From May To July
Posted on
July 29, 2025 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
-
Recent Posts
- 12-07
- 12-04
- 12-03
- 12-03
- 12-01
- 11-27
- 11-22
- 11-19
- 11-14
- 11-08
- 11-07
- 10-29
- 10-27
- 10-24
- 10-22
- 10-17
- 10-16
- 10-16
- 10-14
- 10-12
A tall tale
Wee Books
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Life in Bedlam
Video
I se that Richard Lochhead is retiring and is being replaced by a useless hetero hating Wokist in Laura Mitchell. There is no end to the treason.
We are heading for English NAZI Party Rule thanks to the anti Indy Wokists in the SNP.
Well I have read the second article (above) and am non the wiser as to what an “‘immediate’ constitutional convention on independence” actually is or exactly how it will progress independence.
The party that cries wolf at every election.
It would be interesting to know why the sudden change or is it 1 SNP deluded have had enough of John Swinney and have ditched the party or is it 2 Jeremy Corbyn new party. Make no mistake this is another get us past the election and all bets are off, if the SNP was serious they would involve everyone and they won’t.
The SNP are known liars and they’ll do what ever it takes for your vote.
Clearly he’d just put the kettle on in the meantime
“Marshall” = “Control”
Honest John is a DEVO-NAT. In fact the SNP are DEVO-NATS. A party that no longer believes in Indy but keeps up the pretence to remain relevant at the ballot box.
Vote SNP 1&2 the party of independence … (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more)
Make no mistakes Scotland was offered Devo-Max and the Scots voted for it in 2014, after the referendum the SNP had the option to deliver it via the Smith Commission but choose to take the easy option of Union before Scotland.
The SNP did not fight for Scotland and have never since Sturgeon took of from Mr Salmond.
Yes, the SNP has an agenda but it not Scotland or Independence.
“ Honest John is a DEVO-NAT. In fact the SNP are DEVO-NATS”
========
Would the term Devo-YOON(s) not be more appropriate?
Will the real John Swinney kindly stand up?
Asking for a friend.
That would be of great interest to those of us who have not already twigged to what the SNP elite is and lead fairly quickly to a new Scottish political vehicle for independence quickly emerging.
Will the real John Swinney kindly fuck off?
Can we do a Spartacus thing?
I’m John Swinney!!
Frankly the more you hear from the SNP the more you realise what a obstructive charade they are.
But folks realise this as the polls show. With the polls for the SNP now reporting support at around 28%, and dropping, the wider picture with its split across all manner of parties shows just how perplexed people are. It also shows how the political system, democracy as it is erroneously described is a sham.
That of course is the way the establishment like it.
But change is coming. The man, or is it woman in the street knows the country is hollowed out. They know that folks are getting poorer. They know that like oil and gas, the riches from the now ubiquitous and growing wind and hydro delivers nothing to the people of the country.
And soon they know that if Starmer has his way the young will be able to go and die in a foreign war. Britain make no mistake wants war, that’s why we are gearing up for it, that’s where our tax money is now going by the proverbial barrowload, and that is another big reason why tax is going through the roof whilst services collapse.
And meanwhile the party in which a majority of Scots once placed their trust dissembles, lies, obfuscates and resiists delivering what people want.
It’s most interesting, and whilst i have no idea what the reasoning was, I did find it more than interesting that when watching the Trump cavalcade sweeping in to Turnbery that the armoured limousines bore two flags, one of which was NOT the Union Jack. Rather the cars bore on one side the Stars and Stripes whilst on the other the Scottish Saltire.
Now I know that in diplomatic circles it is absolutely de rigeur protocol that the country flags of the US and the being visited nation are to be displayed. Well Trump certainly did that – and it was no accident.
Of course the Great British media have not reported this.
Nor have they reported why on an ostensible golfing trip the Prime Minister of Great Britain had to scurry up to Scotland to discuss reportedly the conclusion of a trade deal. And ditto the president of the European Union Ursula Von der Leyen who to had to come to Scotland for reported trade deal discussions.
For a President of the most powerful nation in the world with a Scottish mother, a woman whose first language was Gaidhlig, and a president with first cousins in Scotland, the non reporting of why Scotland, why the display of Scotland’s national flag is a big question.
Starmer and the British establishment made an enemy of Mr Trump when they interfered in the US elections against them. Trump like many many Americans have a healthy disregard for the British or should I say English. America after all kicked them out physically. And yes the Americans celebrate Independence day
The US with its huge Irish American sentiment played a huge part in securing the Good Friday Agreement.
Some 70 plus years ago the British wanted to aerially bomb Irish towns and cities, wanted to execute Eamon De Valedra but didn’t. The USA told them no.
Like many blogging here I would not profess to understand what goes on in international politics. But one thing for sure Trump’s visit was a message, and Starmer and the establishment will know it.
Trump could be a bad enemy for the colonising Brit, and love him. or loathe him, Trump has Scottish blood coursing through his veins.
Good post, Willie.
A major diplomatic snub to our colonizer – Trump demonstrating what nationalism means.
Oh aye Professor?
