The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Friendly neighbourhood rival fans

Posted on December 28, 2017 by

Not too many surprises here. (Except, perhaps, the 18% of respondents who claimed to be football fans yet also said they had no interest in the World Cup.)

Excluding the disinterested the numbers were:

England 24%
England’s opponents 38%
Others 40%

And for people actually born in Scotland the figures came out at

England 20%
England’s opponents 41%
Others 39%

And that’s pretty much the natural order of things. If you’re a “Rangers” fan and you cheer for Celtic when they play (let’s not say “compete”) in the Champions League, or a Celtic fan who backed “Rangers” in the Petrofac Training Cup, you’re the weirdo.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 28 12 17 11:56

      Friendly neighbourhood rivals | speymouth

    134 to “Friendly neighbourhood rival fans”

    1. Kenny says:

      Thanks for saying it. The idea that somehow you’re racist if you don’t automatically support your most natural rivals if your team isn’t in the tournament is one of the more bizarre claims of Unionists. When I hear it, I always ask them what their favourite team is and ask the Spurs fans how often they cheer on Arsenal in Europe, or ask Dundee fans why they don’t want the other team from their city to do well in the Cup once they go out. It’s absolute nonsense to expect anything different.

    2. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      It wasn’t actually the English footie side as such that we disliked, it was the damned English commentariat. They always revealed in a very open and unselfconscious way the very vices of arrogance and self-entitlement that we (like others) always took their country to possess, grossly unrepresentative of ordinary English folk as they may well have been.

    3. bobajock says:

      Poke me with a stick, but I was a Rangers fan (before the dissolution) who would support Celtic if they progressed further. I am still a Scotland fan (hard I know) who will cheer on England – even against the titans of Iceland.

      The odd thing is, as a veritable mongrel – half DoB half Tim – half Scot half English, I can totally understand why some can never do what I do.

      What I don;t understand is the DoB’s desire for England to succeed and Celtic to fail.

      But then, they are stupid to think their current team is ‘Rangers’.

    4. Joemcg says:

      Why the f should we feel obliged to support our neighbours anyway? They also take offence if we don’t. Are the non qualified Dutch going to support the Germans next year? their next door neighbours? Aye sure they are.

    5. Truth says:

      What really tickles me is when some English find this out they are like “I’ll support anyone against Scotland then”.

      They can’t understand why we don’t then get upset and see the error of our ways.

      It’s totally natural that’s why. Unless of course you have a colonialist mindset. Then it’s as Stu says, it’s you that’s the weirdo.

    6. Dawn in NL says:

      hi Bobajock
      What is DoB?

    7. mike cassidy says:

      Robert J Sutherland 12.07

      Agreed about the commentariat being the problem.

      Which I once pointed out to an English guy years ago with the evidence that a lot of Scots had no problem enjoying English club football.

      The irony now is that that commentariat arrogance has gradually diminished with successive failures.

      They are even having to realise that their ‘best’ Premier League players are really made to look good because of the non-English talent surrounding them.

      So I don’t even experience the same schadenfreude at expectation meeting reality for the English team.

      You just can’t win as a Scot!

    8. jfngw says:

      It not them winning that is the problem, it’s the next 50 years of reruns that wears you down. They might even end up with a quiz show linked to a commentary quote. It’s bad enough when they win at cricket, a sport that only has about six countries that actually play it to a professional level.

      I won’t actually be here in 50 years so even if they do win there is a bright side to it for me.

    9. Vestas says:

      As a Scot who has lived in England for as long as Rev Stu I have to tell you that the media coverage of “Engerlund” annoys just as many English people here.

      Thankfully even the most rabid “Engerlund” supporter acknowledge their football team has no hope of winning anything at senior level in the next 20 years. Peak “Engerlund” happened in 1990 and has been on a rapid decline ever since.

      Just like Rangers & their “interesting” tax affairs “influenced” the top level of Scottish football over many years, Sky/BT and lots of very dodgy money have done the same in England.

      The upshot is the same for football – neither Scotland or England have a hope in hell of winning anything at senior level in the next 30 years. Frustrating for England as they have lots of young talent who rot away on the bench in the EPL…

      Personally I’m just waiting for the performance-enhancing drugs scandal to finally hit football. The Spanish burned the evidence in their country (twice) but it beggars belief that doping isn’t endemic in top-level football. Its endemic in EVERY other sport at the top-level but not football (tennis & rugby)? I have a bridge to sell if you believe that….

      tl;dr this post is well OT 🙂

    10. ScottieDog says:

      I remember being late for work watching and supporting england win the final of the rugby World Cup a decade and a half ago. I decided to concerntrate on the fact that they were a cracking bunch of players even though their coach was a prize twat. Dare I say it, far more annoying than the English media were the hugely biased Aussie media who knew deep down that England were a far better side.
      Seldom watch football anyway.

    11. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Dawn in NL @ 12.31pm

      A DOB is: “A Dirty Orange Bastard”, the term was, as far as I am aware, conjured-up by comedian and Rangers’ fan Andy Cameron, who also came-up with DIB “Dirty Irish Bastard” for a Celtic fan.

      This, supposedly, reflects how these two bodies of supporters feel about each other.


      For me, the most-interesting thing about the figures the Rev has quoted is the seeming failure to appreciate England’s talent, as demonstrated by the majority of Rangers’ fans. So what’s all this Rule Britannia, Land of Hope and Glory and GSTQ thing about?

      A massive wind-up, or split personalities?

    12. JWT says:

      You could probably count on one finger the number of times John Mottson has commentated on an England game and NOT mentioned1966. IRN BRU even had advert on that basis. (Other soft drinks are available).

    13. Proud Cybernat says:

      I think it’s nice that England’s footballers recently won the Under-20 World Cup. Only because they now have a world cup win to watch in full glorious colour.

    14. David Caledonia says:

      If your football team goes out of a tournament why should you care about what your rivals do in that tournament, if they win it they win it, if thay get beaten who cares
      The italians did not make the world cup in russia, you would think the manager and the players had committed treason, what a silly football crowd they have
      I remember when argentina won the world cup, lots of their fans ran to the cemetery gates and shouted at the headstones, you don’t know what you missed, i think their mothers and fathers who where still alive would not be caring about a stupid football match and comparing it with their dead relatives lying dead in a cemetery, so many football fans forget what life is really about

    15. The Anglo Saxon/Norman French is a different beast to the poetic Celt,

      they want to dominate,they show no pleasure in a score or a win, just a display of aggressive superiority,`the right order of things`,

      just look at the fans of the Celt nations compared to the Germanic Anglo Saxon,

      it`s right through English society from top down,

      hope the get humiliated but get through so they get humiliated again and again,the only reason to watch World Cup for me.

    16. Dawn in NL says:

      Socrates MacSporran says:
      28 December, 2017 at 1:10 pm

      thanks Socrates. I guess I have always been naive in this regard. I was well into my middle age before I understood why even quite small towns in Scotland had 2 football teams.

      Sad really.

    17. orzel says:

      It’s because they ate football fans that they are not interested in the World Cup. Why would you be given its venue and its organisors

    18. Rockhaggisd says:

      I think an option has been overlooked.

      ‘Actully support x or y, but will never openly admit it’ category?

      I know myself that openly I would never support Rangers … but there have been times when I have been quietly chuffed they won.

      What percentage I represent .. is arguable … but you might actually be surprised.

    19. Giving Goose says:

      England definitely lack talent but they also lack a cohesive national identity (so do Scotland).
      You simply cannot be both English and British in football.
      Basic sports psychology dictates that a strong identity is a building block of the team. No identity – no team – no trophies. Simples!

