Wings Over Scotland

Ruby says:
11 July, 2022 at 7:14 pm
robbo says:
11 July, 2022 at 6:50 pm

Andy Ellis .

——-

There in his heid. 99.5% don’t exist but he’ll still play the same game. If he thinks it’s fair for temp studants and holiday home owners to be included then you know where his loyalty lays.

Alf Baird says:

“Postcolonial theory tells us that the dominant national party elites’ unnecessary delay, deceit and petrification at a crucial stage in the independence/decolonization process only stores up more serious problems for the future.”

That is exactly what is happening, Alf. Sturgeon is the personification of delay, deceit and petrification.

@”Scott” 7.01 pm

Look harder.

I have looked. New Caledonia is recognised as a de-colonisation situation by the UN. Scotland isn’t. They aren’t the same.

More reasonable people and non nativists, will be able to figure out that what I’ve said all along is true: the vast majority of comparable self determination votes use residence not birth criteria indistinguishable except for minor details to the one used in Scotland in 2014.

New Caledonia isn’t remotely comparable, however hard you try to make it so, because self determination in instances of de-colonisation aren’t the same as situations like Scotland, Quebec or Catalonia.

@Chas 8.22 pm

There are posters on this site who would not permit him to vote in an Independence referendum?
Why?

Simple: because they’re regressive, blood and soil nationalists. Most if not all have a chip on their shoulder. Some balance it by having one on each shoulder. I’d lay odds that quite a few are such charlatans they’d make exceptions for elite sports people though.

The “We’re only talking about making things fairer / excluding students / second home owners…” schtick is just their lame equivalent of “I’m not a nativist but….” argument.

Odd too that none of the nativists so outraged at the (relatively) small number of “furriners” they’re convinced cost us visctory in 2014 appear in the least concerned about the number of votes regressive nativism might lose the cause. It was a point brought up early in the debate by Stu Campbell. It’s not hard to see why they are loath to answer it, or even engage on the point.

You cannot deny, given the UK parliament’s own words, that Scotland is regarded as a “territory” (or “colony”) of England/UK’s (establishment).

Well, yes…I can deny it because it’s tendentious, Brigadoonesque, “puir wee victim” bollocks aimed at deflecting from the generalised failure of the movement to make the progress it ought to have made.

Part of the reason for that might be the nasty infestation of nativists it appears to have picked up of course. Lots of folk think blood and soil nativism is deeply regressive. They’d no sooner want to live in the kind of Scotland they’d build than the one Sturgeon and her minions would build.

Oh aye, aw we need tae do is simply fight the propaganda when the MSM is pretty much in its entirety unionist in outlook, and control of Broadcasting is a Reserved power held by the very country we want to be free from, but they need to hold on to us for our resources…

With regard to temporary residents being allowed to vote in democratic process relating to Scotland’s constitutional future. It isn’t just about the number of temporary residents themselves getting a vote. It also has to be considered how enfranchising those folk is used as yet another divide and rule and influencing tactic by those who hold media power and influence.
Temporary residents living in Scotland from the Kingdom of England (who generally haven’t got a fucking scooby of our historical struggle) will undoubtedly make new acquaintances and form bonds of friendship with indigenous folk when they arrive here. So it is very easy to use Better Together shite such as playing on folk’s decent side when folk that consider voting for Indy are tarred with being anti-English, breaking up friendships, or splitting up the “country”, etc.
Anybody that has carried out real face to face activism knows just how hard it is to have decent informative chats with open-minded folk outwith our own social circles. But that effort to reach folk is insignificant when the small percentage of activists are up against the might and influential reach of the MSM, Broadcast programs, and manipulated social media algorithms.

Andy Ellis
Nativists Nativists, why don`t` you just call us Jocks or Vermin they are the same labels as far as i` concerned.
I ache for independence for my country and i and others have every right to be unhappy if thousands of English nationals settle in Scotland bringing their Westminster mentality and voting No in a referendum which they decidedly did in`14 and will do again if there is ever another one. No problem with Yes voters
coming.
Now you are obviously quite happy for an influx of No voters to pore across the border which is just a tad strange for someone who purports to support independence???