Riddle me this then…
“Donald Trump has suggested there should be 50 or 75 years between referendums on Scottish independence, telling journalists a country “can’t go through that too much”.
The US President was speaking after John Swinney set out his trigger for a second vote on the constitution.”
link to heraldscotland.com
The floor is yours…
“As a matter of law, a referendum is not a required part of the process of becoming independent” (McCorkindale and McHarg 2020).
The idea of Trump being a supporter of Scottish independence is for the birds. Listen to the things he specifically said when he was on his visit. He’s never given the slightest inclination that he would support the cause.
Does he even realise that “the cause” exists? If he does, it’s highly unlikely that John Swinney would’ve tutored him on the subject. If you’re not prepared to lobby and recruit power for “the cause” you’ll never know the likes of Trump’s or anyone else’s thoughts on the matter.
All Swinney had to do was ask President Trump to support Liberation Scotland’s UN initiative to have Scotland recognised as a Non Self-Governing Territory (i.e. a colony) with a right to self-determination (i.e. independence) which is currently being blocked by our ‘administrative Power’.
And the chance of that happened is 0% Alf, as you know, no government in a democratic country is going to support Scotland being added to the list of NSGT’s. All are signed up to the principle of respect for the territorial integrity of states through the UN Charter, again as you know.
“Alf Baird says:
30 July, 2025 at 6:38 am
All Swinney had to do was ask President Trump to support Liberation Scotland’s UN initiative to have Scotland recognised as a Non Self-Governing Territory (i.e. a colony) with a right to self-determination (i.e. determination (i.e. independence) which is currently being blocked by our ‘administrative Power’.
Are you having a laugh Professor?
I doubt Swinney even knows who your tiny party of fringe cranks are.
Why on earth would he mention this to Trump?
If Swinney did, he would look even more ridiculous than he does now.
It’s time you faced facts, with just 18,000 members, which equates to a whopping 0.42% of the Scottish electorate, there are more supporters of football clubs than support your “cause”.
It’s a displacement activity to distract from the real work of winning votes and elections.
All UN member states are signed up to the right of peoples to self-determination under the UN Charter. This is a right being denied to Scots by the annexing entity which is England re-branded as ‘UK’.
@Stuart
‘… It’s time you faced facts, with just 18,000 members, which equates to a whopping 0.42% of the Scottish electorate, there are more supporters of football clubs than support your “cause”.’
To be fair, at a mere 18,000 “members”, we’re talking supporters of minor league clubs here.
One of many problems for Baird is that most people don’t appear to have never heard of him? Even if they have – most don’t appear to take neither him nor his “UN campaign” at all seriously, because reasons one imagines. Why would they?
Self evidently, the likelihood is that if this was a more credible bid for independence, it would attract far greater levels of support as a consequence. I mean, it really is as simple as that.
The thought of Swinney mentioning any of this stuff to Trump directly is really quite amusing (even assuming he’s even heard of it at all, as you say). I think, if in some zany alternative multiverse reality he *had* done so notwithstanding, we can all imagine Trump’s response…
The rights of people to self determination does not mean the rights of people to form an independent state from a territory within a state’s borders. There is no “right to independence” in international law, in fact there is a prohibition on encouragement of secessionist movements.
Independence will only ever be achievable for Scotland within the framework of domestic law and the domestic legal system.
“The thought of Swinney mentioning any of this stuff to Trump directly is really quite amusing…”
Donald, my first cousin, and masel exchange letters every fortnight – we use snail mail and write in long-hand like we used to when we were children.
And I can assure you that Donny is very well aware of Scotland’s plight whit a hiv telt him aw aboot.
He tells me that once he’s bought England and asset stripped whatever profitable bits it has (mostly the money laundering operation in the City of London and the scenic bits) he’ says he’ll help liberate Scotland and the Scots if we agree to him being King o’ the Scots and wearing the Scottish Croun (which is just a symbol of the Scots as a people who sovereignty is really invested in by the way).
A hiv telt him that’ll no be a problem seein as he’s a geniune Scot hisel.
@Aidan 11.25am
You’re being tendentious. The right to self determination (SD) is a jus cogens or peremptory norm in international law. It’s facile to say that peoples don’t have the right to independence unless they are granted permission by the very entity they are seeking independence from.
The right to SD may not be automatic or unlimited, but it is in the final analysis not in the gift of any metropolitan state. Appeals to the existence of constitutional bans, territorial or economic integrity, historical ties or concerns about ethnic minorities do NOT supervene the overarching presumption that ANY self identifying people is entitled to form an independent state.
Of course current international law – such as it is! – does not make the process easy, nor is the right undisputed as cases such as Kossovo, Timor L’Este etc have shown. Both international law and international relations theory have moved on in recent decades, just like all other academic fields. Few would uncritically accept “high ground” unionist positions that e.g. Spain can indefinitely prohibit Catalan or Basque independence unless the rest of Spain assents and the constitution is changed.