    20. ascotintheworld says:

      To be honest, I’m a football fan, but have zero interest in the World Cup because Scotland didn’t make it. I didn’t watch any of the last one either. I only watch matches/tournaments where a team I support is involved, so it’s maybe not THAT surprising that some identify as football fans but with no interest in the WC.

    21. richie bradley says:

      the main reason that I refuse to support England is that we (in Scotland) are relentlessly force-fed how supremely brilliant England are compared to us. Imagine they do win a match or two, we’ll need to listen to Linneker and gang and BBC Scotland will even show their games…
      If I was running a team in England, I’d have 10 players to choose from for every one that a Scottish team has… of course they’ll always be better, sheer weight in numbers… and our crap weather of course.

    22. galamcennalath says:

      I have absolutely no interest in football, and not much in any sport TBH.

      I have watch Andy Murray when he is in with a good chance of winning something important. Though I’m not really watch tennis, just cheering on a great Scot to achieve something great.

      If I hear any Scot, or Scottish team, has done well I do think … nice one! But my motivation is to hear Scotland excelling at something in the eyes of the world.

      The cringe exists and is all too common, so I like to enjoy the opposite feeling whenever possible.

      What of England, or Japan, or Guatemala in sport? Couldn’t give hoot.

    23. Dan Huil says:

      Best sport in the world: American Football. Go Steelers!

      [Oh and I like women’s golf too]

    24. Bobp says:

      Ascotintheworld. Same as that, when Scotland dont qualify for a world cup or European nations, i never watch them. Also after 40yrs down saff, i have never watched an epl interest.Only team I watch on tv ìs from the east end of Glasgow. And i do root for any Scottish clubs in Europe.

    25. Artyhetty says:

      Just humour them. If they win at football, well, that’s fabulous. Will the players have to stand in long queues at the airport if playing away games, once Brexit kicks in? Sorry, that pun was not intended!

      England has little to be proud of quite frankly, so let them
      fantasise about winning the world cup.

      It’s their politics they need to worry about, and do something about, instead of blindly hoping that Labour will save them from being taken backwards a 100 years or so.

    26. Ot on lbc this morning they were talking about car park charges in English hospitals and the compare Andrew Pearce said of course in Scotland one of their perks,is they do not pay them it is the English taxpayer who is subsiding this through something they call thr Banett formula so there you are we are being subsidise by England and our our good government policies for the people of Scotland are being called perks either Mr., Pearce is ignorant of the facts or like the media he chooses to lgnore them because the only way they can win an argument is to tell lies

    27. yesindyref2 says:

      Where I am quite a lot of people used to support Italy in the World Cup, and not just those who came over between and after the wars, or their kids and grandkids! Apart from which they were a good team …

      Brazil was another popular one, and then you’d get Ireland “Give it a lash Jack”, ironically managed by an English 1966 team member. And after that any small nation, underdog basically. These days Poland gets native Scottish support because of the quite large number of Polish people here.

      It’s yer human nature, innit.

    28. Ronald says:

      Do I have to support someone when watching the World Cup?

    29. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Dinnae worry @Blair Paterson says at 4:07 pm

      “Andrew Pearce is Associate Editor of the Daily “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” Mail.

      He plays ‘Tory Boy’ to Kevin Maguire of the Mirrors ‘Working Class Labour Lad’ on Sky News Papers review.

      It is all Dogwhistle ‘scrounging jock’ stuff for that audience demographic.

      They only hang onto us ‘cos of their benevolence you know ;P

    30. Bill McDermott says:

      I hope it is late enough to go off-topic, but I can’t help noticing that ‘The National’ is using you as a source document Stew. I hope they are paying for the privilege of using unique data that the rest of the MSM wouldn’t admit to using – more fool them.

    31. mike cassidy says:

      OT but still football

      How appropriate that the thirtieth anniversary of this event should be occurring during the period when some would have the ‘offensive behaviour’ legislation overturned.

    32. louis.b.argyll says:

      I once supported Rangers, hoodwinked from supporting my natural local club, indoctrinated, until I grew up, in general.

    33. heedtracker says:

      The World Cup is my favorite tournament ever. Its heartbreaking when Scotland doesn’t make it.

      But its always nice to hear the English football commentariat berks going absolutely insane hysterical over England and how they are going to win the world’s greatest sporting event, all followed by their HI lariously bitter autopsy.

      Actual England fans are nothing like the nutters on the telly, mostly.

    34. Paisley bud says:

      Slightly ot, but it was interesting to hear that the FA and UEFA recently refused Jersey’s bid to join UEFA. This was on the basis that they weren’t proper independant nations, the BBC then give a list of non nations that play international football.

      I would have thought England should have been on that list too.

    35. Ewen says:

      Having been born in 66 and had every special birthday spoilt by the “since we won the world cup” crap, there is no way I’d even think of supporting them.

    36. ian murray says:

      Put me down as a neanderthal, I like to see England do well in early round games to feed the hysteria then see them crashing out in a way that inflicts maximum pain ( other than that I am a really nice guy) I support Scotland why would I add England to my pain profile
      Who cares what any individual team a person supports?
      All over the UK people will be supporting England but no one will know because they are not at the game physically cheering them on, they are sending mental well wishes which in itself is well …..mental

    37. yesindyref2 says:

      The fans are OK, the team members are OK, it’s the hysterical commentariat puts people off, they go on and on about how great England are remember 1066, and then ranting about the poor performance the manager should be sacked because England only won 4-0 in some friendly that was given pride of place on TV over an actual nailbiting Scotland qualifier.

    38. Croompenstein says:

      It’s the way they plot England’s route to the final before the games have even started with total disregard to the opponent that gets on my wick.

      They did it at the Euros of course when they organised their next match against France but they fell on their smarmy fucking faces when the mighty Iceland took them down.

    39. ClanDonald says:

      Just because you don’t want England to win doesn’t mean you can’t put a big bet on them winning. Call it compensation.

    40. starlaw says:

      What do they expect. The England footy team is being rammed down our throats. Every game shown live on STV in Scotland even when Scotland is playing at the same time. England, England always bloody England, keep it up STV you are an excellent recruiting Sergeant for the YES voters

    41. heedtracker says:

      ClanDonald says:
      28 December, 2017 at 7:23 pm
      Just because you don’t want England to win doesn’t mean you can’t put a big bet on them winning. Call it compensation.

      Its the other way round, just ask Iceland, as England’s greats froze against them,

      England’s spends like a gazillion quid on all English sports, football especially, so there is aN AWFUL lot of lovely mullah behind them.

    42. Al Dossary says:

      I am by no means a great fan of England’s football team. In fact, let me rephrase that – I hate the bastards and their servile comentators with every bone in my body!

      However, the thing that I found funniest of all was that in the 2012 Euros the self-professed , biggest hooligans in Europe actually did not have the balls to go to Ukraine. It seems that the lager swilling, pot bellied thugs did not relish the thought if going go up against an almost semi-pro team of thugs.

    43. yesindyref2 says:

      When you think about it, if Scotland had won the World Cup in Argentina, half the Tartan Arny would still be there celebrating.

    44. Sunniva says:

      Why on earth would you support England if you are a Scot? I don’t follow football and have zero interest in it but if I did, my position re England would be complete disinterest. Neither for nor against.

    45. galamcennalath says:

      While nothing to do with football specifically, multiple posters have expressed dislike of the exceptionalism and entitlement so often shown by some of our southern neighbours.

      This came into my mind, as a vague memory. I admit I had to look it up to get the exact words ….

      From Richard II by William Shakespeare written before the Union of the Crowns. At a time when there was no excuse for confusing the geographical island of Britain, from the kingdom of England.

