP’s lose the better from the point of view of those who really want independence? The closer they come to an extinction level event the more likely the movement can replace them as the Irish did to the IPP in 1918, or (if that’s a little over optimistic) at least bring about change from within?

The turnout in Scotland will be interesting: I suspect it might not be that great. Nobody really seems to care what the outcome is, as Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same arse.

I wonder if a sense of ennui amongst Scottish voters might be the start of something? Perhaps more will become convinced that the answers to our problems don’t lie in participation in the British nationalist system and look for alternatives, or for parties offering such alternatives?

Big Jock 7.09 Totally agree.
Last night England lost 1 0 to Iceland in the footie and I have just watched Australia give them a good doing in the T20 world cup cricket.
Our imperial masters will not be happy, especially our union jack press boys. Oh well, I think another dram is in order.

Sarah Salyers was in Inverness today at an H & I Salvo meeting. Congratulations to her for all the brilliant forensic legal work she has carried out on behalf of the Independence movement.As the political parties have failed us it is heartening to see intelligent people come up with a positive way forward,

Thank you Sarah and all supporters of Salvo.

@Geri 10:37 pm
You say a lot without saying anything. I don’t even know if you are male or female. Other contributors have said the same. Nobody knows what your political allegiance is?. An expert lesson in comments without consequence.

…. Terry Pratchett mentions a “doughnut theory” of cities, in that people live in the suburbs and work in indutrial estates further out; in the middle is left nothing…

There are photographs floating about of Bible Land, a property in Edinburgh Canongate, which demonstrate the changes in the way we finish our buildings exterior. It was refurbished in the 1980’s or so, with a slightly recessed pointing to show off all the stone. It’s typical Edinburgh if you know what I mean.

There is also a picture from the 19th Century, showing the same property, although you’d scarcely recognise it, because the lime pointing is finished flush, and almost a render, but not. It’s fascinating to see how tastes and building criteria have changed.

The thing I find both spooky and sad, is that the 19th Century image has about 20 kids in the picture, hanging out the windows, by the doors, and in the street. They live there. (It’s spooky, because the picture must have had a lengthy exposure, and their movement means the kids look like ghosts). Ironic no?

link to canmore.org.uk

Zoom in, the picture is fairly high res…

I’m not saying life was a bed of roses for these kids, that’s not the point I’m making, but the old pictures just ooze life and vitality, which is simply missing from our streetscapes these days. It’s all been purged to the outer perimeter and modern housing schemes.

Is that an improvement? Well, yes in the case of slums and the workhouse, but in a wider perspective, I’m not sure that it is. I mean, it probably is on balance, given these kids probably slept 10 to a room without modern services, but at what price for our Scottish culture and urban vitality? Tourists everywhere, but the place itself is sterile and lifeless.

I’m in the trade, I work with stone, and I confess, I love the authenticity of the 19th Century facade far more than the cleaned-up modernity. I bet those kids loved living there, much more than any housing scheme.

Society has got its priorities all wrong, or more accurately, we’re not very adept at modernising ourselves. There’s always someone’s greed steering our progress.

I used to love Edinburgh. So much fascinating work to do, from Fettes to the Flodden Wall, Up the Tron on Hogmanay…Grassmarket – Rose St pub crawl after the rugby at Murrayfield… lots of happy memories. But then the exclusions started. Debenture seating. A privilege for those with money. No, you can’t join in Hogmanay without a ticket. Councillor Begg declared war on me and my vehicle, and turned my 10 minute journey from Little France to Princes St into a 40 minute stop-start car-exhaust-fest. You couldn’t get parked, you were even chased trying to drop off men and tools. Now there are LEZ zones which seem like a personal attack on me for having looked after and kept the same vehicle on the road for 20 years.

It’s ok, you can stop now. You don’t want me to come to your city. I’ve got the message.

I don’t love Edinburgh any more. I don’t go there unless I absolutely have to, and don’t price any work there. Next time a property in the Canongate needs maintenance of its stone and limework, it won’t be me doing it.

Still, you’ll have Trust-a-Trader keeping you right about what a good stonemason is. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Breeks at 428am,

I could not agree more about Edinburgh. The centre is now becoming just for tourists and the rich. ‘Get the bus’ we are told, yet bus journeys now take much longer than just a few years ago due to the endless council nonsense of reducing roads, blocking access, restricting turns. The buses are bigger and heavier, and less frequent. Ever looked at the piece of road beside a bus stop? chances are it will be a mess, as many of the Edinburgh roads were never built for such huge heavy buses. It is the buses that are literally destroying Edinburgh roads.

And then their are the endless stream of festivals, that when I was growing up did not take over the entire city all year long. Now, private companies based in England take over huge chunks of our city, for profit, whilst ordinary Edinburgh folk cannot get to go about their business.

The LEZ zone in Edinburgh is just a sick joke,, given that Edinburgh has the best air quality of ANY city in the UK. See all those trees and green spaces, they help make Edinburgh air clean – also helped by the location on the coast, and prevailing winds. The council and the zealots, however, use seriously dodgy ‘facts’ out of context, to try to create the impression that Edinburgh air quality is awful. The truth is the exact opposite. Edinburgh council should be literally bragging to the world about how great the air in Edinburgh is, because it really, really is.

Soon, the very last thing you will find in Edinburgh city centre is a person actually from Edinburgh. All the houses are getting snapped up by big investment firms from England who make a killing from airbnb. The newtown is full of key boxes and rattling wheelie cases 24/7, where ordinary folk lived not so long ago (it wasn’t always so expensive to get property there) Most folk I know who would have just ten years ago always gone into the town to shop, now take their car out to the gyle, or Straiton or Fort Kinnaird. Much better, much easier, and nae feckin tourists (there are now wayyy too many), or silly festivals.

Somebody described some virulent, violent, murderous, torturing, imperialist, colonialist, oppressive, supremacists as Orcs and somebody else is up in arms about it.

You couldn’t make it up and thanks to the fantastical alternative reality of Wings BTL, you don’t have to.

Man, hard to imagine the sheer purgatory the Lord Of The Rings films must present for some.

“C’moan the Orcs!”

“Ach, shite! Naw watching this nae mair!”

What injury or injustice has Nigel Farage inflicted on some of the commenters on this site?
Since his decision to head-up Reform UK, the party has increased substantially in the polls.
The last sentence relates to UK wide figures. RefUK poll around one quarter that level in Scotland. That is of course, residents of Scotland, any analysis of RefUK’s support among indigenous Scots would be significantly reduced from the headline figure.
Farage is making an offer the folk of England are engaged in taking up. The policies of RefUK are a legitimate reflection of the aspirations of a substantial section of English folk.
As supporters of Scottish independence we should be welcoming Farage’s entry into the race.
That is of course not the approach taken by Nicola Sturgeon regarding Brexit after the referendum, but then again, Sturgeon was:
a) not interested in Scottish independence
b) was wholly focused on furthering her own, internationally focused career ambition

The functionaries of the Permanent State are not entirely stupid, they recognise that culturally and politically Scotland and England are drifting apart like two divergent tectonic plates. The Permanent State is tasked with maintaining the Union for a variety of reasons some of which are geopolitical in nature (Faslane etc.).
The Permanent State is not entirely unitary as Brexit proved. Nonetheless, the orthodox faction of the Permanent State (that part allied to the US State Department) demands Westminster sovereignty over Scotland.
As such, Nigel Farage poses a threat to maintaining their remit.