UDI may be the action of last resort, but it is neither specifically prohibited nor encouraged. Absent the use of violence or flagrant suppression, the international community does and will continue to expect entities like Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec to go through a process. Ultimately however if the majority of those peoples express a desire for an independent state rather than devolution or federation, any attempt to prohibit that or to fail to negotiate in good faith may encourage enough countries to recognise UDI as legitimate: that was certainly the view expressed by the Canadian Supreme Court in its discussion of the Quebec Clarity Act.
It’s not enough for unionists to assert that Scots need agreement: they need to engage with the independence movement in good faith and accept that negotiations mean they cannot set unreasonable preconditions, or insist that they have a veto. In the end, no self respecting people could or should accept simply being told “No”: whether the Scots people have the political cojones to face down the unreasonable demands and dictates of the British nationalist state and domestic unionists remains to be seen.
No true democrat can expect to be taken at face value however if they take the position that Scotland’s independence is contingent on the gracious permission of the rest of the UK.
Thank you to Andy Ellis @ 30 July 1.08 pm.
In regard to “the principle of respect for the territorial integrity of states”, we may conclude that England-as-UK has little in the way of integrity and certainly has no right to ownership of Scottish territory.
@Andy – you’re engaging the commonly held but inaccurate idea that the right to self determination equals the right to an independent state. It absolutely does not. All peoples have the right to self determination, which means to seek advancement of their social, political and economic objectives (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the thust of it). For most people, this means that they are entitled to certain inalienable rights and respect for their identities, cultures and traditions within the states within which they live. It is only in very rare and limited circumstances such as military occupation or colonisation that it entitles peoples to form their own state. This is a fundamental aspect of the UN Charter which is set out in Article 2(4), protection for the territorial integrity of states.
Outside of those situations, there is no legal right on peoples to secession and an independent state, and it is explicitly against international law for states to encourage or support secessionist movements in other states.
In the Quebec Case, I think you confuse the narrative around the political reality around a mandate for independence might be handled vs a standard in international law. When you say “ Few would uncritically accept “high ground” unionist positions that e.g. Spain can indefinitely prohibit Catalan or Basque independence unless the rest of Spain assents and the constitution is changed” – we might balk at the democratic acceptability of Spain refusing the wishes of a settled majority of the Catalonians, but that is absolutely the position in intentional law. The Spanish have an absolute right in International law to the protection of their territorial integrity, as does the U.K., and no legal obligation to engage in any way with successionist movements of any type.
With UDI, the law tends to follow the political reality. So if Scotland seceded from the U.K., and this was recognised by rUK and other countries, international law would follow suit, but equally if the U.K. were to forceably reintegrate Scotland into the U.K., then Scotland would not gain recognition.
You have to appreciate the history of international law in this area. The right to self determination was developed partially as a means of preserving international peace and stability, in the context of colonialism which was seen as a major threat. The other major threat recognised both at the time and now was internal struggles within and across states between different ethnic groups seeking control of their own territory. The formation of the law in this area was extremely careful therefore to limit independence rights to colonial/occupation contexts, and not to grant much more expansive rights to peoples outside of that context. It’s not therefore that the cases of Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia represent an aberration or a case outside of the anticipation of International law, its that these cases were explicitly and rigorously defined as situations where the right to form an independent state is not provided. You’ll find many well-written and highly thoughtful articles online proposing that the law should be changed, but there’s no doubt as to what it is now.
@Andy – perhaps you’re referring to the right of Implied Constitutional Self Determination described in this article here:
link to ejiltalk.org
If so, that is squarely a domestic “legal” right, not something that is recognised in international law. However, it in reality is describes the political consequences of the outcome of an agreed democratic process. I very much doubt that it is something that is justiciable.
@Aidan 6.01pm
This isn’t my first rodeo bud. Unlike some of the regulars here I do actually know a thing or two about the subjects I post on, having studied IR and done a further degree in it. This statement”
It is only in very rare and limited circumstances such as military occupation or colonisation that it entitles peoples to form their own state.
..is quite simply factually inaccurate. It’s pure assertion on your part, not something that is generally accepted still less self evidently “true”.
As I said, the right to self determination is neither automatic nor unlimited. In cases such as Scotland, Catalonia or Quebec, which are not generally accepted or seen as post-colonial in the sense of post WW2 imperial colonies in Africa and Asia, the situation is – rightly I think – regarded as somewhat different.
Appeals relying on territorial integrity, purported constitutional bans or claims of economic dislocation are decidedly NOT accepted as grounds to deny the peremptory norm of self determination, in fact the opposite is true: peremptory norms supervene other rights and obligations.
Your characterisation that there is no legal right to secession and a state is overreach. There IS a right to self determination and – if a people so chooses – an independent state, it’s simply that the right is (as noted above) neither unlimited or automatic. International law, and the international community will expect it to be exercised as part of a process, and will expect BOTH sides to negotiate in good faith on the available paths to accommodate the wishes of the people.
You say later:
The Spanish have an absolute right in International law to the protection of their territorial integrity, as does the U.K., and no legal obligation to engage in any way with successionist movements of any type.