      This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
      This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
      This other Eden, demi-paradise,
      This fortress built by Nature for herself
      Against infection and the hand of war,
      This happy breed of men, this little world,
      This precious stone set in the silver sea,
      Which serves it in the office of a wall
      Or as a moat defensive to a house,
      Against the envy of less happier lands,
      This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

      Jeez, they have been at it for well over 400 years!

    46. Breeks says:

      England uses up so much of my tolerance for their so called “UK” sports coverage with the damned cricket every new bulletin (why???) that a) It is thoroughly tiresome to hear so much, so often, about a sport which means literally less than nothing to me, and b) Precisely because it is such a tiresome nuisance, I confess an English victory means absolutely nothing to me, although I do like to hear that England has been stuffed – by the Aussies, Kiwis, W Indies…. or anybody really. It doesn’t matter who.

      It strikes me the closest equivalent would be Scotland broadcasting details of the Shinty to the Home Counties of England with the expectation they will find it to be of interest to them. I am quite sure the Home Counties would rather quickly find it a presumptuous and obnoxious imposition.

      It isn’t that I bear animosity towards the English players. Quite the reverse. Truth be known I don’t envy them their time in the limelight with the nasty and fickle English press. They seem to put such an inordinate amount of pressure on their teams it must be thoroughly stressful and counter productive for the poor unfortunate players. – Heroes to zeroes on the flip of a coin.

      Neither is it because you are biased. In sporting events there is bound to be an element of partisan challenge to impartiality. It’s natural. However a “good” sporting reporter, somebody like Bill McLaren for example, could always contain his personal feelings, and deal with victory or defeat with wit and good humour, and be studiously professional whenever the mic was turned on. Take note BBC. We need a little less celebrity and a lot more professionalism in your reporting.

      But keeping it simple – If you must endlessly force me to watch or hear about the alien sport of Cricket, then I will very quickly resent it, and I will assuage my irritation and frequent frustration by thoroughly enjoying news of your defeat, and the more humiliating that defeat is, the better.

      When you have such contempt for my own countries sporting ambitions that you can invest more in the wages of one single sports anchorman than you pay towards the whole sporting establishment in Scotland, then don’t bother asking me to support England on the “mutuality” ticket. It’s not going to happen. The “mutuality” karma means, if anything, that I will hold your English sporting achievements in the same contempt as you hold Scottish sport.

    47. heedtracker says:

      Jeez, they have been at it for well over 400 years!

      Why is English patriotism not a good thing though? Anyway that is a great speech but its from a character regaling England’s past.

      “This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
      Dear for her reputation through the world,
      Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
      Like to a tenement or pelting farm.”

      The more things change…

    48. David Caledonia says:

      Important newsflash

      Russia has launched their nuclear missiles, you have 30 minutes to get some cover and save yourself

      And, for out next report, here are the cricket results ,lol

    49. ian murray says:

      yesindyref2 @ 8.13

      I was at the ’86 world cup in Mexico and met a guy at the Germany game who said
      “Ah went tae thi World Cup in Argentina,and ave no been hame yet, a met a Mexican girl, got married, and am a bank loans officer in Guadalajara”

    50. David Caledonia says:

      I allways celebrate the chinese new year, i know all the words to Old Ling Zing,

      Should old ling zing be forgot
      and never brought to ming
      Should old ling zing be forgot
      And, mings a ling a ding

      Heh Heh Heh

    51. David Caledonia says:

      Never give change for an english pound note, i know for a fact they’re made in scotland, how do i know, cause its me that makes them in a back room in the carlton lol

    52. Bobp says:

      Breeks 9.10pm. That’s it in a nutshell. All my 40yrs spent in England,All I’ve ever heard is how Scottish football is sh*te , Mickey mouse etc,etc. After all the underfunding from the ebc and sky I’m not surprised we struggle. But therefore why should I give a xxxx about English football or their world cup chances. They treat our sport with contempt,I’m hardly likely to root for them.

    53. Dr Jim says:

      Trouble with football is it doesn’t have much to do with football, it’s a substitute gladatorial spectator event for the fans to imagine themselves victorious killers of the opposing army, and listening to the English media throw warlike adjectives around like Sumo wrestlers throwing salt at each other is a complete embarrassment and that’s why we don’t like it

      It’s not the game in the way we watch Barcelona or Real Madrid or any of the top good teams actually playing with the skill and tactics to outplay the other team, now that’s real football where the adjectives sound more like “Oh Wow” and “Jeeezus Maaan” and jaws drop at the thrilling spectacle of people like Messi or Ronaldo or other such guys

      The English media begin each game talking about Home Soil or Hostile atmospheres or Grudge match or giving the opponents a Drubbing and will the manager be sacked if he doesn’t Crush the opposition, talk of a skillful game rarely comes into it with the English media

      And that’s why every time England play I fervently look forward to them being played off the park by “Who cares” anybody
      Iceland was a joy though you have to admit it, I mean come on we’re still laughing at that one

    54. Bobp says:

      Which is also why I’ve never subscribed to sky in my life.

    55. galamcennalath says:

      heedtracker says:

      Why is English patriotism not a good thing though?

      Genuine patriotism is fine. It’s just in England it often manifests itself as the type of imperialist nationalism which covets the lands of its neighbours.

      Anyway that is a great speech but its from a character regaling England’s past.

      “sceptred isle … fortress built by Nature .,, stone set in the silver sea … a moat defensive to a house”

      Last time I looked, England wasn’t surrounded by water. In fact it makes up not much more than half the island of Britain.

      Unless of course England is considered synonymous with Britain. Which clearly this did, and over 400 years ago!

    56. Robert Peffers says:

      @galamcennalath says: 28 December, 2017 at 8:43 pm:

      “Jeez, they have been at it for well over 400 years!”

      You weren’t paying attention then, galamcennalath?

      I’ve posted the facts many, many times here on Wings.

      “The story of early Britain has traditionally been told in terms of waves of invaders displacing or annihilating their predecessors. Archaeology suggests that this picture is fundamentally wrong. For over 10,000 years people have been moving into – and out of – Britain, sometimes in substantial numbers, yet there has always been a basic continuity of population.

      Before Roman times, ‘Britain’ was just a geographical entity and had no political meaning and no single cultural identity.

      The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old ‘invasion model’, and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely discredited.”

      from :-

      It goes on to state:-

      “Millions of people since Roman times have thought of themselves as ‘British’, for example, yet this identity was only created in 1707 with the Union of England, Wales and Scotland.

      Before Roman times ‘Britain’ was just a geographical entity, and had no political meaning, and no single cultural identity. Arguably this remained generally true until the 17th century, when James I of England and VI of Scotland sought to establish a pan-British monarchy.

      This is a real eye opener for most people but it is factually correct and a far more plausible account than most Wingers would have garnered from both the geography and the history they were taught in schools.

      Factually the early Greeks circumnavigated the British Isles and the Greek scripts indicate they though of them as a vast white desert hence the names Albion and Caesar!.

      However, the Romans came in around 54/55 BC and stayed for several centuries but they never conquered the northern areas who remained an able fighting force. The Romans left and since then the south Britons have been subjugated by the Germanic Tribes but these were not from what we now call Germany but pretty much the Scandinavian lands.

      When the Romans left the South Britons were left defenceless and they invited in the Angles, Jutes Saxons and a few other Germanic Tribes to protect them and they gave the protectors free land in payment.

      Inevitably the Germanic Tribes decided that they were onto a good thing and they became an elite ruling force that enslaved the aboriginal South Britons but that doesn’t make all the modern south Britons the Anglo-Saxons they believe themselves to be. Mainly only the aristocracy and royals are Germanic Anglo-Saxons genetically with an estimate of less than 5% actual Anglo Saxons genetically.