The enemy of my enemy … and all that.

I don’t know about Baillie Gifford but that comic strip is very reminiscent of the current SNP, and Sturgeon in particular. Destroys everything she touches.

This is in response to a comment in a previous thread, but I think relevant to the present ongoing discussion.

Ellis wrote:
“So you and those who believe in “cunning plans for indy” would have us believe that for over 300 years, no Scottish or other lawyer, constitutional expert or politician has ever managed to discern this novel route to attaining independence or dissolving the union?”

I proudly self-identify as one of the infamous lot who you arrogantly deprecate as “those who believe in cunning plans for indy”, so I would like to respond to your assertion.

Well, it is incorrect to put it simply. This appears to prove, yet again, that it is actually you who may be the moonhawler because you do not appear to speak from a position supported neither by evidence nor sound knowledge.

I refer you to Lord Balmerino’s letters to his wife and Maule during 1711-12. In particular, you could look at the letters he wrote in January 1712 with regards to the events that unfolded after the issue with the peerage of the Duke of Hamilton and which almost resulted in the end of the union. This, and not the matter with the Malt Tax in 1713, was the first real threat to the “happy union”. It did not come to fruition because, just like has happened for the last 10 years, those “representing” Scotland in the two houses were far more worried about maintaining their own reputation, patronage and riches, than about the damage done to their country.

Now, just to be clear, the person who wrote those letters was John Elphinstone, 4th Lord Balmerino (1652 – 1736). This man was was no idiot or “moonhawler” nor he “believed in cunning plans for indy”.

He was elected in 1710 as one of the sixteen representatives of the Scottish peerage; the same year he was appointed general of the mint, and sheriff of the county of Edinburgh. He was one of Scotland’s leading lawyers at the time and was described by his contemporary George Lockhart of Camwath as “perhaps one of the best lawyers in the kingdom, and very expert in the knowledge of the Scottish Constitution’.

Just for context, Lockhart was neither idiot nor “moonhawler” himself either. He was the son of Sir George Lockhart of Carnwarth, President of the Court of Session. He was both a pre-union and post-union parliamentarian and had been appointed a commissioner for the negotiations for the Union with England. Despite being a commissioner for the negotiations of the union in 1706, because he did not agree with the final terms of the treaty, he made a big thing of not signing the treaty.

In Lord Balmerino’s letters you will find fascinating information. I particularly like this entry in his letter to Maule written in 17 January 1712, which aligns very well with my own conclusions as to what the quickest, legitimate way, for Scotland to end the union is:

“I am convinced that to call a meeting of the Scots Estates is in effect to dissolve the union and without them, not only a majority of the peers but even all of them being unanimous cannot alter any reserved article tho they would do it better, nay a point of the proposals concerns the barrons and burgeses imeadiatly (who will never consent) but tho they would I say they cannot without the nobility (that is to say) all our three estates”

Lord Balmerino writes in other letters:

“They say I would have the Estates to be called and I might as well propose a dissolution of the Union. I say I shall propose that when ever they please, But it is not my fault that nothing can alter any Article in our contract, but the partys who made it. Nay several English Lords had said this very thing, tho yet they went in to the Resolve of 25 Jan”

“I writ to the Treasurer that I could not agree with my countrymen in thinking that any body could alter one article of any contract but the partys contractors, who, in the Treaty of union, upon our part were the Estates of Scotland and not the nobility, nor could the peers dispose of their peerage as of their property, the publique being too much concerned in it, to permit that.”

In the same letter you see written that “whigs, Tories and Scots all desyn (desire the end of the union) and yet no man will speak out and that nothing stops it by the Court”

So there you have it. Lord Balmerino, one of the leading lawyers and perhaps the most influential constitutional lawyer at the time and contemporary to the Treaty of Union and the first couple of parliaments of “Great Britain” believed:

1. Recalling Scotland’s old parliament is at all practical effects to end the union.

2. The only reason why the union continues is because the parliamentarians and the 16 peers do not want to end it

3. The entity that is pushing for the union is the crown itself and to ensure the same line to the crown in England and Scotland

4. The treaty of union was simply a contract

5. The articles of the treaty of union cannot be modified unless by the entities who approved them, that will be the original parliaments of Scotland and England, not Westminster. Westminster is a subordinated to the Treaty and therefore Scotland’s and England’s original parliaments, not the other way round.

From these letters and those of other contemporaries, it is clear as day that in 1706, 1712, 1713 and to this day, the only entity that keeps pushing for this union to continue is the crown itself and everybody in the political circles knows it.

Lord Balmerino also writes:
“Next I ask, seems the Expedient of hereditary peers practicable, they say they think no, but we must see how far they can carry it, and then it will be time to come to Extremitys”

Exactly the same arrogant cowardice and self-servitude that we have seen in the last 10 years from the useless SNP: just to continue wasting time to demonstrate they can do nothing. Meanwhile, they keep lining their pockets while their country burns and is bled dry of its assets.

Lord Balmerino writes with regards to modifying an article of the Treaty of Union:

“Nevertheless I shall accept of any Expedient reasonable in itself and being done in the right way, that is by the Estates who made the contract, and not the nobility, tho I am sure the propositions to the nobility will be so ignominous that it would stick there as surely as amongest the estates”

So, as you can see, my views and my interest of Scotland’s old parliament to be recalled are not “moonhauler’s views”. They are backed by the views of a leading constitutional lawyer, contemporary to the Treaty of Union and the events of 1712 and 1713 that almost led to the end of the union.

You ask “Which court is going to decide this, the UK Supreme Court presumably?”

With this question you are, yet again, openly displaying either ignorance of lack of attention to what you write. For a court to decide on something convincingly and its ruling to be accepted by the public, the court must be seen as IMPARTIAL.

The English court otherwise known as “UK Supreme court” is not impartial to the matter of the union. Why? Because its own existence depends on the continuation of the union. The exact same applies to Westminster and the exact same applies to to the “UK peers” which were nominated after the ToU.

Furthermore, that court represents the Crown, which is the entity that has the highest vested interest in the continuation of the union because it ensures this line of succession its permanent right to Scottish crown.

So neither the court nor the entity the court represents are impartial in this matter. This means that the decision, for it to be fair, has to be done by an international court that has nothing to do with internal, domestic legislation as this English court is.

By the way, the legitimacy of this English court as “UK” Supreme Court is disputed in the context of the fundamental articles of the treaty of union. Even more reason to not consider that court impartial and therefore totally inadequate for such decision.