Again, this is simply wrong and mere assertion on your part. Territorial integrity is important and can be protected, but it doesn’t supervene the jus cogens of self determination, particularly when it is being (cynically) abused to deny democratic rights to a people which has expressed a desire to form their own state.
Your intellectually lazy acceptance of the “realist” position that Madrid can impose conditions, or veto Catalonian or Basque self determination even if an overwhelming majority expressed a preference for it simply won’t wash. The same would apply to London or Ottawa.
You go on (and on…)
It’s not therefore that the cases of Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia represent an aberration or a case outside of the anticipation of International law, its that these cases were explicitly and rigorously defined as situations where the right to form an independent state is not provided.
Again, this is simply not the case. Having studied these matters in some depth I’m aware of the development of international law and the views on self determination in international relations as a discipline. The consensus you insist is there simply doesn’t exist. Indeed the old idea that self determination ONLY applied to colonies is vigorously contested and may now be the minority view.
Your assertion that a national law or principles such as territorial integrity trump peremtory norms like SD is neither universally accepted nor morally defensible.
@Aidan 6.41pm
If so, that is squarely a domestic “legal” right, not something that is recognised in international law. However, it in reality is describes the political consequences of the outcome of an agreed democratic process. I very much doubt that it is something that is justiciable.
You have an irritating habit of couching what you believe as fact, or at the very least insisting it’s self evident, when that’s simply not the case.
The very article you link to states:
international law contains neither a right of unilateral secession nor the explicit denial of such a right.’ [Quebec Reference, para 112). In the Kosovo Opinion, the ICJ confirmed that the provision concerning territorial integrity applies only in relations between states, and not to secessionist entities, and that therefore ‘general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence (Kosovo AO, para 84).
The article specifically discusses “constiutional self determinaltion” à la Quebec or Scotland. To quote from the article you yourself provided again at some length:
The actual issue for Scotland is therefore not whether it somehow fits into the category of constitutional self-determination. It clearly does. The actual question is whether the central government can unreasonably withhold from such an entity the opportunity to actualize that right through a referendum.
However, having raised the issue of self-determination only in order to illuminate the very technical question of UK law concerning reserved powers according to the Scotland Act (1998), the SNP invited the Supreme Court to address this issue in an incidental and somewhat cursory way. Hence, it has ended up with a highly condensed and brief treatment by the Court—a treatment that might be misunderstood as denying the application of the right of self-determination to Scotland altogether.
In reality, of course, the Court has merely found that Scotland is not a classical colony. Hence, the classical right of unilateral secession does not apply. Scotland cannot simply declare independence and leave if it wishes to obtain the benefit of a legally privileged secession in international law as a constitutional self-determination entity—in fact a practical necessity given Scotland’s hope to achieve widespread recognition and EU membership as an independent state. But if it enjoys constitutional self-determination, Scotland should be entitled to assess the will of its population at reasonable intervals. And if there is a clear majority in favour of independence, both sides would be obliged to negotiate the divorce in good faith.
It’s simply not true (again!) that the right to constitutional self determination is not recognised in international law: it is neither recognised nor prohibited. The international community and international law will deal with each situation on its own merits, because every situation will have both similarities and differences.
That good faith provision is the clincher from a long term perspective. The British nationalist state, and unionism as a political movement, will find the role of being a constant – and bad faith – nay sayer democratically corrosive. It will in the end propel more Scots in to the pro independence camp.
Haha well, since we are getting dicks out, this is also not my first rodeo having studied international law at at university which is defined as either the worlds 2nd or 3rd best depending on the rankings you use, although this was some time ago. I also came tantalisingly close to a 1st in that module, but for another day.
In support of your argument, you rely on the Quebec case in the Canadian Supreme Court. But let’s be clear, whilst that judgement might have weight owing to the credentials of those that sit on the court, but it is not itself a binding judgement in International law. It certainly can’t be a binding judgement in U.K. domestic law, which the U.K.parliament cannot overrule – an implication of your position. So if there is a conflict in the interpretation of international law between the articles of the UN Charter and judgments of the ICJ, and the judgement of the appeals court in Canada, it’s obviously the former that has to prevail.
@Andy – to be clear on the second post, I posted the article as an example of where the concept you were referring to you is described, not as a piece of analysis I entirely concur with.
There’s a distinction here with respect to constitutional self determination (which should be constitutional secession really, as self determination is universal). The rights are acquired in domestic law, but the effect of those rights (e.g. lawful secession) is recognised in international law. That’s materially different from the right to self determination through secession in a colonial context, which is a right in international law that isn’t dependent on any domestic legal provisions. It therefore obviously follows that constitutional provisions such as those in Spain are effective against implied constitutional self determination, because the “implication” cannot fly in the face of a clear and understood constitutional position to the contrary.
@Aidan 8.25pm
But let’s be clear, whilst that judgement might have weight owing to the credentials of those that sit on the court, but it is not itself a binding judgement in International law.
You’re all over the place here, sorry. The Canadian Supreme Court’s opinion is seen as persuasive, but of course it isn’t in itself binding: it’s an opinion. The decisions of national courts aren’t going to bind international law: if they did Yugoslavia and the USSR would still be in rude health.