      This elite ruling class remained Germanic until today. Even the Normans, (it’s short for Norsemen), that gave us the feudal system with hereditary peers still sitting in the HOL and the Royals still of Germanic blood today.

      So awa an learn some real history – it might surprise you to find out when the Celts arrived – that’s pronounce Kelts and not as pronounced by a certain WOS fitba team.

      Oh! And BTW: there is proof that the Scots were NOT imported from Ireland as recent digs on remote Scottish Islands indicate that artefacts found there pre-date those found in Ireland.

    57. Bobp says:

      Al dossary 8.08pm.which is exactly why engerlunds pot bellied fans wont be going head to head with the para military style superfit Russian football hooligans. They wont want their ar**s handed to them on a plate.lmao.

    58. galamcennalath says:

      @Robert Peffers at 9:57

      … puzzled … exactly what has that got to do with the fact that in ~1595 it was acceptable in England, much as it is there today, to consider the words England and Britain as synonymous?

    59. Robert Graham says:

      Looks like the BBC in Scotland are possibly loosing one of their best weapons to have a go at the SNP.

      The Scottish branch of the BMA has called for this mantra over waiting times to be dropped and referred to them as crude and just a reason to use them in a blame game .

      Oh shit what’s Bradford going to do now, oops she’s gone well then the replacement will have to dig in another cesspit for a story now , How Sad , oh Dear never mind .

    60. heedtracker says:

      Unless of course England is considered synonymous with Britain. Which clearly this did, and over 400 years ago!

      Maybe. Shakespeare the Unionist, is a great title for a lit crit thesis.

      From the England football team routinely tripping over their own feet today and to the shock of everyone except…

      to Renaissance literature, only on WoS btl.

      To be fair, a lot of them still want the French to hand back Calais too.

    61. galamcennalath says:

      heedtracker says:

      a lot of them still want the French to hand back Calais too

      Perhaps they have a point, given the demands of the French that the UK pay for the customs upgrades there and other entry points.

      If the French (and others) don’t upgrade their customs, they will handle a dozen trucks an hour, or whatever. Like the Scots, Brexit isn’t France’s fault either.

    62. Robert Graham says:

      o/t Again SKY 10 o’clock news, item , renewables a whole report on Britains green energy, and records and milestones reached, it was obvious what was going on a total removal of any kind of reference to anything north of the border, While it went on at length and referred to Britain as one of the leaders in the world cutting reliance on coal and gas .


      Aye better together as long as we shut the f/k up and sit in a corner .

    63. Highland Wifie says:

      Breeks 9.10
      Excellent post that sums up what most Scots probably feel about the funding imbalance of sport in the two countries and the resulting black hole of media coverage.

      But I do like the idea of “And now on Radio 4 we go to Newtonmore for the Camanachd Cup Final!”
      Good one.

    64. Golfnut says:

      @ Robert Peffers.
      ” it is factually right ” actually it is factually wrong. The letters bbc, the state propagandist,should act as a heads up regarding this kind of stuff.
      The word Britain comes from Gaul, their word for the people of these islands, was ‘ Priti or Pretani, thought to to mean picture people, possibly tattoos. The close relationship between, Latin, Greek and the Celtic languages, explains the easy transformation from Pretani to Briton.

      As far as their being no common culture, that’s complete blocks. They shared a common language, which currently is classed as Brithonic. No doubt different dialects, but the same language as witnessed in common place names, easily identified, Aber, for example. The Picts ( picture people ) shared shared a language with the rest of this island. There were also Picts ( Pretani ) in Ireland.

      Language is one indicator of shared culture, religion is the other. The Gods of the South were the same as the Gods in the North, the standing stones in Orkney may predate Stonehenge by a thousand years, but they represent the exact same religion, as do the Druids, common to all tribes across these Islands. It is very possible that, Caesar!, Caesar!n, Albion was the religious cultural centre for Celtic Europe.

      Albion was the native name for this Island, possibly meaning white land, it predates the Celtic language, Brithonic, Caesar!n. Gaelic Caesar!

    65. David McDowell says:

      What really scunners the England football commentariat is they just can’t get a “glorious victory” to stuff down everyone’s throat as political propaganda.
      So they go on trying to convince themselves they have a divine right to win, while we wait for the hilarious moment when England go out on penalties, and the commentariat totally lose the rag. At that point the commentariat often cites “lack of support from Scottish fans” as a reason for England’s failure. They just can’t face the truth: that they’re arrogant gits and their team just isn’t good enough.

    66. heedtracker says:

      galamcennalath says:
      28 December, 2017 at 10:27 pm
      heedtracker says:

      a lot of them still want the French to hand back Calais too

      Henry V has a great speech in Henry V, all about beating the French. Laurence Olivier made his WW2 propaganda movie version which ends,

      And you, good yeoman,
      Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
      The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
      That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
      For there is none of you so mean and base,
      That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
      I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
      Straining upon the start. The game’s afoot:
      Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
      Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’

      That really stuck it to the Hun. But no Scots.

      This is what happens today ofcourse, when just enough Scots prefer Scotland, the vassal state but for how much longer?

      Also, I highly doubt Shakespeare’s a yoon.

    67. Fireproofjim says:

      Gallamcellanath &heedtracker
      Don’t know about “Shakespeare the Unionist”. I don’t think he ever used the word Britain or British. England was his world and I guess he was proud and patriotic about it, as Scots were when telling the tales of Bruce and Wallace, (like John Barbour)
      He was ultimately just making a living and trying to please the locals. He even wrote MacBeth to please the new arrival from Scotland , James IV and I.

    68. Fireproofjim says:

      That should, off course be “James VI and I”

    69. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Plug for iScot magazine.

      Heads up!

      If you’re not already a digital subscriber to iScot magazine, they’re doing a special (don’t know how long it will last) today, of a year’s subscription for £16.99. Too good to miss…

    70. Thepnr says:

      @Robert Graham

      Pleased to hear the the Scottish branch of the BMA are having a go at the BBC. About time the Police Federation and the teachers Union in Scotland did the same.

      So too all health staff Unions, they should speak up for their members against the daily onslaught from the BBC and Tory press which serves only one purpose.

      SNP BAD!

      Never a mention of how these workers constantly are outperforming their colleagues in the other parts of the UK. That wouldn’t do.

    71. galamcennalath says:

      heedtracker says:

      Henry V … the French

      Ah, so propaganda by omission was alive and well then too. 🙂

      I highly doubt Shakespeare’s a yoon

      I get the impression he shrewd when it came to politics. His head would depend on it! As times changed from Elizabethan to Jacobean he apparently played (literally) to the new order.

    72. Brian Allan says:

      galamcennalath says:
      28 December, 2017 at 10:07 pm

      @Robert Peffers at 9:57

      … puzzled …

      In an uneducated guess I would surmise that an Englishman at that time with a modicum knowledge of history and geography would know of the Romans and their label of the whole of the island (Scotland, Wales & England) as Britain and automatically assume the whole to be England. Perhaps this is the same today for many as it was then. How often do we hear Americans on the media in the present day, speak of England when they mean Britain.

    73. galamcennalath says:


      On hearing of the Scottish victory [at Baugé], Pope Martin V passed comment by reiterating a common medieval saying, that “Verily, the Scots are well-known as an antidote to the English.”

      … I hope the EU feels the same way over Brexit and Indyref2!

    74. heedtracker says:

      He was ultimately just making a living and trying to please the locals. He even wrote MacBeth to please the new arrival from Scotland , James IV and I.