Why doesn’t Scotland have a referendum on the King?
He’s here by consent apparently – who’s consent?

Not Sovereign Scots. We’ve never been asked.

When Sturgeon was refused a ref I dunno why she didn’t up the anti & have one when Betty popped her clogs.

This relates to the ireland act. However the SC suggest that any act can be overridden by WM, as it so pleases.

This relates to trade and parity. So it seems any ancient acts are not respected by England. Might explain why no lawyer has tried to challenge breaches.

The UK Post Brexit, is it just doing as it pleases. We were warned. Devolution will be next under Labour.

Aye, it’s already been carved out. As they said during indyref – they’d not be stupid enough to close it – the Scots would notice that. Much better to hollow it out bit by bit until it’s a talking shop about nothing of any great importance. Labour will carry on the job.

TBH I dunno what purpose it can serve now other than being full of grifters.

Going back to Mia’s post. Thatcher also said a majority of Scots would be enough to leave the union & absolutely no one could stop them – certainly not an English Tory or MP.

For some inexplicable reason the muppets we elect wish to make it appear far more complicated than it actually needs to be & then they’ve the cheeky to wonder why folks just turn off..they won’t be happy until we’re *permanently* locked in while they fckd about on pointless shite..

Guys im 100% on the extremely stupid things SNP have been doing but the country has been destroyed by the Tories.

10 years Austerity, 3 years credit crunch and the into recession until the boast about the blip on growth at a fraction of one percent.

The have broken the NHS, the Police, Fire and Rescue, Civil Service, the Councils, the Courts, Railways and roads.

Labour before them emptied the treasury with Gordon Brown selling off our gold reserves before the price tripled. He then built schools etc worth £50 Billion that with interest will cost us £305 Billion and we can credit him stopping final salary pensions and failing in his duty to monitor the banks who where operating link casinos.

There is no good Westminster government and there is no future for Scotland while they own us. Scots have never influenced any major decision down there so our votes and MPs are worthless.

Why doesn’t Scotland have a referendum on the King?”

I think it is because that is pretty much the same as having a referendum on the Treaty of Union. The two things are welded to each other.

At this moment in time and as far as I know, without any parliamentary act predating the ToU that gives the House of Hanover right to the Scottish crown, the only thing that is keeping this monarch’s right to Scotland’s crown is the Treaty of Union itself.

But Let’s remember that King Charles and her mother before him, were invested as monarchs of Great Britain, not monarchs of Scotland (as far as I know).

Therefore, if Scotland ends the treaty of union, and unless an act is passed rather quickly immediately after Scotland’s parliament is restored, would Scotland not already be in practice a republic?

People say that Scotland should have a referendum to decide if Scotland ditches the monarchy or not after becoming independent. But this is assuming the default is that the monarch of “Great Britain” remains as the monarch of Scotland as if nothing happened.

But I am not so sure this is true. I think that if the ToU is revoked, because Queen Anne’s line is extinguished and that is as far as the reach of provision made in the Claim of Right 1689 go, the default might be that Scotland becomes a republic. So if a referendum on the monarchy is called, it will have to be to ensure the monarchy is restored back, not the other way round.

Now this would put the purring of the Queen under a completely different context.

“When Sturgeon was refused a ref I dunno why she didn’t up the anti & have one when Betty popped her clogs?”

Because Sturgeon is a crown useful idiot. The picture in the Herald article “If Scotland became independent, would it damage monarchy’s standing?” published on 30 December 2022 and written by Deborah Anderson says it all. The democratically elected FM of Scotland where the sovereign is the people and not the crown, bowing to a man parachuted to the post not for merit or achievements but simply for who where his parents were. We laughed at the genuflection of Theresa May years ago, but oh boy this, coming from Sturgeon in the third decade of the 21st century, is pretty pathetic.

Let’s remember that it was Sturgeon who parachuted a representative of the crown in the form of the Lord Advocate to the middle of the gov cabinet, effectively handing to this individual control over executive and legislative powers.

Let’s not forget that it was the Lord Advocate in Sturgeon’s cabinet, who usurped control over the legislative power from the people of Scotland and passed it to the crown in the form of an English court with English judges so they could stop the referendum bill from entering parliament.

Let’s not forget that it was another Lord Advocate in Sturgeon’s cabinet who helped the crown trash the Keatings’ case to stop that referendum bill.

In other words, Sturgeon facilitated the imposition of absolute rule over Scotland and handed teh control over the legislative to the crown. That is not what a democrat does.

Let’s not forget, that it was representatives of the crown in the form of the Lord Advocate and the crown office who abused their power to threat witnesses with prosecution during the Fabiani’s farce so they could suppress information and protect STurgeon’s corrupt arse.

Let’s not forget either who is currently delaying the progress of operation branchform and who the beneficiaries of such ridiculous delay are.

Yousaf was another crown tool too. He fell over himself to hand over the stone of destiny to the English king so he could sit over it and symbolise the subjugation of Scots to the English crown. Then the pathetic Yousaf and his apparatchiks dared to claim that he had to do that because as FM he needed to represent everybody. However, by humiliating Scotland in that way, the only ones Yousaf actually represented were those who agree for Scotland to be portrayed as a colony that is subjugated to the English crown. He never represented republicans nor those who do not agree with the current line of succession to the crown, nor those who simply do not agree with the ToU.

You have to wonder why is it that yes supporters and those who acknowledge Scotland’s popular sovereignty are the only ones the SNP never finds the time or the will to represent or listening to.

Even looking as far back as 1712, there is plenty of evidence, from Scotland’s side, that retaining the House of Hanover installed as the regal line was a fundamental condition for several lords and MPs to accept the dissolution of the union. It is clear that the benefits of patronage is all what they could think about. This is reflected on the Balmerino letters, but also in the writings of other contemporaries.

If you look in Hansard, those representing the SNP in the HoC decades ago, went to great pains to ensure it was known that they only wanted to end the political union, not the union of crowns, which, by the way, it is a myth. The crowns were never “united”, they remain separate. It is simply a matter that they are sitting over the same head thanks to the ToU. The ToU was about the union of parliaments, not crowns.

Even in 2014, Salmond mentioned that the Queen would remain as Head of State. Well, that, in my view, would only have been possible if:

1. the ToU was not broken, ie, the whole thing would be fudged to make it look like Scotland was a region, rather than one of the two only constituent units of “Great Britain”, that would be seceding from rather than ending it.

2. somewhat the Scottish parliament before it was dissolved, would had managed to fudge some act on a hurry and force it through to install the monarch as head of state without asking the people of Scotland first.

Because that is another thing we need to think about. For as long as HOlyrood remains tied by the Scotland Act, it is not Scotland’s parliament. If it is not Scotland’s parliament, then until what point all the legislation that has been passed by that parliament can be really considered part of Scotland’s constitution and body of law?

Lots of questions and very few answers, isn’t it?