The implication of self determination being a jus cogens is that Westminster’s pretensions to absolute sovereignty and having a veto over Scottish independence are eminently “over rule-able”, because they have no basis in international law.
Ultimately the deciding factor in the event of an impasse will be the will of the Scottish people to take rather than ask for independence, and the extent to which the international community accepts it. Obviously the preferable path would be a negotiated process and agreed settlement, but if the British nationalist state refuses to abide by the 2014 precedent for an agreed referendum, then plebiscitary elections are the next credible (inevitable?) alternative.
You keep asserting things you wish were true as facts or self evident. It’s really quite odd. I doubt that’d get you a third to be honest, never mind a “near first”.
@Andy – Seen as persuasive by who? I think you mean it’s seen as interesting and providing a case study on how secession might be handled in the context of a modern democratic state outside of the classic cases of colonialism or military occupation. When you say it isn’t binding, it is of course binding in Canada, but I don’t think it even purports to provide an opinion on international law more generally. For the reasons I have explained previously, it would represent an extraordinary development from the pre-Quebec position.
Secondly, you again continue to appear to identify to the right to self determination as meaning the right to an independent state. That isn’t the case, the right to self determination is an inalienable right of all peoples, but only in limited circumstances is that exercisable by formation of a new state. You can see this is numerous important documents, such as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), declarations 6 and 7, and UN Declaration 637. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Sections 5(6) to 5(8). I think you need to read and consider those provisions and their implications in detail.
Finally, the assertion in your penultimate and final paragraphs is ignoring a rather large elephant in the room: The Supreme Court judgement which dealt with the question of the right to self determination in international law and secession in the specific context of Scotland within the U.K. Unlike the Quebec reference, this case is authoritative and binding specifically within the U.K, and as you know if you’ve read it, does not support your view expressed below. I hope you aren’t going to join the ranks of the other fantasists and conspirators on here by pretending that this was anything other than a thorough and honest analysis of the legal issues arising.
If you totally ignore the enormous, voting, Scottish diaspora in the USA, then the flying of the saltire on a motor car does indeed become deeply perplexing.
Now why would President Trump do that if he and his party AREN’T constantly courting the votes of millions of US citizens descended from Scottish colonisers?
The kind of citizens that stop me in the streets when I go there to tell me all about how their great, great whatever hailed from Harris.
But, hey. Let’s pretend the Scots were never colonisers, then we can pretend that there aren’t millions of voters that President Trump needs to throw a few crumbs to, and finally we can pretend that President Trump is about to deliver Scottish Indy with his bigly, beautiful pen.
Dream on.
That top picture – looks like Angus pulling the strings. Just saying …
Agent x,
It not Swinney’s idea, he is just joining in from the edges.
The Constitutional reform for Britain has been spoken about for a number of years now, it started in Universities and think tanks, quangoes.
As the talks near there end conclusions He thinks he can jumpon theband wagon and sell it as his idea for Scotland,
Better together ye know! Just pretend yer not.
If you lift the political veneer blanket you will surprise them, for they are all huddled together whispering, how to go forward with the pretence that they are all opposition parties,
Willie,
Did they wanted to eradicate the Irish the same way as they wanted to exterminate the Scottish.
“We want their lands, but not occupied with their people kinda thing” .
Willie.
Excellent obversatios.
Maybe another trade deal was struck with England,
Scotland for the Chagos Islands.
An now they want Englands lands but not the the people of England.
I think there is a huge section of people in Scotland beginning to see a larger picture developing than the first minister or SNP and the devolved governments.
Every one thought that Trump was after Canada,
Which would include ( Nova Scotia) a provence in Eastern Canada,
Maybe it was old Scotia he had in mind all the time,.
Thats the way he deals, throws one idea out to throw people of,
From Glenn Campbell, BBC, today.
“In an interview on BBC Radio’s Good Morning Scotland programme, Swinney said that he wanted voters to back the SNP in the constituency ballot and use their list vote to back the independence cause.”
link to bbc.co.uk
Only next year will tell, but lets be honest Swinney call to arms is far to late.
I’m determined not to vote SNP and why would I. I do not trust the SNP with my vote in Scotland hands.
Trump’s planting Saltire flags on luxury fairways while our so-called nationalist leader allows Grangemouth oil shut down. One’s playing at game of empire, the other’s playing at independence.
The Saltire flies high at Turnberry. Who says everything that we’re are thinking. Drill baby. Drill. Stop the transgender insanity. And Defend the border! Lower taxes!
Meanwhile Swinney wants to destroy Scotland with his windmills. He’s killing Scotland. We need president Trump and his vision for the new World Order. Nationalism!
I wonder how long Swiney takes giving consideration to the colour of socks he wears on any given day…
“Do I wear black or do we change things up a bit, and go for the black? Hmmm… Let me think…black or….”
Let’s face it, the guy is wetter than an otter’s pocket.
David,
Thinking along the same lines.