      Maybe but keep in mind Macbeth came to a very sticky end, after killing the King of Scotland first. James was so popular in England at the time, they tried to blow him up, aka Guy Fox, who was not trying to blow up the House of Commons at all, only to kill his new Scottish king. Macbeth was first performed same year as Guy Fox was plotting.

      James only got the English King gig because it was the last word and wish of Elizabeth, an English Tudor making a Stuart Scot, king of England, keeping in mind, she had murdered his mum and her dad waged an almost endless war on Scotland, or the “rough wooing,” costing countless Scottish lives, laying waste lowland Scotland…

      sSo once you get into it all, stripping away all kinds of bullshit, especially Victorian, about this union and empire, it gets very Shakespearean.

      In Shakespeare’s time, everyone knew that England had conquered Wales and Ireland. And they knew Scotland would be next, one way or another.

    75. galamcennalath says:

      Brian Allan says:

      we hear Americans on the media in the present day, speak of England when they mean Britain

      Not just Americans. In conversation I’ve had to often with English folks. They don’t mean to be offensive, but they still make the mistake thinking it doesn’t matter.

      I have never heard a Scot make that mistake. Not even a Proud-But one.

      Corbyn during the summer …. “the nations and regions of England”. Slip of the tongue where he meant “the nations [of the UK] and regions of England”? Perhaps, but I think it more likely he meant what he said.

      As you say, there was a clear assumption that the whole island is England long ago. And they are still at it, after all this time and all that has happened.

    76. Brian McHugh says:

      I’m glad we are not going… I will kinda pity the English hooligans, as they get chased around Red Square by the Russian far right nutters.

    77. Colin Alexander says:

      EFTA membership must be unanimously approved by current members.

      If the SNP achieved their aim of forcing the UK to join EFTA / Customs Union – so-called Soft Brexit, rUK with retained EFTA membership would then be able to veto an independent Scotland from joining EFTA too.

      If there were to be an indyref campaign, the UK Govt could state they will veto Scotland’s membership application for EFTA if Scotland votes YES. The NO campaign would state Scotland would be out of the UK’s single market and have no access to the EU’s single market ( via EFTA via the EEA).

      It seems to me, UK membership of EFTA would enable the UK Govt to seriously damage the YES campaign with that threat. Similar to Project Fear in 2014 saying a YES vote means Scotland is out of the EU.

      It begs the question: if the SNP want an indyref YES campaign to win based on the option that an indy Scotland could join EFTA, why are they trying to strengthening the Union’s hand to block that policy?

    78. Liam says:

      What I want to know is; how there are three (or is it four? I’ve no interest in football at all) teams from the UK in the World Cup, but the UK only has one entry in the vastly more important Eurovision Song Contest?

      (Well, it’s vastly more important in our house.)

      And why is it all right for commentators on the Eurovision Song Contest to sneer at neighbouring countries voting for each other – the Scandewegian countries, and various bits of Eastern Europe always give each other a leg up when they can – but the same people wail with frustration when Scotland doesn’t ‘support’ its neighbours.

      Daft I call it.

    79. Thepnr says:

      There in NO requirement to be in a Customs Union within EFTA.

      EFTA does not envisage political integration. It does not issue legislation, nor does it establish a customs union.

    80. Molly says:

      Good point Colin Alexander that is why I would like a well known face of the SNP to become the equivalent of ‘ a minister’ of constitutional affairs or an Independence minister and then when Brewer tosses his hair and lines up the question,the ‘ minister ‘ could say here’s Professor ‘expert in your exact topic Gordy ‘ to answer your questions.

    81. Still Positive says:

      The pnr @ 12.29

      I believe the Norwegian Foreign Minister or Prime Minister excluded the UK from joining EFTA because of population size.

      EFTA members have a total population of between 16 -18 million people. They are not going to admit a country of the population of the UK, although Scotland would be welcome.

      Despite that there are many MPs in the HoC still arguing for EFTA membership.

    82. yesindyref2 says:

      Clean up on aisle 77!

      Continued membership of the single market means continued membership of the EEA, and the customs union is separtely negotiated. Neither mean membership of EFTA. Membership of EFTA can make it easier getting into the EEA, and EFTA has its own trade agreements (50 of them I think), that is all.


    83. Cactus says:

      As a Winger once wrote:

      “Of course. It’s ridiculous that Scotland have played England just three times in the last 20-odd years, but the FA would rather fill international weekends with crappy meaningless friendlies. Everyone else would rather have the Home Internationals back in the odd-numbered years between World Cups and Euros.”

      Do you remember this photograph?:

      2017 be the ‘Year of the Rooster’.
      2018 will be the ‘Year of the Dog’.

      3 days to go till midnight 🙂

    84. Cactus says:

      Seventeen is down.

      Eighteen is up.

      Stay standin’.

      Thank you.




    85. Ghillie says:

      I’m supporting Iceland =)

      I like the way they clap 🙂

    86. louis.b.argyll says:

      On BBC radio Scotland right now, a pathetic report on ‘borders’, cut to some village near Coldstream…

      ‘will we still get to the shops..’ (following independence)

      ‘no’ replies some daft old Tory wifey.

      Sooner we’re free from these crazy old folk the better.

    87. louis.b.argyll says:

      The BBC GMS RADIO show..
      Why not have the journalist/reporter, who’s chit-chatting with the bunch of ignorant unionists, reply with FACTS, instead of listening to people deliberately MIS-REPRESENT the situation.

      Makes me sick, to hear such pish broadcast to frighten old folks and idiots.

    88. TheItalianJob says:

      @Macart at 7.27am

      Thanks for the Link. Good that it’s getting a wider exposure what this group are coordinating in the Scottish newspapers.

      Very sad Group in my opinion but as Doug Daniel posted they are well organised and as we also know well funded by the establishment and their union cronies.

      No doubt they are an additional threat to be overcome in our fight for Independence. But the Yes movement is strong and we have able supporters ourselves.

    89. Breeks says:

      Still Positive says:
      29 December, 2017 at 1:02 am
      The pnr @ 12.29

      I believe the Norwegian Foreign Minister or Prime Minister excluded the UK from joining EFTA because of population size.

      EFTA members have a total population of between 16 -18 million people. They are not going to admit a country of the population of the UK, although Scotland would be welcome.

      Despite that there are many MPs in the HoC still arguing for EFTA membership.

      Seems to me that the whole sorry story of Brexit has been delusional and ill informed from the outset. I would go further and describe it a wilful blindness and denial of reality. Within hours of the Brexit referendum result, the EU was making various statements and references to Lisbon Treaty Articles and have not altered or deviated from such parameters at all.

      The UK however has squandered month after excruciating month on an extended sight seeing detour which has turned into an epic, and tragic, long journey of self discovery, only to find ourselves back where we started – dealing with EU on the terms they described from the beginning,

      Every word of the UK’s Brexit narrative post Brexit result is actually the long overdue process of awakening which should have taken place before the referendum. Every word about a “soft Brexit”, a bespoke Trade Deal, a selective acceptance of EU criteria; is all just more of the same deluded jumbo-jumbo. The UK has no capacity whatsoever to negotiate any Brexit resolution other than to accept the terms offered by Europe on a take it or leave it basis. The UK’s problem is that nevermind reading the small print, the UK has never troubled itself to read the big print either.

      It’s no secret, I have been, and remain, staunchly in favour of Scotland’s EU Membership, and I have always seen EFTA as a grossly inferior compromise which ticks one or two of the right boxes where EU membership ticks them all.