One of the astonishing thing about so-called modern left-wing progressive (we know it isn’t, it’s anarcho-capitalism mixed with authoritarianism but let’s call it what they call it)activism is how they’re completely unable to build anything. They’re great at breaking things so everything from climate activism, women’s rights, worker’s rights & just anything that used to fall under the umbrella of ‘left wing’ has been utter trashed in the last decade especially.

Much of this can be laid at Millenials discovering Marxism & how people like Bernie Sanders and Corbyn especially developed a cult of personality where people desperate for an improved life latch onto something they think will give them a solution. Of course in practical terms they’ve no idea how to make things work but they like the feeling of power they get.

Fossil Free Books (who the hell a book can be ‘fossil free’ is beyond me) are exactly what we’ve become used to of late. They’re ‘activists’ but have no actual solutions to the issues they’re raising, nor do they care one bit about how losing all these book festivals has a knock on effect on local economies not to mention writers who aren’t from middle class background or from serious money which many of the people from Fossil Free Fuels are. As Stu’s pointed out, they’ve broken the book festival infrastructure, replaced it with nothing & are astonishing praising Network Rail stepping in with one festival.

It’s completely clear now that if you see the world through simplistic takes like ‘genocide’ or ‘gender’ you’re really not serious people. You’re just signalling your virtue for your peer group in order to make yourself feel like a good person but as we’ve discovered, often these people are horrible authoritarians barely hiding bigotries like antisemitism, classism and misogyny.

Mia said;

“The ToU was about the union of parliaments, not crowns.”

And that union simply meant that the two separate bodies of MPs, formally representing their two separate parent kingdoms, faced each other across the same chamber of their shared parliament as equals, each body bearing the sovereignty of their parent kingdom on its behalf.

It did not mean, and it cannot be attested, that England’s MPs had or have any legitimate formal authority over Scotland, nor over Scotland’s MPs, because nothing in any of the three formal founding documents of the Union unequivocally supports that interpretation, and the parent kingdoms’ own sovereignties, and especially that of Scotland’s people, refute any such interpretation. The incompetent Supreme Court should know that!

So we are facing a labour party with a majority of 416 and a conservative party with 37 seats

There’s not a chance the Tories will get as low as that or that Reform will gather enough support to get ‘dozens’ of seats as Farage claims. However I do think after the D-Day fiasco from Sunak that there’s a real possibility of the Tories getting around 100 seats & suffering their worst defeat in over a century. What’s very possible after that is the Tories as a party end anyhow as they’re taken over by Reform.

Yip there was NO union of the crowns all that happened was a Scottish went to England to be their king as well.

The two-crowns are utterly incompatible in England the monarch is sovereign in Scotland its the people.

“the Crown of England and the Crown of Scotland remaining both distinct and separate despite James’s best efforts to create a new imperial throne. “

“the Moonhowler thinks that citing a Moonhowler from 300 years ago helps her case”

First of all, Lord Balmerino was not a “moonhowler”. He was a leading constitutional lawyer at the time the union was forced on Scotland and at the two most critical times when the union, still in its infancy, was brought at the verge of collapse by Scotland’s peers.

He was well respected as a constitutional lawyer, and by all sides. Proof of that that ALL his contemporary peers, many of them lawyers themselves or from families of lawyers, and that includes those who were pro union and those who were pro-Hanover royal lineage, asked him for advice. So its seems that nobody other than you saw him as a “moonhowler”.

Secondly, the fact that it was from 300 years ago is even more relevant than if it was from today. Why? Because what Lord Balmerino said in 1712 was not an interpretation of what they were thinking. It is precisely what parliamentarians and peers were thinking at the time and how they saw the union at the time.

And guess what? It demonstrates that the notion that the union cannot possibly be undone or that Scotland was somewhat “extinguished” or “absorbed” into the Kingdom of England and can only secede from “the Kingdom of Great Britain” with its consent is just a giant pile of bullshit.

Lord Balmerino’s letters do indeed add weight to my case. For starters, they confirm that reconvening the old Scottish parliament is not a stupid idea at all. It is in fact the route a reputable constitutional lawyer at the time the union started would have followed and actually had advised others to follow.

Mind you, the other peers agreed with him. The only reason why they did not follow this route is because they were concerned they would lose their patronage and privileges. The same situation remains today: our own parliamentarians are only concerned with their own careers advancement, pensions and the sustainability of their salaries.

His letters also demonstrate that the English parliamentarians were not prepared to keep either any of the promises they made or respect the articles of the treaty of union. So the idea that England’s representatives do not have respect for international law is not new. They were already pissing on the ToU they agreed to 5 years before.

The letters also confirm that peers and parliamentarians at the time knew that pursuing Acts in Westminster to put rights wrongs done to Scotland was a complete waste of time. The only time when they were listened is when they threatened to end the union. We see the exact same today. The SNP’s bullshit of “vote SNP for a stronger voice for Scotland” is just that, bullshit and would have Lord Balmerino and his peers falling off their chairs with laughter in 1712.

The letters also confirms that the old lie of the Scottish parliament having been forever extinguished is another giant pile of manure. The Scottish Parliament was DISSOLVED in March 1707, not abolished. Lord Balmerino, a leading constitutional lawyer thought at the time, the same as I do today, that Scotland’s old parliament could be reconvened at any time, but reconvening it would mean ending the union. For what the letters say, it appears that the Estates of Parliament could be called by any of the three estates.

The letters also show how many parliamentarians on a huff simply wanted to abandon the HoC/HoLs in England and never return. Some of them proposed to come back to Scotland and tell constituents to not elect anyone in the next election to force the end the union. That is in practice the 1712 version of our current “repurposing the ballot” or electing candidates on an abstentionist ticket. So there you go. It seems the strategies that you and your colleague ellis calls “moonhawling” or “cunning plans for indy” were already seen as perfectly obvious and legitimate routes to end the union in 1712 and 1713.

Lord Balmerino’s letters confirm that the dissolution of the union not only is possible. It was in fact at the front of the minds of the parliamentaries and peers in in 1712 and 1713, as soon as they saw themselves grieved and short changed. In other words, they did not see it as something permanent.

Lord Balmerino’s letters also confirm that parliamentaries and peers at the time did not see Westminster as an entity above Scotland or Scotland’s Parliament. They saw Westminster as a subordinate of Scotland’s parliament and with less power than it.

In addition, the same as I do, Lord Balmerino saw the ToU as a contract and Scotland’s parliament as the contractor. Westminster is part of the contract, not the entity that controls the contract. And the same as I do, Lord Balmerino considered that neither Westminster or the HoL had the power to change ANY of the fundamental articles of the ToU.
That includes the Westmminster by-product “UK” Supreme Court. In other words, every change of the articles of the union by Westminster without the consent of the Estates of Parliament of Scotland has been ultravires.

“What she doesn’t mention is that Lord Balmerino was both an (outvoted) opponent of the Union, and a Jacobite”

I did not mention it because I did not see its relevance in the same way I do not see the relevance of bringing forward religious tendencies or what sex politicians are attracted to when subjecting their policies, political waffle, excuses or promises to scrutiny.