Stu,
I apologise for hijacking the conversation you posted so early on,
But The suspicion that bigger things are happening in and to Scotland than Swinneys and the SNPs hair dryer talk is forming in my head,
It was interesting that other leaders came to meet DT in Scotland while he flys the Saltire,
Could be intirely wrong and could be jumping to conclusions,
Everything is theory until proven otherwise,
Again my sincere apologises Stu, I will shut up for the rest of the afternoon, hope I am forgiven.
“Could be intirely wrong and could be jumping to conclusions”
Then again, you could be onto something.
My guess is that Trump is scoping out our vast, empty, Scottish desert spaces as a possible home for a couple of million relocated P@lestinians. My guess is that Starmer is no board with this – he won’t have been asked for his opinion.
Then Trump’s companies can get on and build the bigly, beautiful holiday resort on that prime Eastern Mediterranean real estate.
The resort perfectly placed for a great climate and easy access to all the archaeological gems and historic wonders of the Middle East. A Middle East finally at peace, with all the malcontents ethnically cleansed.
What a beautiful vision!
Oh no bastard tax moan surely you wouldn’t want Donald to hand over Scotland to the P@lestinians especially when you have been working SOOOO Hard to promote Is rahel as our new landlords
BTW I had to laugh out loud yesterday when you were accusing indy supporters btl of being racist and bigoted, you are funny Johnny boy, try reading your comments back
Sandie Peggie. Has gone up in my estimation. Just following Tribunal tweets. She calls out Sharia Law and the destruction of women’s rights She’s saying what we all thinks. Send big Theo along to the mosque and see how he gets on.
God bless Sandie Peggie. A nurse. And a hero!
There going to persecute Sandie Peggie next for being a white Christian woman with a lesbian daughter, and who makes jokes like Jerry Sadowitz. She doesn’t want to undress in front of a male.
Fuck the woke ideology. Fuck NHS Fife. HR Human Filth. Parasites that should be sacked.
Send them to the fucking mosque.
But Theo, would be thrown from a tall building and stoned to death. We stand with Sandie Peggie. Make sure that bacon in the letter box is wrapped with a P45 and delivered to NHS Fife.
Sandie Peggie. Hero!
I am pleased to say I have never voted SNP and never will.
Liam McLaughlan @ the conter.scot sum up nicely what we all feel.
link to conter.scot
The next Indy needs UN inspectors at ever count.
Ain’t that the truth, but whoa there; you’ll hae a’ the franchise fannies and Corporal Jones foaming at the mooth!
Must NOT be allowed! LOL
UN’s a busted flush.
Whoops!
Right on cue.
I’ll give Trump one thing; at least he doesn’t do that doddering jog in his suit that Biden did surrounded by secretary service waiting to grab him if he tripped or had a heart attack..
FACT..
Secret service 🙂
The Sandie Tribunal evidence has now been completed. A terrible final 2 days of evidence for Sandie. Thank God the Tribunal was before Judges and not a Jury.
She will win because the Tribunal focuses only on the legalities of her claim and not on her personality.
I didn’t catch it Agentx, what was terrible for her two days of evidence?
Documented racism and generally bad comments from the cabal of bollocks allowed in the changing room doctors mates of the guy upton.
Apparently nurse Peggie is being put under pressure for allegedly referring to peeping Tom/ exhibitionist cum flasher big Theo as a “weirdo” and “it”.
Both sound accurate enough and frankly quite mild..
Arise the Democratic Republic of Socialist Scotland – Trump flew the Saltire on his armoured tank.
The National:
“OUR team has been totally overwhelmed by the volume of people seeking physical copies of Friday’s viral Trump “convicted felon” front page.
We’ve now reached the point where we are completely sold out. There are no more newspapers to send out to people at all.
We have now put posters, framed posters and T-shirts on sale on our website for those seeking physical versions of the edition.
Prices start at just £10 plus shipping.”
————————————
They’re having a larf!
I’m sure they’ll manage just fine next day when all of the previous days unsold copy is returned prior to going to the pulping recycle works..
Uber-Woke Editor Laura Webster has killed that paper stone dead, it’s now surely only a matter of time till the Herald folds it as a financial drain, and that in a country that regularly polls 50% give or take for independence!!
Quite an achievement but there’s wokery for you..
What a clinically confused shambles the post covid generation will be remembered for..
NHS Fife accuse a woman of faking her period while defending a weirdo in a skirt. With the full backing of the Scottish government.
Swinney and Gray should appear in drag to support their ideology. If people see them dressed as a woman the might warm to the weirdo.
Swinney is reported to be a deeply religious man piously attending mass as is the church’s calling.
And that is absolutely fine. But the big question is how he reconciles his deep held faith and his church’s teaching with his policies.
Its a question that could be asked of other religious people but one maybe it applies particularly to Mr Swinney due to his promotion of policies that are absolutely abhorrent to not just religious folks but also to a majority of other folks.
Or is he just a fakir, a snake oil peddler taking the money, filling his boots whilst undermining good societal values.
If he had any integrity he would call a halt to the Sandie Peggie case.
And no Mark Beggan I would not want to see Swinney, or Gray in drag. I know that you were making a quip, but its frightening because that is the type of thing that Swinney supports.