      As a sovereign member state in Europe, Scotland would have had influence in Europe which would have allowed us to lobby for issues such as Catalonia and Europe would have had to formally listen to us. Scotland would also have a sovereign veto to freeze and contain any aspect of EU policy which we found unacceptable, – a principle soundly illustrated by Ireland’s unimpeachable capacity to kill off a UK Brexit deal over the Border issue, (and yet to be illustrated again with Spain over Gibraltar).

      Furthermore, the whole “collective” principle of the EU which makes it a slow and clumbersome vehicle to alter course, is also the same collective principle which makes it so massive and powerful that it can dictate the terms of how “lesser” factions interact with it. If anyone wants a Trade Deal with the EU, the EU has secured for itself a position of strength which can ensure that EU legislative capacity is dominant over standards, terms and conditions, and able to establish the appropriate benchmarks which others have to meet.

      In the EU as a member means ALL of Europe’s existing Trade Deals with some 150+ non-EU countries are still applicable to Scotland, with the added bonus that Scotland will gain influence and right of veto on new trade agreements. EFTA is a much smaller body with much smaller quota leverage over its own non-EU trade agreements, and no leverage at all over the EU. To see what EFTA means in practice, Google Switzerland’s “Swiss Trap” Trade Deal with the EU.

      If the Swiss break a single clause in any of the numerous bilateral agreements that make up their trade deal with the EU, their whole economic relationship falls to pieces. There is an all-or-nothing “guillotine clause” which forces Switzerland to accept EU law, however that law evolves, but without any power to influence that law, or to break away without risking enormous economic damage. Why did the Swiss agree to it? Because the EU said take it or leave it.

      Scotland should, and must, think long and hard about the empowerment that is implicit with EU Membership, and the token access but negligible empowerment provided by EFTA. These are not like-for-like alternatives. Scotland as an EU member state is going to be an infinitely stronger proposition with an incredible amount of influence and collective umbrella which EFTA simply cannot deliver.

      The “E” for Europe in EU means us. The “E” for Europe in EFTA refers to “them”. It’s a BIG difference.

    90. gus1940 says:

      My schooldays ended in 195 after having been forced to study Shakespeare’s plays for year after year.

      I cannot think of any benefit whatsoever gained by studying said plays. Am I a Philistine in holding that opinion or do others agree that the time would have been better spent studying something useful?

      I was forced to study Latin for 4 years until I was able to drop it after the 3rd Year of Senior School.

      Although I hated every minute of it I have since realised that the time spent on Latin has been of great benefit unlike the time wasted on Shakespeare.

    91. gus1940 says:

      My schooldays ended in 1958 after having been forced to study Shakespeare’s plays for year after year.

      I cannot think of any benefit whatsoever gained by studying said plays. Am I a Philistine in holding that opinion or do others agree that the time would have been better spent studying something useful?

      I was forced to study Latin for 4 years until I was able to drop it after the 3rd Year of Senior School.

      Although I hated every minute of it I have since realised that the time spent on Latin has been of great benefit unlike the time wasted on Shakespeare.

    92. Bob Mack says:

      Amo, amas, amat, abamus abatus, abant.

      Yep, Latin was a killer. Handy for prospective lawyers though.
      The curriculum badly needs updating, especially to study more contemporary authors rather than plough through Elizabethan English, which is just choc full of prejudice and racism.

    93. Habib Steele says:

      “… disinterested…” I think you mean uninterested.

    94. Dr Jim says:

      Me too, Shakespeare Shakespeare and do as you’re told, we had to all learn to be good English subjects from the frozen North till we grew up to start our real lives when we went to London to work for the benefit of that Country and not for the one we lived in

      I believe they used to call it the brain drain
      plus of course it did help to keep the population down in Scotland, much easier to control your asset when it has no power itself

      It’s been a long used tactic of the Great Empire of London
      so never kid yourselves English folk who live outside London, you folks are just as much fodder for London as Scotland always was

      It’s not a step up to go to London to work, it’s a step down and loss for the area you leave behind you

      See how that works

    95. John H. says:

      gus1940 9.17am.

      At least you got a good education, even though there was too much emphasis on English subjects it seems. I had to leave school at fifteen due to family circumstances. Luckily there were plenty of jobs in those days, not like now when jobs are scarce and they want a degree for almost all of them.

    96. Ken500 says:

      In the good old, bad old days only 10% of the population went to university. 90% were excluded from professional jobs unless they did alternative part-time etc study. Shakespeare was quite boring. Grammar etc. People with additional needs were left behind. Often extremely talented people. Everything invented in the world is mainly by those on the spectrum. In Scotland 55% of the population have a higher/uni education. One of the highest in the world. Others go on to college, apprenticeships or training, 98%.

      A healthy, educated population is important for a successful economy.

      Sectarian ‘sporting’ clubs ruin the economy.

      Westminster decisions ruins the Scottish economy. Illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion. Take £Billions out of Scotland. Better educated people are realising and sharing.

      Thank goodness for the SNP Gov on the right track.

      Scottish invention shaped the modern world. TV, telecommunication led on to the internet. People can’t be fooled so easily anymore.

    97. louis.b.argyll says:

      Shakespeare is bigger than just English.

      His work is entertainment in play, educating in review. He is the greatest ever storyteller.

      You guys were were just bored.

    98. mike cassidy says:

      Re the SNHS.

      Last night’s Radio Scotland’s music programme “Get It On” had several high-praise stories about healthcare from listeners responding to the ‘Thank You, 2017’ theme

      I did text the presenter with a warning that the Misreporting Scotland team would be after him for that!

    99. mike cassidy says:

      Has anybody got a link to the Scottish BMA story.

      Couldn’t find it on their website.

      Though this is interesting – and if voted for – would definitely make Misreporting Scotland very unhappy.

    100. ScottieDog says:

      @Colin Alexander
      “It begs the question: if the SNP want an indyref YES campaign to win based on the option that an indy Scotland could join EFTA, why are they trying to strengthening the Union’s hand to block that policy?”

      Because there is pretty much no chance the UK will relent to any wish of the Scottish government.
      They have to be seen as trying to exhaust all possibilities BEFORE calling for a referendum.

      Of course once a referendum is called, it is easy for the UK establishment to disrupt that. I would imagine another GE for example – Scotland is far more important to the UK establishment than the individual establishment parties. The Best course of action for the SNP (and the greens) IMHO is to stand with a manifesto solely for independence.

    101. Colin Alexander says:

      There are four EFTA members. EFTA, is the European Free Trade Association.

      A free trade area is NOT the same as a single market. Free trade means no tariffs /import taxes, a single market means all have to meet the same regulations on goods and services.

      Three EFTA states: Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are also members of the EEA; Switzerland is not. That’s why the EU are now bullying Switzerland to try and force them to accept further integration.

      EFTA members can join the EEA, if they accept the principles of the single market. To be in the Single Market: members are legally bound to add EU directives and regulations about the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital into their domestic law – and pay membership fees.

      Like membership of the EU with no say on the matter, say critics. ( Though EEA members are not ruled by the EU’s fisheries and agriculture policies, critics say, EEA regulations do affect much of these areas too).

      I believe it is the EEA membership that gives the wider Single Market with all the EU members.

      EEA is NOT the Customs Union. eg. Iceland sets it’s own personal allowances for bringing alcohol into Iceland as it’s not part of the Customs Union.

      It remains unclear if leaving the EU means that a member automatically also leaves the EEA. Or whether an EU member leaving the EU also has to separately leave the EEA.

      I believe the UK Govt’s position is that they regard leaving the EU as also leaving the EEA.

      To summarise, the SNP’s position of trying to force the UK into membership of EFTA /EEA and the Single Market is actions they have no democratic mandate for.