That Lord Balmerino did not support the Hanover lineage is neither here nor there in this current discussion and it most certainly does not invalidate his knowledge in constitutional law nor his chronological reporting of the facts at the time, particularly when those are corroborated by the memoirs of other contemporaries.

At the end of the day, who elected the Hanover lineage for Scotland? Was the people of Scotland who was not in parliament given an opportunity to reject that royal lineage? No. It was an imposition. By whom? The crown and the nobility who stood to profit from it.

You have to be either very short-minded or quite ignorant of the situation at the time to presume the majority in Scotland accepted this royal lineage for Scotland’s crown.

Since brexit I have become a republican. Adding a royal stamp to any legislation linked to brexit when the people of Scotland did not give consent for brexit is akin to imposing absolute rule, which is in direct contravention of the Claim of Right and therefore an open violation of the ToU. In addition, I see having an unelected representative of the crown sitting in the middle of our cabinet and the arrogance of stealing the Scottish people’s control over the legislative power and handing it to an English court and English judges representing the English crown to stop the referendum bill entering Holyrood, a disgusting form of absolute rule.

“Divide et impera” has been the forever horse battle of the British establishment in Scotland. If you read the memoirs of parliamentarians and peers, letters and history books about parliament at the time, you will realise that the strategy “divide et impera” was very much in use in the English parliament and HoL at the time. In fact, there is some book that intimates that Queen Anne used to attend “incognito” to spy on the House of Lords. By incognito they meant without her royal robes and regalia. She did that to put pressure on the peers.

Well, ‘divide et impera’ was also used by the crown minions in Scotland in 1706 to force the union through. Those who did not want a union with England outnumbered those who did want it, there is no secret about it.

So what did the crown do to win? To conflate the ToU with the succession to Scotland’s crown. What this achieve was to create 4 fronts in one single issue where there should be two independent discussion points with two fronts each. There. Job done. Divide et impera indeed.

“But if Mia actually takes Lord Balmerino seriously, she must also take seriously Balmerino’s Jacobite Restoration”

I do indeed take Lord Balmerino seriously. He was one of the poorest among the 16 peers sent to Westminster on behalf of Scotland in 1710. That in my eyes does him credit. All the others saw their riches and privilege increase after the union thanks to their fawning at the crown.

But why must I take seriously Balmerino’s or anybody else’s Jacobite restoration when I have become a republican and do no longer give a shit about crowns and royal lineages?

What I am interested in is how the people of Scotland was duped and betrayed by the self-serving crooks allegedly representing Scotland in parliament. I am interested in how a self-serving crown pulled the strings and used bribery and corruption to force the union through. I am also interested in how the union was seen at the time and the mechanisms to end it.

In any case, are you claiming that when you agree with what somebody says in one occasion you have to agree with absolutely everything they say in every other occasion? Don’t be ridiculous. How many paedophiles, groomers, fetishists, perverts, sex-pests fraudsters, crooks and pro-genocide warmongers hide in Holyrood, UK HoC and UK HoLs today? Are you claiming that when you listen to what those say on one occasion you have to agree and endorse absolutely everything else they do and say during their lives?

If that was the case, where would that leave the credibility of the current monarch after his tampon saga and after the disgusting way he cheated on his wife? Would we have to completely refuse to listen to anything at all he says to avoid being tarnished by association, or because you may agree with something he says about environment, for example, you must absolutely also endorse all the sins he did over his long life?

Where does that leave Prince Andrew?

Please do not be so childish.

“Franz, BTW, laughs off the claim to the English throne as a mere “Historical curiosity.”

Interesting for whoever cares, I suppose. I do not. Anyway, what does your travel around jacobitism have to do with the fact that reconvening the old Scottish parliament invalidates the treaty of union and it could be in fact the fastest route to achieve that?

@Mia 5.04: you’re going to commendably great lengths to use reasoning and evidence when debating with Andy but I don’t think he’s quite well at the moment, tbh.

After all IIRC, he recently was talking about one of his grandmothers who was born in Sunderland but who would “spit in the face” of anyone who denied she was Scottish, simply because she had lived in Scotland for some time and had a Scottish spouse.

Slight problem with this is that Sunderland (as we all know) is in em, England and so his gran was undoubtedly em, English.

As The Grate Man himself would say, “Facts are chiels that winna ding, eh?”

And spitting is rather a nasty habit, surely?

@Tinto Chiel 6.25pm

I’m quite well thanks. Perhaps my gran wouldn’t have actually spat in the eye of any bigoted xenophobe who had been brave enough to tell her to her face she didn’t qualify as Scottish after living here for over 60 years: an element of hyperbole may have been involved.

Still, since some of the dregs up thread think it’s OK to use physical violence I’m not sure the nativist fraternity in here are in a position to take the moral high ground.

As for Mia’s logorrhea, it’s hard to follow at the best of times. Sadly, there’s never anything of worth despite the super abundance of words. Her output has always reminded me of that coming from her yoon counterpart Effie Deans: prose as constipated as her intellect.

Chas/Ellis/Clansman

Thank you!!

There must be something worthwhile in my comments when I have three of the four “Riders of the unionist Apocalypse” rushing in unison to frantically deflect and leave their signature godzilla-like footprint: a dirty trail of ad hominem and hyperbole.

I must admit I am a little disappointed that McFace hasn’t also rushed in to add his contribution to the trail of destruction.

But hey, you can’t have it all. Meanwhile, I will wear all your ad hominem and hyperbole as a badge of honour. I like to use it as a measure of the quality of my argument. The louder you shout, the more you complain about the length of the comment, the crazier you go throwing ad hominem and hyperbole and the less you actually discuss the argument itself, the more convinced I become that I am in the right path.

So keep them coming!

@Tinto Chiel 7.32pm

Ach, away and unbunch yer panties. I go out of my way to engage with the moonhowlers, but it is in general a thankless task, involving as it does no coherent response as evidenced by Mia, RoS, Ruby and the other usual suspects.

Your membership of the nativist club is duly noted.

So tell me Tinto I understand Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh was born in England, so does she qualify as Scottish? Her mother was half Welsh, half Czech and her father of Pakistani origin I seem to recall.

Are you actually – in 2024 – trying to say with a straight face that only someone born in Scotland can ever be considered Scottish? Because if you are, you know … you’re just as much a bigot and xenophobe as the rest.

Sheeesh….the dregs here just keep limboing right under that bar, huh?

@Andy 7.46: the usual hysterical deflection from a simple statement that someone born in a country is a native of that country.

If TAS was born in England, then she is English, Andy.

In a future independent Scotland she may be granted Scottish citizenship dependent on an agreed residency qualification once our constitution has been drafted.

Since I am a 70-y-o Scotsman I can exclusively reveal that I don’t sport “panties”. Sorry to spoil you fantasies 🙂 .