Allowing Scotland to have it’s Independence referendum has successfully tied the Scots up in a pointless state for the last ten years. Effectively leading them up their own garden path.
Who said David Cameron was stupid.
They said DC was an Old Etonian toff.
It’s malignant envy allied with juvenile so-called humour that likes to portray Old Etonian toffs as stupid.
I believe the trope is ultimately promoted by Old Etonians themselves. It’s the perfect disguise – get the riffraff to believe they’re fuckwits, while under the radar, they cleverly arrange the world to suit themselves.
No, not fuckwits; pig fuckers..
If you are going to squeal on their behalf then at least get it right Penisbreath..
.
YL Sah! has regained consciousness. And there’s 50p in the leccy meter too.
Reply to P3nisbreath McP3nisbreathface @ 11.03
Is that it P3nisbreath?!
Really?!
Laugh a minute you..
Away and have a gargle with mouthwash to lose the cheese dick aroma and reset your mouth to factory settings then focus on actually posting something interesting and witty eh?
It has been reported that Trump has described John Swinney as ” A terrific guy!” A fine eulogy perhaps for a great man? However “The Donald” used the same term to describe one Jeffrey Epstein.
I’m confident Epstein was a terrific guy.
I’m even more confident that back in the day, not one of the finger-wagging, tut-tutting, po-faced saddos on Wings BTL would have turned down an all-expenses-paid wee jaunt to Epstein’s Island.
If you’re going to post a denial, let me get in first to call you a bare-faced liar.
Honestly, 20-20 hindsight. What is it about so many people that makes them believe it’s some kinda special gift?
With you P3nisbreath:
Every accusation is a subliminal confession of a secret guilty pleasure.
Away tae eff ya sad mong.
“On whisky tariffs, Swinney said: “When the president came to Scotland at the end of last week, I think his view was that the trade deal with the UK was done and dusted.
“I was setting out to him a very unique circumstance around Scotch whisky which can only be produced in Scotland.
“It’s not something that can be relocated somewhere else.
“I was pointing out the significance of that point and appealing to his sentiment about being very positive about Scotland – which he is – to try to get to a better position.””
——————————————
Did he also point out the SNP position that says:
“Minimum unit pricing aims to reduce alcohol-related harm by making alcohol less affordable. Research into minimum unit pricing has shown that this has helped reduce alcohol-related deaths and hospital admissions.”
Did he recommend Minimum Unit Prices to Trump?
Minimum unit prices. The SNP are having a laugh.
Yes it is commendable that minimum unit prices might help assist reduce consumption. But here’s the laugh.
It would be good to encourage zero alcohol drinks. But take the case of beer.
The price of non alcoholic beer is just about as expensive as alcoholic beer. Yet UK excise duty imposes on beer under 3.5% proof a levy of £9.61 per litre of alcohol pro rats and £21.78 per litre pro rats on beer 3.5% to 8.4%. 20% VAT is then added the excise duty.
Based on this, non alcoholic beer should be a lot cheaper. But it isn’t. Profiteering by the producers I’d say.
Moreover, for our wonderful Scottish Government if they can legislate for minimum unit pricing, and where the producer keeps extra price from it, surely our pristine heroes should be legislating to encourage the consumption of zero free beers and wines.
But no, its just more bull shit virtue signalling. Just like everything else they do.
So get stuck into the bevy folks. The system of price regulation now means that you are all too oftencheaper buying let us as an example say alcoholic lager at 3.4% than non alcoholic lager.
Willie says:
“Yet UK excise duty imposes on beer under 3.5% proof a levy of £9.61 per litre of alcohol”
That is incorrect. Abv 0 to 1.2% is 0.00% rated for excise duty.
Did he also clarify he was talking about whisky, not whiskey?
Given that plenty of Indy-minded Scots (including some on here FFS) are unaware of the difference, perhaps it would be dangerous to assume that President Trump and his team are up to speed.
You’re right about MUP. Is a nation that supposedly can’t be trusted with a bottle of beer really ready for Independence? Perhaps throttling our ability to enjoy a dram is just another tactic on the road to the Islamic utopia.
They cants hate people enjoying a wee swallie too.
You’ve got the point exactly Agent X.
Lower alcohol, no alcohol beer attracts lower to no excise duty and lower to no VAT on top of the duty.
But alcoholic beer can be much cheaper than non alcoholic beer. That doesn’t seem right when zero alcohol has no duty and VAT.
So, what are our bullshit Scottish Government doing to encourage more alcohol free consumption. How can non alcoholic beer be dearer.
Maybe big brain Swinney could give us some bullshit on that.
Clearly he’d just put the kettle on in the meantime
God was making all the countries,
Gabriel asked him why he favoured Scotland with such beauty so many natural resources strong handsome intelligent men and women
`won`t other countries be jealous`said Gabriel,
`No`,said God`wait till you see who their neighbours are`
True story.
And he used it again about Canada!