Andy Ellis says:
Simple: because they’re regressive, blood and soil nationalists. Most if not all have a chip on their shoulder. Some balance it by having one on each shoulder. I’d lay odds that quite a few are such charlatans they’d make exceptions for elite sports people though.

MORE PERSONAL ABUSE

@ Andy Ellis

Re. Increasing pro-indy support between 2012 – 14

Maybe we had a relatively decent on point YES movement then… But that still doesn’t mean what I jst described wasn’t still an advabtage to the unionist side.
Now we have a shit state of divisive pish to contend with from all sides.
So that was then, this is now. And if things are just the same as then, where the fuck is the Section 30 for another Ref. when there is even more of a mandate for one now than there was back then…

Andy Ellis says:
11 July, 2022 at 8:55 pm

@Chas 8.22 pm

There are posters on this site who would not permit him to vote in an Independence referendum?
Why?

Simple: because they’re regressive, blood and soil nationalists. Most if not all have a chip on their shoulder. Some balance it by having one on each shoulder. I’d lay odds that quite a few are such charlatans they’d make exceptions for elite sports people though.

Unless you name these poster everyone will just believe you are imagining these moonhowlers & nativists when you’ve had too much to drink.

PS Are these ‘moonhowlers’ pink?

The curious thing about the ‘hostile MSM’ is that they are no longer hostile to the SNP but are still an advantage to the Unionist side.

FAO Chas & Andy

C’mon guys give me names. I need to keep an eye out for these Moonhowlers.

The name I would really like is the ‘Moonhowling charlatan’ who would make an exception for some ‘Proud Scot But’ from the ‘Scottish Rugby Team’

Ha! Ha! Ha! Lol! Lol! Lol!

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Ruby says:
11 July, 2022 at 5:23 pm

Are you winding me up Roger?

No, I just get curious as to how people see things sometimes. If you believe the Tory leadership candidates were on TV ‘just to remind Scotland to know their place’, that’s what you believe.

I would assume they were there because they’re campaigning to be Tory leader – and because no politician turns down the chance to be on TV. Of course they will all oppose an s.30 indyref – as does Starmer. They’re all unionists at the end of the day. But they’re not JUST unionists, so everything they do isn’t about the union and indy.

Roger @ 11:38 pm

“but they’re not JUST unionists”

That’s right, their colonizers. That’s why, as the UN tells us, independence is decolonisation.

Scotland is not a colony, and never has been. There is a certain English political narrative – by no means shared by all English people, but quite often influencing some people hazily and only semu-consciously – which pretends or presumes that Scotland was taken over by England in 1707, and therefore colonised. That often subliminal narrative has no basis in historical fact or in legal reality. There are (and have been for centuries) quite a few politicians who play to that narrative, and either presume it themselves or (and/or) want others – both within the UK and (often even more so) abroad – to presume it too. They thereby show their ignorance of the actual nature of the UK, and its history, even though they seek to govern it. They ought, simply on account of that crass and I would say culpable ignorance, to be disqualified from ever having any governmental role in the same UK. They are entitled to be Unionists if they so wish, and if that is what they believe in, but they have to know – and not only understand, but show that they understand – what the Union that underpins the United Kingdom actually is.

The promotion of that false narrative can be traced back in a very real way to Edward I of England. Although it also precedes him, he is in a way the person who promoted it more ferociously and deliberately, and systematically, than anyone before him. He knew very well that it was a lie, and it was with deliberate intent that he propagated it. That lie continued to be propagated after him, and the idea that Scotland belonged to England became part of the political assumptions and bedded down in the political psyche of important and quite large sections of the English population. For many – including many in the English elites, especially its political class – they presumed that Edward’s project had finally been accomplished when the 1707 Union took place. But that is not what the agreement on which the UK was founded says, nor could it. The legal documents that brought the UK into existence show clearly that the Union of the two nations involved cannot be interpreted in that way.