And, oh, it seems that I’ve been “noted”! Seems you’ve got a little list, like that wee Tory creep Peter Lilley.

Curtain-twitcher Andy! Whataguy!

@Big Jock 8.51pm

Talking of errors, I’m sure it will come as a shock to Martina that she’s actually Swedish. your pretty basic lack of reasearch…or just general knowledge…tells us a lot. I’d steer clear of general knowledge and sports in the pub quiz, huh?

Martina Navratilova was born in Czechoslovakia and is now a US citizen. Doubtless the unreasoning usual suspects in here insist she’s still Czech, right? Jeezus wept.

Nationality can be acquired by residence. Telling a long term resident that they aren’t entitled to view themselves as Scottish seems a bit Farage-y. There’s no such thing as a Scottish citizen, nor will there be until Scots grow a pair and vote for independence.

Glad you’ve embraced your tartan Faragism. It’ll prove about as popular as the man himself up here.

I meant Czech. Not sure why I said Swedish. But my point stands. She is American by citizenship , not by nationality.

“Nationality can be acquired by residence.”

Only if the rules exist to make it so in the country of residence.

Scotland currently has no such rules.

@Andy 9.24: wow, you’ve discovered the Farage word, like a new toy and so now you’re spraying it around. When you run out of a credible argument, you always resort to your usual trademark, baseless insults.

On reflection, it’s pretty pointless debating with someone who doesn’t even understand what being a native of a country is, I suppose, but I tried.

Froth on, Andy but it’s probably not very good for your blood pressure.

I believe that those looking for a very narrow definition of who is, or is not, Scottish, are on a hiding to nothing. The world won’t agree with such tight definitions, nor indeed will most in Scotland. I believe that matters a lot.

If there is to be some type of democratic event to settle Scotland’s future either in or out of the existing union, then the franchise to vote must be recognisably identical, or as near to identical, as that for non-constitutional national elections. ie anyone who can vote for Assembly or Westminster elections.

At present, a British citizen could move (from England, Wales or Northern Ireland) to Scotland and vote in a Holyrood or Westminster election. There is no minimum residence period, or requirement to be Scottish to vote in a Scottish election. Trying to restrict the electorate to exclude people won’t be seen well, either in Scotland or in the world.

@Southernbystander 10.24pm

A useful corrective and explainer to the hard of thinking tartan Faragists who continue to infect and disgrace BTL discourse here. Of course, as in any mass movement, there has always been a leavening of moonhowlers in the independence movement too: it’s just a bit sad to see them crawl out from under their rocks and be so proud of the xenophobia and bigotry as they are in this place.

The trouble is the nativist claque in here don’t care about nuance or any distinction between being a native of a country or ethnically native, because they don’t think the former exists in the sense ordinary, progressive, civic nationalists would accept.

The only balanced thing about such people is that they have chips on both their shoulders.

@Big Jock 10.11 pm

Your point about citizenship is irrelevant. We will all be able to choose our citizenship post independence, because that’s the way these things work. The White Paper issued pre 2014 referendum set it out quite plainly, and the process was much the same as it is for other currently independent countries like Ireland.

Similarly, nobody resident in Scotland who doesn’t want Scottish citizenship will be forced to have it: they can retain their British or other citizenships if they so choose and then comply with whatever residence criteria the newly independent Scottish government introduces. Whether dual citizenship is an option will depend on the two countries involved, which again is as it should be and how it works with any dual citizenship arrangements. Some countries don’t allow it at all, some only do it on a “mutual” basis.

It will no doubt be interesting to see how many “prod Scot, but…” types actually choose to reject Scottish citizenship when it may impact their day to day lives, tax situation and ability to vote if they opt to be British citizens living in an independent Scotland.

You and others seem particularly hung up on the number of students or second home owners who will be overwhelming our shores. What evidence do you actually have that either or both of these groups are numerically significant? The franchise used in 2014 (and which will doubtless be used again in the unlikely event we get another referendum any time soon) was thoroughly debated prior to 2014.

At the time, other issues like including 16 & 17 year olds and excluding Scots born folk in the diaspora were also widely discussed. As part of the latter – which question was even debated in parliament – it was pointed out that the principle that referenda should be decided on the basis of residency was widely accepted and that trying to extend the franchise as sought by those advancing the plan could lead the international community to question the legitimacy of the referendum.

The only effective way to exclude the (presumably) relatively trivial number of students from the rest of the UK who were on the electoral register and able to vote in a referendum, would be to do as the Catalan’s did and produce a “new” electoral register specifically for the referendum which – assuming it had been agreed – changed the criteria to exclude such “temporary” residents, or which was based on those on the register meeting the criteria for future citizenship.

Even that would of course still have enfranchised lots of people the nativist bigots in here wanted to exclude (based on the expected qualification criteria envisaged), so they wouldn’t really be much further forward. Nobody in 2012-14 was going to accept the exclusion of people who had lived here for extended periods: it would have been a hard enough sell to impose a 24 month residence criteria as was used in Montenegro, and which was criticised by the Venice Commission as disproportionate.

So either you’re the one not thinking this through, or you’re actually attempting to hide another much more sinister agenda behind the fig leaf of a trivial number of students from the rest of the UK, second home owners and people who have lived here for 10 minutes who you assure us are overwhelming the natives.

The reason it all sounds a bit Faragist, is because it IS a bit Faragist.

Andy Ellis @ 7:55 am

“progressive, civic nationalists” or whatever other ideological term you call yourself is what has led us to the present stasis and rupture in the movement. This reminds us of Cesaire’s ‘obscurers, inventors of subterfuges, charlatans and tricksters, and dealers in gobbledygook’ who work to maintain the colonial racket.

Such people parrot the colonialist perspective in terms of ideology and values and remain neutral on ‘the most urgent matter which is freeing the people’ (Memmi). Those opting for neutrality, which includes the dominant national parties, are known as the ‘legal tendency’ in Fanon’s analysis; they refuse to confront the colonizer and become ‘part of the racket, dependent on ‘the colonizer’s good nature’, which never materializes of course – hence the stasis and rupture in the movement which delays independence and ‘increases the risk of conflict’.

‘The role of the colonialist is to make any prospect of independence for the native seem impossible’ and you remind us of this with every utterance.

@Alf Baird 9.41am

As the recent elections in Europe have shown the hard right is on the rise. We all know it when we see it: Le Pen in France, Orban in Hungary, Truth and Justice in Poland, the OVP in Austria and Meloni in Italy. All of them stridently anti-immigration, many of them soft on Uncle Vlad and against helping stop him, anti EU, anti “neo-liberalism”.

It’s not a great look for supporters of Scottish nationalism to align themselves with such people.

Hiding behind your usual comfort blanket of post colonial theory, constantly quoting Fanon and Memmi just won’t cut it.

The failure of civic nationalism to progress the cause of Scottish independence isn’t the result of intrinsic faults in the concept of civic nationalism, its the poor quality of the SNP’s leadership and policy failures that explains it.