I think it’s appalling that our ex FM Humza-the-Useless has succumbed to anti-semitic conspiracy theories about the IDF “killing” “his relatives”. The IDF is the most moral army on earth, serving the only democracy in the middle east, obviously, and so we can only suspect the man’s motives; he should be cancelled and lose whatever job he still has for this. He needs some re-education to his attitude, him, a respectable politricksian.
“why do they hate us?”
link to archive.ph
(orange order, cumming in its pants)
sorry, wrong link (“the kids are alright”)
link to archive.ph
er, “sons of satan”, the most dishonest people on earth, parasitic economic exploiters, purveyors of vice and every known financial scam (they mostly invented), and of course – the greatest murderers in history, by a long way (bolshevism, british empire, slavery, opium, holodomor), and today controlling the west by blackmail of its leaders, into relentless warmongering and violence for their privileged brand of nauseously stinking “ancient guff” (we are the master race coz we sliced our jimmies)
this is funny
link to archive.ph
say what you like about the issies – but you can always get an organ transplant in tel aviv
fresh, like
why oh why, don’t all the whining, fuckwitted ANGLO CUNTS on this site forget about indy – it is no concern of yours and nothing to do with you
– get back tae yer ain midden and start concentrating on your own problems
Start learning the koran; learn how to make “hotpot” (WTF is this) that is HALAL.
One day your hero Farage will say “there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet”
What you doing here? I don’t even think you are 77/JTRIG – I mean who on earth would pay £12.97 an hour for this dross?
Shouldn’t there be an asylum hostel you ahould be protesting outside?
Confused, aside from your posts being just a tad racist.
What makes you think that the UK government won’t be sending a good sized chunk of all their new “guests” to Scotland?
After all why would the SNP refuse all these “new Scots”?
Then white Scotland could share in the experience of the folks down south.
Just imagine the cultural enrichment!
The repopulation of parts of Scotland with new cultures.
What’s not to like?
Well apart from nativist knuckle draggers like yersel self combusting…
It’ll be braw to see that!
Dinna fash, Confused.
When the people of Scotland want and are ready for Indy, we’ll take it.
Assuming you live here, you’ll benefit too. That’s right, there ain’t no justice, but we all have to learn to accept the world as it is.
You may be lucky enough to get the odd pint bought for you if you frequent the pubs post-Indy, mumbling and muttering about how vigorously you used to wave your saltire back in the day.
Edinburgh Uni is apologising to Scottish students for the discrimination they have suffered at that institution
link to archive.ph
– reparations on the way
Big Man Top Boy, Geoffrey of Palmer, the world’s only black man who can use semicolons says : “it’s a fucking disgrace what these evil ANGLO cunts have done up here … ”
Edinburgh is really the beating shit heart of the whole stale shit sandwich and we need to do something about it.
The Scoto-Reconquista will start with the liberation of central Edinburgh, currently 60% Anglo and their middle class collaborators, their harkis and pied noirs.
– I call upon the legions of wester hailes, leith, granton, muirhouse, oxgangs, trinity, pilton and all scottish burghers relentlessly pushed to the periphery to take their city back.
Leith and Wester Hailes will push directly for each other, splitting the city along Princes St
leith and oxgangs will pivot to the old town and southwards, moving through the university, grange, morningside, in a pincer move
muirhouse, pilton will deal with inverleith, stockbridge and new town
the city will be split
freezone in the centre
– mobile phone jamming, power cut
set off fire alarms, block all traffic, everyone out on the streets
perimeter 1 braid hills to craigleith rd
seondary units assembled from the surrounding townships and central belt
processing centres and bussing setup
perimeter 2 A720
shutdown traffic, leaving only special access roads
psychological operations will be in place – cops will be sent to investigate 100s of non crime hate incidents of tranny misgenderings
special policing units will continue the operation in the free zone
anglos will be made to wear top hats and monocles
forced to say : bobby moore was a thief, as are all englishmen; thankyou Scotland for the 55 billion barrels of oil
then bussed to the border and dropped off there
we shall laugh at them and ridicule their accents, but otherwise do them no harm
Then, once free of them, we shall all hold a party in Princes St, for a day and night, blissful, without this infestation, these verminous scum and their narcissism and condescension
singing :
no way nigel, no way nigel no more
you have been a world r4per
england – never,
no more
– go home to your 3rd world nation and start dealing with the problems you made for yourself, or just convert to islam; sort it, one way or the other.
“wester hailes, leith, granton, muirhouse, oxgangs, trinity, pilton”
Handouts of free narcotics and tranquilisers in these locations will have all the inhabitants scurrying back to the city’s perimeter just as fast as they can.
The “revolt” will be settled at a cost of a few tens of thousands of pounds and without a shot being fired.
Maybe President Trump gave Swinney a few pointers. That’s how they solve the problems in LA and other US cities, every time the homeys get restless.
Do you also post as Billy Carlin? that drivel was up there with the best of the dross that Carlin writes.
From 1694 the Bank of England established for England’s Government, continued as the Bank of England until WW11 in 1946,
Today the Bank of England is owned by Treasury Solicitor since 1876 as a Corporation Sole.
The Treasury Solicitor reports to the Attorney General for England and Wales,
Shared National Debt?