People like Nicola Sturgeon, who are so self-centred that they think history began with them, have not the slightest clue about all this. They don’t even know or subscribe to what can be described as the legally correct and indeed the typically Scottish narrative of the Union, which was very well known in my youth (and even more recently than that} throughout Scotland, including among those who would describe themselves as Scottish Unionists. The people who erected the Wallace Monument, so visible as you approach Stirling from the South, were almost all convinced Unionists. Their Unionism, in those days, did not mean or require any denial or watering down of their identity as Scots.

Nicola’s appalling lack of the historical and legal realities is extraordinary and appalling for someone who claims to be the main proponent of Scottish independence. She is, by her own admission, a proponent of Scottish Nationalism. Funnily enough these Scottish Unionists of yore (actually not just 19th Century but more recent ones) often enough WERE Scottish Nationalists. In their own particular way, of course, but we should not be too quick to dismiss their views as inauthentic. They were fighting to maintain, and indeed insist on, the true nature of the Union. Something which too many modern Unionists are completely unable to do, because they too don’t know what it is. They are in fact not true Unionists but rather betrayers of the Union – that is, of what the Union actually was and is – instead of which they are embracing a new and extremely confused ideology which has no real substance to it. In that respect, they are ironically, but really and truly, very like Nicola S herself. On her part, she hates the word National and would like to have it removed from the name of the Party she leads. The unionists of yore were more nationalist than she is; indeed than she ever has been.

My guess – and I admit it is a guess – is that she probably associates Scottish Nationalism with the Scottish male, and thus – in her mind – with male chauvinism, and even maleness in general. And that probably means she associates it with the thing, or things, that she hates most. Her enemy number one does not seem to be those that oppose or thwart Scottish Nationalism, but those who espouse, support and promote it – especially (again, just a guess) if they are men. Her agenda seems to me to be to create a new Scottish identity which has no connection to Scotland’s past, and which actually rejects and denies it. What she is trying to create looks not just like a new identity which all Scots will have to be straitjacketed into, in fact, but a new kind of humanity altogether. It will have no connection with any of that old stuff, which she regards as irrelevant, and so out of date you can relegate it to the Stone Age.

Fundamentally, to achieve this kind of ideal, and bring into existence the New Scot that she imagines she is creating, she has to put Scotland and its past – that old Scotland that she in fact hates and despises – to the sword. George Buchanan, I believe, once described the study of history as the means through which our ancestors are restored to us, and we to them, or words to that effect. Nicola’s agenda strikes me as aiming to finish these ancestors off altogether, and put an unbridgeable gap between them and that generation of new – newly minted, newly created, historically mindless – creatures she wants to see roaming all over Scotland in the very near future. And that includes finishing off all of us old, fuddy-duddy Neanderthals who stand in her way, since we are in any case destined very soon to end up on that ancestral scrap-heap too. And, of course, that means you too, Alex.

She’s quite a revolutionary, our Nicola. As in 1789, this is now Year 1. This is the New Start for humanity, and Nicola is waving her wand and making all things new.

And that means the guillotine – and the bloodbath that went with it – is not far away.

Brave New World, indeed…

Good comment, Wull. It seems odd today to think of enthusiastic Scottish unionists in the 19th century also being proud Scottish nationalists, but, as you suggest, it didn’t seem odd to them; because they believed the Union was a symbiotic partnership.

How things have changed…

Hard to tell if this is a crime, a cry for help, or a bid for Tory Leadership….

link to 12ft.io

When do we stop pretending any of this is government?

@McDuff 9.48 pm

Nativists Nativists, why don`t` you just call us Jocks or Vermin they are the same labels as far as i` concerned.