      Also, if achieved, it would appear to make Scottish independence LESS likely.

      Yesindyref2 says we should just join the EU. EU membership also requires approval by all member states. England/rUK couldn’t veto that as EFTA/EEA members, but they only have to say to Spain:

      “If you are supportive of an independent Scotland’s EU membership application, we will recognise and support Catalonia’s independence and would encourage Basque independence too”.

      What do you think Spain would do? It would put Scotland’s future in the hands of third-parties’ goodwill. Like sharing the pound. How did that go again?

      So, it appears to me, the FM / SNP policies could prevent Scottish independence. I can’t prove that’s a deliberate motive, but it would appear to be the effect, if achieved.

    102. ScottieDog says:

      “Am I a Philistine in holding that opinion or do others agree that the time would have been better spent studying something useful?”

      No I feel exactly the same. Lots of qualifications but the most important things I have studied have been out of work and academia..
      1) money creation
      2) permaculture

    103. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Colin Alexander @ 11:06,

      Whatever happened to all that “better sticking with a federal UK” guff you used to parrot incessantly when you first appeared, Colin? One would think anyone who wanted that kind of “safety-first” Union wouldn’t be moaning about Brexit the particular way you are now, as if it’s all the SNP’s fault, FGS.

      “EU Federal superstate”? EFTA shmefta. Duh.

      Ever the convenient self-promoting contrarian, eh…?

    104. schrodingers cat says:

      efta/eea membership isnt as good as eu membership, no question about it. but it is a stance which will make indyref2 more winnable.
      you need to walk before you run and we need to win our independence before we can address such issues

    105. Colin Alexander says:

      @schrodingers cat

      I agree that Scotland joining EFTA / Single Market / Customs Union would make indy more likely.

      But if rUK are already in EFTA – which is what the SNP are trying to achieve – rUK can then prevent indy Scotland being in EFTA by vetoing membership. They can threaten that veto during an indy campaign. Project Fear 2.

      rUK can also apply diplomatic pressure to coerce the likes of Spain into saying Spain would veto out an indy Scotland EU application. Project Fear 2.

    106. North chiel says:

      “ Scottie dog@1101”, An eminently sensible answer to the question Scottie dog, and yes perhaps the next Holyrood election ( May blocks section 30), could be our “ Independence referendum”

    107. Colin Alexander says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland

      Nice you remembered my previous discussions, but that’s not what I said.

      I said, a CONFEDERATION could be a good idea. That is a looser partnership of cooperation between sovereign states that retain their individual sovereignty.

      I do not believe I have ever uttered a single word of support for Scotland being part of a federal UK. As a federal state is a single unitary state.

      A federation would make us like Catalonia with Spain. Who wants that?

    108. Derek says:

      To go back a few years; my great-uncle always had a season ticket for Hibs, but if they were away he’d go to watch Hearts (or occasionally Meadowbank).

    109. Colin Alexander says:


      I 100% agree the SNP manifesto should be: independence.

      I agree the UK Govt wouldn’t join EFTA to please the SNP. However, the SNP are trying to organise a cross-party coalition of anti-Brexit MPs to block a hard Brexit and force through soft Brexit.

      Do you agree rUK membership of EFTA would be a threat to a Scottish independence campaign, but you are stating that there’s no need to worry because the UK won’t join EFTA?

      The sensible thing would be for the SNP to simply abstain, as Scotland voted to Remain – full EU membership, so any Brexit: hard or soft, should not be an option for the SNP to support.

      You stated: “They have to be seen as trying to exhaust all possibilities BEFORE calling for a referendum”. I disagree.

      The Scottish electorate and Scottish Parliament gave the SNP the mandate for an indyref following the SNP manifesto of 2016 which clearly stated that if Scotland is dragged out the EU, note: EU, against her will, that is grounds for another indyref.

    110. Colin Alexander says:

      @North chiel

      I agree the SNP – or other pro-indy candidates – could use an election as the means of deciding independence. In effect, turning an election into an indyref.

      I believe, even if Scotland elected 100% indy MSPs the UK Govt would say MSPs can only deal with devolved issues, indy is not devolved.

      But then,if Scotland elects 100% indy MPs they would say that’s just 59 out of 650 UK MPs and it’s UK Govt and MPs as a whole that decide the UK’s constitutional matters.

      Ultimately, the only sure way of achieving anything is by acting without UK approval. Unilaterally dissolving the Union.

    111. yesindyref2 says:

      @colin alexander
      the SNP’s position of trying to force the UK into membership of EFTA /EEA and the Single Market

      That is NOT the SNP position, you’re misrepresenting it again. Their position is that the UK should stay in the single market and the customs union, and that is NOT forcing the UK into membership of EFTA.

      Yesindyref2 says we should just join the EU

      That’s yet another outright lie from you. In this thread I never even mentioned the EU. Not even once.

    112. Ron Maclean says:

      @Colin Alexander 1.04/1.14pm

      From the SNP website – Constitution

      “We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.

      Following the EU referendum, the First Minister made clear that the SNP Scottish government will explore all options to protect Scotland’s place in Europe. We believe that independence is not the only option – but if it turns out to be the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests, then the Scottish people must have the right to consider it.”

    113. Colin Alexander says:


      Apologies to you if you believe I have put words into your mouth that misrepresent your views. I know how annoying that is, as it also happens to me frequently on here.

      Working from memory I believe you said you personally favour EU membership, which is not the same as saying Scotland should just join the EU.

      If that’s also wrong, I welcome your correction.

      However, if I have made a mistake on your position, it’s not deliberate, so is not a deliberate lie, but laziness / carelessness in that I couldn’t be bothered to check and quote you exactly.

      Merry Christmas.

    114. Colin Alexander says:

      @Ron Maclean

      Thank you for that response.

    115. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hypothetical scenario:

      At some time prior to the March 2019 date for the UK to leave the EU, there is an independence referendum in Scotland, which results in a YES vote. The “Independence Day” is set for a week or two before the EU/UK divorce.

      Therefore, at that date, the UK has ceased to exist and has reverted to its two component parts, one of which wants to continue its membership of the EU and one that has voted to leave the EU.

      What does the EU do?

    116. Michael McCabe says:

      Colin Alexander you come on here all the time attacking the SNP. This site is Wings over Scotland so give us a rest from your barrage of Jackie Bailey. The SNP have there own website go moan there please. Merry Christmas ?

    117. colin alexander says:


      Thank you. You are technically correct, the SNP are not explicitly trying to force UK membership of EFTA. It seems they are working on the presumption that the UK can leave the EU but, remain a member of the EEA/Single Market and Customs Union.

      However, it is unclear whether leaving the EU automatically also ends EEA membership too. That has not been legally established.

      The position of the UK Govt is that the UK is an EEA member by virtue of EU membership, so leaving the EU means the UK has also left the EEA. So, no separate leaving notice required for the EEA.

      “”Catherine Barnard, Professor of EU law at the University of Cambridge, thinks the Government is right. “Although the EEA Agreement does require the giving of notice, I think the stronger argument is that we would fall outside its territorial scope when we leave the EU,” she says.” according to The Independent.

      So, if the UK Govt are correct, for continued single market access after Brexit, UK EFTA membership may be required. So,I may not be misrepresenting the SNP at all.

      Either way, the question remains: if the SNP devolution administrators are pro-independence: why are they interfering in UK level politics to try and make Scotland’s remaining IN the Union a position more advantageous than Scottish independence?

      For the sake of debate, let’s assume the SNP get their way: the UK retains EEA membership so are in the EU’s Single Market.