You and yer muckers are standing shoulder to shoulder with xenophobic bigots and racists like David Hannah & his ilk, who make no secret of their opposition to civic nationalism.

Shame on you Alf, and shame on all of those fluffing for the David Hannah’s of the movement, however hard you try to hid behinf the fig leaf of the spurious “Scotland-as-colony” snake oil.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

Andy Ellis @ 10:52 am

“It’s not a great look for supporters of Scottish nationalism to align themselves with such people.”

You state this the wrong way round, as usual. Scotland has been annexed and ruled by the English far right for over 300 years; and who else but fascists seek to dominate and exploit other ‘peoples’, nations and cultures? It is so-called ‘unionists’ who “align themselves with such people”, us Scots only become nationalists to be free of them.

@Geri 12.21pm

It’s extraordinary to see there are still some examples of genuine tankies out there in the world. Must be as rare as hen’s teeth generally, but there’s a wee coterie of sundry far-lefties, Maoists and newly minted vatniks that seem to have infested BTL here that no amount of intellectual bleach appears able to shift.

Nobody sane buys the pro-Vlad line. 10 million Swedes didn’t wake up one morning and decide to reject two centuries of neutrality for the shits and giggles. 5 million Finns, many of whose grandparents have direct experience of what Vlad and his countrymen are capable of, didn’t drink neo-liberal Kool-Aid and figure out non-alignment was a crap idea.

Folk know who the real threat is. It’s Uncle Vald, Chairman Xi, the islamo-fascists….and of course their useful idiots amongst us like you, Repulic of Scotland and aw the other wee sophomoric Wolfie Smith types.

It’s kinda sad really, but that level of self delusion can be quite entertaining in its own way.

The USA is going down through no ones fault but their own.
They sanctioned the fck out of everyone forcing them to become self sufficient. Dumb arses didn’t see that sanctioning other countries doesn’t pay their bills at home.

& 143 countries voted for a Palestinian State. You know, the one promised over 50 yrs+ ago but continually delayed. Their pish doest fly anymore & neither does fully endorsing the mass murder of civilians.

Colonialism & election interference is over. Get used to it.

Andy Ellis

Were you not aware that ALL the World leaders are actively seeking an audience with Geri? He/she/it exclusively knows everything that is happening in the World today and even more importantly, has a solution for everything. Of course, anyone who disagrees with anything he/she/it says is a source of ridicule.

The Independence movement in Scotland surely needs more of her calibre but, only if you want to kill it, stone dead.

@Andy Ellis;

It isn’t xenophobic to distrust foreigners if you have extensive solid reasons for that stance, and we Scots have reasons aplenty to distrust that particular variety of foreigners known as the English, who for many centuries have treated our country, kingdom, nation, territory and people like dirt, and who for the last 317 years have presumed, entirely without any formal legitimacy, to actually ‘legally’ own our land and its wealth, and to deem themselves fully entitled to wield their so-called unlimited sovereignty over us despite our own Treaty-guaranteed constitution and sovereignty, and they do so as viciously and selfishly as they alone see fit.

It is also true that that same variety of foreigners have behaved in exactly the same manner to many other countries all across the world.

So if the sovereign autochthones of Scotland consider a non-violent means to regain their own damn country from the overweening English, using a simple vote with a specific sovereignty-based franchise under their own still-extant constitution, then that’s not an example of xenophobia, nor of bigoted racism, that’s a clear example of sorely-earned, evidence-based common sense in an act of obvious self-defence of their nation, and no-one is entitled to pillory them for that, and certainly not abusive self-righteous condoms like you!

You should instead be applauding them for their stance as an example of virtuous restraint that otherwise could well have gone the way of violence, as it certainly did in many of those other countries.

But, no!

You have gleefully gone out of your way to denigrate, traduce, chastise, and insult the sovereign Scots as ‘xenophobic nativist bigoted racist nationalists’ merely for choosing to ‘disenfranchise’ foreign residents who were never legitimately enfranchised for constitution-level votes in Scotland in the first place.

Your rubber brain has clearly gone completely rancid.

@Xaracen 4.34 pm

Para 1: You don’t have such evidence though: just a chip on both your shoulders and an over-inflated and hyperbolic sense of grievance.

Para 2: At some point you & others who fall for the Scotland as colony schtick have to accept that very many Scots were willing participants in the imperial project and that we all as a society now benefitted from the proceeds an ill gotten gains of what our forbears did.

At some point however we have to stop making excuses, put the past behind us and take responsibility for what we can change now, not hark back to the culpability of previous generations in very different times. No society in history has been without fault or moral stain. Grow up.

Para 3: It is xenophobic, bigoted and racist if it excludes several hundred thousand Scottish residents, and residence is the accepted criteria for use in self determination referenda. Any progressive will consider it such. You don’t speak for progressives. You aren’t progressive. You don’t speak for the independence movement, or for any more than a fring minority of nativist cranks. Cope.

Para 4: I don’t applaud them, I loathe them and anyone fluffing for them as much as I loathe Fragists, alt right types everywhere, and fluffers for Uncle Vald, islamo-fascists and sophomoric tankies who soil BTL here, just as I loathe TRA extremists and the devolusionists in the SNP who have shot the movement in both feet.

Para 5: If the cap fits you and all the other xenophobic nativist bigoted racist nationalists are obliged to wear it. You’re not advocating the disenfranchisement of foreign residents, that’s the WHOLE point: you’re advocating the disenfranchisement of SCOTTISH residents, because they’re not ethnically pure enough, not “Scottish” enough, even if they’ve lived here for years, contribute to our society, have family, spouses, jobs, businesses.

It’s total hooey that they were never legitimately enfranchised! Of course they were: the franchise was agreed and is that used in virtually every other self determination referendum. There is NO counter argument justifying special treatment for a Scottish referendum to be accorded special status that was not used, asked for or necessary to all the other self determination referendums. You have no reasonable counter argument.

Franchise restriction is the very definition of old style blood and soil nationalism that wouldn’t have been out of place from the NSDAP.

Andy Ellis @ 6:31 pm

“You aren’t progressive.”

Colonialism is regressive in all respects, it is never progressive. Any actions used to maintain colonialism are therefore regressive.

This means that inflating the ‘No’ vote by using an irregular local government franchise, thereby preventing Scottish independence, was regressive, it was not progressive.

Is Montenegro in the EU?
Is Montenegro part of the Venice convention?
Did Montenegro’s vote stand?
Did the “international community” reject the result?
Was it erased from the map for not doing as it was telt?

Did it’s vote have roasters like you having a tantrum?

What you need to recognise, sunshine, is three things.

Scotland is a sovereign nation.
Scots shall decide it’s own franchise.
Scotland doesn’t give a fck how others run their elections or referendums.

Stop comparing Scotland to other newly independent countries that were heavily influenced by USA meddling & interference.

Let’s stick to England’s franchise. Where are you on that? Writing a stern letter to the EC I hope. Ranting why they’re not allowing every Tom, Dick & Harry a vote on the 4th of July.