It’s a simple descriptor for people who believe the franchise should be decided on the basis of birth or ethnicity rather than residence. I don’t really care if you think it’s derogatory. If the hat fits….

I ache for independence for my country and i and others have every right to be unhappy if thousands of English nationals settle in Scotland bringing their Westminster mentality and voting No in a referendum which they decidedly did in`14 and will do again if there is ever another one. No problem with Yes voters
coming.

Nobody is stopping you expressing your nativist views. you’re allowed to have them, just as those who disagree with you are allowed to think and say your views are regressive and nativist. It’s called democracy. How you think it is practicable to make windows in to people’s souls before “allowing” them to vote is beyond me. Surely those who are so keen to come to Scotland will happily confirm they support independence, then vote with their conscience at voting time. Or are you going to stand and look of their shoulder in the polling booth?

Now you are obviously quite happy for an influx of No voters to pore across the border which is just a tad strange for someone who purports to support independence???

You see, there you have it again. Nativists invariably can’t help themselves can they? Anyone who disagrees with their regressive views isn’t a “real” independence supporter, they only “purport” to support it. Sadly for you though “McDuff” I’m not one of those snivelling anonymous cowards hiding behind an anonymous moniker on the internet, so there are folk who know who I am, that I’m an Alba founder member, and that I’m not afraid to own my opinions, unlike the mostly anonymous fringe nativists in here. It’s not difficult to see why most of them feel the need to hide their identities given their regressive views of course.

“Calling someone a nativist for believing swathes of the Scottish population should be disenfranchised because they aren’t Scottish enough would appear to be fair comment.” – Ellis

People not born in Scotland should be disenfranchised in a self-determination referendum (quack, quack, quack), not because they aren’t Scottish enough, but because they aren’t Scottish at all.

Franchise restriction is lawful if based on National Registers (hatches, matches, dispatches)

See – EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION)

CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE ON REFERENDUMS

1. Universal Suffrage

1.1. Rule and exceptions

Universal suffrage means in principle that all human beings have the right to vote. This right may, however, and indeed should, be subject to certain conditions:

a. Age:

the right to vote must be subject to a minimum age but must beacquired, at the latest, at the age of majority;

b. Nationality:

i. a nationality requirement may apply;
ii. however, it would be advisable for foreigners to be allowed to vote in local referendums after a certain period of residence.

c. Residence:

i. a residence requirement may be imposed;

ii. residence in this case means habitual residence;

iii. a length of residence requirement may be imposed on nationals solely for local or regional referendums;

iv. the requisite period of residence should be reasonable and, as a rule, should not exceed six months;

v. it is desirable that the right to vote be accorded to citizens residing abroad.

d. Deprivation of the right to vote:

i. provision may be made for depriving individuals of their right to vote, but only subject to the following cumulative conditions:

ii. it must be provided for by law;

iii. the proportionality principle must be observed;

iv. the deprivation must be based on mental incapacity or a criminal conviction for a serious offence;

v. furthermore, the withdrawal of political rights or finding of mental incapacity may only be imposed by express decision of a court of law.

1.2 Electoral Registers

Fulfilment of the following criteria is essential if electoral registers are to be reliable:

i. electoral registers must be permanent or refer to a register that is constantly updated (population register or register of births, marriages and deaths);

ii. there must be regular up-dates, at least once a year. Where voters are not registered automatically, registration must be possible over a relatively long period;

iii. electoral registers must be public;

iv. there should be an administrative procedure – subject to judicial control – or a judicial procedure, allowing for the registration of a voter who was not registered; the registration should not take place as a result of a decision taken by the polling station on election day;

v. a similar procedure should allow voters to have incorrect inscriptions amended within a reasonable time;

vi. provision may be made for a supplementary register as a means of giving the vote to persons who have moved or reached statutory voting age since final publication of the register.

link to venice.coe.int(2007)008rev-cor-e

OMG It’s day two of ‘The Binfire of the Franchises’

If you were to believe Andy Ellis you would think Wings was jam packed with these nasty regressive nativist Moonhowlers.