      Why would Scotland choose independence then? When indy would mean leaving the UK’s Single Market AND the EEA/EU’s Single Market.

      Indy Scotland would need to comply with the terms of rUK’s Single Market, which would be required to comply with the EU’s Single Market, but indy Scotland would not be members of either.

      The EU have made it clear, they view the UK as member state. Indy Scotland would be a new entity, so cannot retain any membership via being a former constituent part of the UK.

      So, indy Scotland would need to comply with all the regulations of trading with the rUK and EU/EEA single market, but with none of the benefits of membership.

      There’s much less chance YES to indy would win in such a scenario. The SNP know it, I know it. Everybody and their dug knows it.

      An indyref in such circumstances would be a token gesture to appease those who are still under the illusion that the SNP are independists, rather than devolutionists.

      I don’t have a problem with the SNP being Unionist devolutionists. People are entitled to hold that view. (But, I won’t vote for them).

      However, those that hold that view should not pretend they favour independence, when they are working to strengthen the Union (but seeking more devolution).

    118. Thepnr says:

      29th Dec 11.06am
      To summarise, the SNP’s position of trying to force the UK into membership of EFTA /EEA and the Single Market is actions they have no democratic mandate for.

      29th Dec 3.34pm
      Thank you. You are technically correct, the SNP are not explicitly trying to force UK membership of EFTA.

      Your forever dancing on the head of a pin and change your argument when it suits even within a matter of hours. The SNP are forcing the UK into membership of EFTA. Well actually your technically correct yesindyref2 they are NOT trying to force the UK into EFTA.

      Make your mind up, I honestly don’t know why you bother, I’d be embarrassed.

    119. yesindyref2 says:

      @colin alexander
      Fuck off

    120. Dr Jim says:

      @yesindyref2 4.54pm

      Todays winning comment and all the points go to yesindyref2

    121. yesindyref2 says:


    122. Hamish100 says:


      Is technically correct mean that indyref2 is correct?

      Tell me this – if Scotland stays in the Eu or efta as an independent nation can we remove nuclear weapons, choose to go to war or not? Answer – the choice is ours.

      Now if we remain in the English union can we choose not to go to war etcetera or are we told to shut up and dae as we’re telt.

      Don’t answer. I know it

    123. ScottieDog says:

      @Colin Alexander
      “The Scottish electorate and Scottish Parliament gave the SNP the mandate for an indyref following the SNP manifesto of 2016 which clearly stated that if Scotland is dragged out the EU, note: EU, against her will, that is grounds for another indyref.”

      Yes and it has to be fulfilled within the parliamentary term, but I want YES to win the next referendum, which requires over 50% of the vote so the SNP taking longer and being flicked off at every opportunity by WM increases the chances of taking ‘don’t knows’ and pro-brexit YEssrs down the path of Indy.

      We won’t be granted a section 30 and therefore have to be seen (in light of the result of 2014) to have exhausted ‘diplomatic’ channels before calling an ‘illegal’ indyref2. We aren’t polling (officially) over 50pc yet and need to change hearts and minds. Not only do we want the public here on-side but the international community.

      We’re not going to get

    124. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      RE: Brian Doonthetoon at 2:46 pm.

      I see nobody has been brave enough to offer an answer to the question I posed,

      “What does the EU do?”

    125. Colin Alexander says:


      That’s a sensible attempt to try and explain the SNP’s actions.

      Of course, none of us have the answers about what’s going to happen about Brexit or indyref2, so none of us can say for sure that we have the right answer.

      But, I think it’s helpful that we discuss these issues.

      Unlike too many on here, I recognise that sometimes SNP politicians get it wrong.

      Alex Salmond has admitted the idea of sharing the pound – a central plank of the YES campaign – was a mistake. I respect him for admitting that.

    126. Jamie says:

      Since 1998, every time Scotland fails to qualify I lose even more interest in the world cup. When it does come I usually start to take more interest but ultimately the more times Scotland fail to qualify the more irrelevant it seems to become for me. I wonder if that’s the reasoning of some of the 18%. It’s the same for the champions league for me, once Celtic is out it’s dead to me, only a handful of teams actually have a chance of winning it anymore and it’s the same for the world cup. It was not always thus, whilst if you look through the winners list it can seem a monopoly once existed the fact is even Scottish teams had a chance of winning the cup with big ears and not so long ago many people thought Scotland would win the world cup! Oh how times change.

    127. Ted Croker says:

      Our game of fitba has been run into the ground by English carpetbaggers like Regan and Doncaster along with their unionist mates from the old firm, hearts, aberdeen etc.

      Add in England’s fitba being subsidised by Scottish contributions of t.v.licence money ( not mine) and Sky sport packages. We end up with the likes of Lineker blowing it out his arse every 2 x years about how Engerland will win the… back in ’66.

      As someone who supported England during that game..right up until they scored… I will never forgive the bastards for eclipsing a great Scottish team that finally and thankfully put them to the sword the following year.

      And btw England fans have always been fannies….they were outnumbered at Wembley from the ’70s onwards. And when the ‘Green Street’ fuds decided to ‘Sock a Jock’ back in ’81 and we were barred…they turned up team handed and got their sorry arses handed to them on a plate..there is little or no footage of the teams of ‘firms’ begging rescue from the old bill from enraged Scots unfortunately or not surprisingly….boy they ran that day..the whole fucken lot of the scurvy mob.

    128. ScottieDog says:

      @Colin Alexander
      I can spend many paragraphs espousing the benefits of a free floating currently and indeed spent a lot of time doing this in the lead up to indyref1. In that I was fully in agreement with Mr sillars.
      This is the right way to go for an independent Scotland. Of that I’m sure.
      A big word of caution on all of this though. Think of of project fear1 but this time on steroids. We will see warnings of hyper-inflation, huge devaluation and of course warnings that Scotland will have to ‘balance the books’ in order to ‘show the bond vigilantes’ we are ‘responsible’.

      All of the above is utter crap but it is the centre piece of neoliberal economics and impartial bodies like IFS, Fraser of allander etc will be posting ‘warnings’ for an independent Scotland.
      Debunking the economics of the above organisations is easy but it is another challenge altogether to get people to question the ideology they have been indoctrinated with for decades.

      Although I disagreed with the currency choice in 2014, I could see politically why it was a desirable choice. In any case it is part of the central bank’s remit to maintain economic stability. It would of course be of no benefit for the Bank of England and the English treasury to economically destroy Scotland.
      It would have course not benefit Scotland to use the £ in the long term but there would most certainly have been close cooperation. The rest was politics.

    129. Thepnr says:


      “It would have course not benefit Scotland to use the £ in the long term but there would most certainly have been close cooperation. The rest was politics.”

      I pretty much see it that way myself.

    130. Terence Callachan says:

      We in Scotland get Englands commentary no matter who we watch playing football, just check this out from now on whenever you watch an international game on tv, the commentators will always mention the England football team and will specifically look for players that play for an English team or have played for an English team or were scouted by an English team or have a granny that supports an English team.Its the same with the rugby internationals they will take every opportunity to talk about England even if England are not playing !!! It’s the British nationalists way the englishing of Scotland

    131. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Colin Alexander at 8.47

      Alex Salmond has not admitted that sharing the pound was a mistake. It was conceded by Mervyn King that, had we won, sharing the pound would have been immediately conceded.

      The mistake was in giving our opponents a target they could fire at dishonestly with some success as they control media reporting.

      We should merely have pointed out that there is a large number of accessible currency options and we would chose the most appropriate one as we negotiated our departure.

    132. Colin Alexander says:

      @ScottieDog @Thepnr

      “The rest was politics”. Indyref is all politics.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top