Get to it..

It’s going to take 50 years to sort out the franchise for IndyRef 2, judging by the comments above. At least a thousand lawsuits, counterclaims and petitions.

So this thread is where all the fun is happening. I thought it was awfy quiet on the main thread.

WM GE 4th July. Everybody must have heard by now.

This thread must be where all the Independent Indy candidates, standing on a plebiscitary platform, will be pitching their case, building support, and discussing how they will use their first 100 days to notify WM of our unilateral withdrawal from the Union.

Assuming, of course, that a majority of them get elected by the Sovereign people of Scotland.

Assuming, of course, there is a majority among the Sovereign people of Scotland for an end to the Union.

It really is so simple when explained like that. So why is none of this happening?

Anybody? Geri – you first – dazzle us with your usual tour de force.

@Alf Baird 10.34pm

Top goal post shifting there Alf! No two situations are going to be exactly the same, but insisting that Scotland is in a colonial relationship (which only a small minority of either the Scot’s electorate or anyone else accepts) but that Montenegro wasn’t won’t cut it.

Scotland’s case has of course little in common with the clear examples of decolonisation you mention such as Kenya,Egypt or Ireland, and much more in common with cases like the former Yugoslav and Soviet republics.

Indeed most Irish people would either bristle at your facile comparison or just laugh in your face. The Irish at least had the courage to vote overwhelmingly for a real independence party.

The reason you don’t like the details of the Montenegrin case and the findings of the Venice Commission in relation to the dissolution of the Yugoslav federation, is that it holes what passes for your case for franchise restrictions below the water line.

Neither Montenegro or Scotland qualify for or are accepted as cases of de-colonisation however much you and yiur bunch of sweary Sancho Panza’s in here keep determinedly tilting at the windmills of decolonisation!

@sam 10.04am

The evidence is that the UN doesn’t include Scotland in the list of non self governing territories. This isn’t the 18th century. The international community and international law don’t really care about what happened 300 years ago, however hard the usual suspects in here wish it were otherwise.

We are permitted to decide our own future, as 2014 demonstrated pretty clearly. The fact most people here think “we” made the wrong decision is neither here nor there. There are multiple routes to independence: referendums are only one. Nobody is going to gift independence to the Scottish people, or do the heavy lifting for us.

What is required is demonstrating a clear majority in favour of independence and a determination not to take “No” for an answer.

If the British nationalists now refuse to recognise the 2014 precedent, we have to use other options. The international community will not impose a solution and will not intervene except in very exceptional circumstances, which don’t apply in our case. Exercising our right of self determination can as also be done by plebiscitary election, or by the majority of the people deciding to withdraw their consent from the existing system and establishing their own, or in extremis using non-violent or even violent resistance in the face of violence or repression.

In Ireland – which is hardly an example we’d wish to emulate – nationalism turned to violence, but also used the ballot box, as well as basically establishing a parallel state where people e.g. abandoned the British courts and accepted the jurisdiction of alternative courts set up by the nationalist movement. They also used boycotts and ostracism of those who continued to support or participate in the British nationalist state.

Claiming independence would in many ways be easier if the UN and international immunity DID accept that Scotland was a colony. Get back to us when you’ve made that case and it’s accepted by those bodies and indeed by the majority of Scots, because at present it just looks like a Hail Mary pass launched by a desperate minority of cranks who have convinced themselves that they are right.

@Andy Ellis;

How can you possibly think that Scotland is NOT in a colonial situation under English rule?

England’s MPs presume themselves to have ‘legal or constitutional’ authority to overrule Scotland’s MPs on any matter of UK governance, despite the utter lack of any explicit formal agreement to that effect in any of the three formal founding documents of the Union.

So where exactly did England acquire its superior authority over Scotland and her MPs?

Scotland is a sovereign nation.

In a Union with England.

The Scots are sovereign.

It’s preposterous to block a sovereign nation from holding a referendum on any subject it likes. That is no longer a Union but an occupation.

The 2014 referendum was NOT conducted correctly.

It was a domestic franchise & the rules of purdah clearly violated & even the Edinburgh Agreement wasn’t legit either & didn’t contain any legal clause they’d actually IMPLEMENT to he result. The referendum should have been held externally with independent observer’s.

A sovereign nation also doesn’t need a section 30 FFS.

Did all yer wee election franchises you like to cite have a section 30s? LOL

Scotland is a sovereign nation. It needs hee-haw permissions from anyone. Especially from the side that’s shafting it blind. An occupying force has fck all rights under international law. A fact you should be familiar with now given yer chums in the ME.

@Hatey 2.03 pm

I tend to agree in fact. It seems likely from all the polling evidence that Scots are fairly evenly split on the general question of independence, though from a demographic point of view I think it will rise over coming years simply because we know younger voters are heavily pro independence.

The problem for the movement is that it has contrived (or to be more charitable acquiesced?) in the SNP & Greens derailing the movement and making it functionally much more difficult to achieve the desired aim via the referendum route.

Of course the delusional dregs who infest BTL discourse here represent a minority within a minority, with worldviews and takes on the Scottish political environment which are so laughably out of touch with reality that you could be forgiven for thinking they were actually just trying them out for the Edinburgh Fringe: mind you, most fringe acts probably have more support than their hot takes on how we can shortcut our way to independence by invoking the Claim of Right, saying “There’s nothing like Salvo” 3 times and clicking their heels together.

For progress to be made, the scales still have to fall from more of the eyes still blinded by allegiance to the SNP. The future isn’t ours to see of course, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on the British nationalists having everything their own way in the coming few years.

Nothing much is going to change when Labour comes to power, but the continued tension between a solid 50% or so of Scots being pro independence with no effective vehicle to progress it, may concentrate minds. It’s not going to be the nativist Brigadoon fantasies of the usual suspects that will be realised, but they’re just the hard core nutter fringe, who will huff & puff and still vote for independence anyway.

Moving above 50% and keeping it there so we can ensure independence actually happens is the task at hand. The people whose support we need – here and in the world at large – aren’t going to line up behind regressive, nativists. I suspect more and more “soft No” voters in Scotland will drift away from their British nationalist and unionist identities as they realise what a busted flush the UK really is.

@Geri 9.32pm

If Salvo & Liberation are so obviously on the right path, then my opinion won’t matter because they’ll sweep the boards right? If they have such a powerful and unanswerable case and slam dunk solution to the current impasse, then they must be galloping ahead of all the conventional parties, right?

Why are you concerned about people criticising them if they’re so powerful and so self evidently right? You’ll have nothing to worry about and will be able to say “told you so!” to all the doubters and critics.

As organisations, they don’t bother me at all: I think their reasoning is flawed and they have no hope of success and may actually delay independence more than hasten it.

You and your zoomer mates are just the Scots equivalent of the Irish vatniks Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. I notice the former just lost her seat in the European Parliament: the Irish waking up to having Vlad’s useful idiots besmirching their reputation perhaps?