Not sure it’s a very good ad for Wings but I don’t think Andy cares.

Ruby says:
12 July, 2022 at 9:00 am

OMG It’s day two of ‘The Binfire of the Franchises’

If you were to believe Andy Ellis you would think Wings was jam packed with these nasty regressive nativist Moonhowlers.

Not sure it’s a very good ad for Wings but I don’t think Andy cares.

—

From ‘Catch 2022’

Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
6 July, 2022 at 12:48 pm

Andy Ellis, Ruby: if either of you ever mentions the other by name (including any “clever” ways of doing so indirectly) again in any context whatsoever you’re banned. Clear? Not comment deleted, not pre-moderation, banned.

I have HAD ENOUGH of this fucking playground shit.

—

À la prochaine, Ruby.

@Daisy Walker (9.30) –

Can you tell us any more about the ‘mixed response’?

If you’d prefer not to, no worries, but your comment is intriguing.

Ian Brotherhood says:
12 July, 2022 at 9:33 am

@Daisy Walker (9.30) –

Can you tell us any more about the ‘mixed response’?

If you’d prefer not to, no worries, but your comment is intriguing.

No problem Ian, that area in Perth has a fairly high level of Rangers supporters, and also drug addicts. The drug addicts can’t see past Nikla.

In fairness, our stall was at the shops, so it is passing footfall and can vary from hour to hour. If that makes sense.

Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
6 July, 2022 at 12:48 pm

Scott says:

Andy Ellis, Ruby: if either of you ever mentions the other by name (including any “clever” ways of doing so indirectly) again in any context whatsoever you’re banned. Clear? Not comment deleted, not pre-moderation, banned.

I have HAD ENOUGH of this fucking playground shit.

—

À la prochaine, Ruby.

I missed that comment. Looks like I’ll be banned.
It could be you next Scott.

@Daisy Walker (9.45) –

Thanks for that and yes, the ‘footfall’ effect does make sense.

2012-14 we did regular street stalls on the Bridgegate in Irvine. It’s a pedestrianised stretch leading into the Rivergate shopping centre (which we weren’t allowed close to) and the busiest part of the High Street where a lot of the bus stops are clustered.

I remember asking Richie Venton (SSP co-founder) why he travelled all the way down there from Glasgow after his work just to do these stalls – it turns out that that specific spot had one of the highest ‘footfalls’ in the whole of Scotland.

Just goes to show – Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen etc may have much ‘busier’ streets overall, but there’s a lot more involved in assessing how to get closest to the people.

😉

Anyone had a look at the “SAS death squad” stories that Panorama and the BBC just released? It looks like they were systematically murdering unarmed civilians in Afghanistan, often even kids.

This all happened about ten years ago and we are finding out about it today because it was covered up at command level, etc.

The sooner we separate ourselves from this bunch of war criminals, the better. The world will thank us for dismantling the atrocious UK state.

“Anyone had a look at the “SAS death squad” stories that Panorama and the BBC just released?”

But..but..but..we’re the good guys, we wouldn’t do things like that, we would never do things like that, nope, never ever, other people are the bad guys, it’s definitely not us, everything we do is for the sake of humanity and a better world for everyone, this is quite obviously not true, we are the good guys, not anyone else, just us….and the Americans, of course, fucking Russians!

Stuart MacKay.

I’m under the impression that Ben Wallace decided not to enter the race for PM.

Anyway the British army is one of only a few that allows sixteen year old’s to enlist. Teenage age soldiers have died in Afghanistan, Amnesty International HRW and Child Rights International have all slated the MoD for allowing child soldiers to enlist in the British army.

The so-called elite SAS have been assassinating folk for decades. Folk only need look to ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland to learn that they operated alongside members of organisations such as The UVF etc. Take a look into the story of The Miami Showband. A successful Irish pop band, with members from both persuasions, murdered by a joint UVF/Brit military operation.

Then there was Gibraltar where SAS operatives killed, i think 3, unarmed PIRA operatives. The Brits, of course, held an inquest and the ruling, with no surprises, was that the SAS acted lawfully. The European Court of Human Rights had a slightly different finding. They said the whole plan was so flawed that lethal force was inevitable. No PIRA bomb was ever found.

But as the saying goes: One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. And to quote another saying: All is fair in love and war. Or, if you prefer: Live by the sword die by the sword. There’s no getting away from the fact that London has been behind countless questionable military operations and tactics for hundreds of years.

@Stuart MacKay (11.10) –

Wallace’s campaign was always doomed – his foes would’ve had to do no more than point to this embarrassing episode in which he was pranked by Russian comedians pretending to be the Blue & Yellow nation’s Prime Minister. He fell for it and disclosed operational information. For that alone, he should’ve been fired.

link to youtube.com

I really, really, don’t care who the next Tory chief is, but if, in some perverse through-the-looking-glass reality, I had aspirations to be chief of the Tories, I’d be skipping this bus and waiting for the next.

Boris Johnson went too soon, and the UK Government still has to decide on which International Treaty it’s going to breach over the Northern Irish Protocol or the Good Friday Agreement. So the next Tory hopeful probably has Rogue State / International Pariah Status / EU Trade War items already looming in their “in” tray.

Whoever loses the lottery and becomes the next PM probably shouldn’t see it as a long term career move. On the up side, you may live on for decades in pub quizzes as in “Who was the last PM of the United Kingdom?”

@Stuart MacKay –

Truss has ‘Head Girl appeal’. Tories like that, and so do Americans.

🙂

@ Roger

Not sure if your figures take into account import and export figures to and from various euro connections.
Scroll to right of this linked page to see gauges on those connections.

link to gridwatch.templar.co.uk

I cannot believe how anyone would voluntarily sign up to join the army when they can look at the non support all the parties of government don’t provide

The tories love to promote themselves as the logical choice for law and order, yet they are mired in unbelievable corruption and that is only the stuff we KNOW about NO THANKS to their non doms and state broadcaster

Labour love to promote themselves as the party of the working class and socialism , yet Sir Keir demanded that Labour officials don’t attend picket lines and BLIS spent £millions of pounds fighting an equal pay deal for women in the courts

The SNP or as it is known the Secretive Nonce Party loves to promote themselves as the party of independence , but the head pervert cannot mention independence without boaking , she much prefers finding out about the sexual activity of minors, her fellow deviants hate even the thought of independence because the gravy bus would have engine failure

Just how stupid are people

With regard to energy and the geographic areas it is classed as being generated in. It may also be worth looking into where the source fuel used in certain specific generation processes actually comes from.
As per link above, at this moment 45% (15.2GW) of the GB Grid power is being produced by Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, but is all that gas being burnt sourced in the same geographic areas as the power stations, or is it piped in from say those 6000 square miles of stolen seas…

link to craigmurray.org.uk

And similarly, just where does all that petrol and diesel being used in England actually originate from…

Think it’s now just the smallish output one in Peterhead. So nearly all of the gas burnt in CCGT stations is in Kingdom of England.
But as per the percentage of resources Scotland has in the UK, approximately 65% of gas reserves are in Scotland (I presume that figure won’t include those reserves in the stolen seas…)

link to en.wikipedia.org

link to en.wikipedia.org

@Daisy

Here’s the source for the energy figures – it’s a pdf

link to assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

Some gas figures in this article on Mossmorran stating close to 30% of gas used in UK comes in through St Fergus. Note that there may be some gas from Norwegian territorial sector included in that stat.

link to shell.co.uk

It’s worth noting that England also directly imports a fair bit of gas from Norway via the Easington – Langeled pipeline.

link to en.m.wikipedia.org