The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


From the archives #11

Posted on January 06, 2020 by

We’ve never been able to actually confirm the oft-cited “quote” from Margaret Thatcher suggesting that the SNP winning a majority of Scottish seats at a UK election would constitute a mandate for independence, but here’s a verified more recent one from a then-serving Conservative PM.

“[John] Major has made it clear that a majority of SNP MPs after an election would serve as a mandate to begin negotiations for separation. There are no plans to hold a referendum”, said former Thatcher minister and party chairman Norman Tebbit a few months before the 1997 election.

It was a position the Tories held right up to 2010 – the last election at which the SNP didn’t win a majority of Scottish seats, at which point the goalposts magically shifted. Now, of course, the rule is that a majority of MPs doesn’t count, but you also can’t have a referendum.

Scotland is a prisoner without hope of parole. Time for a breakout.

Print Friendly

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 06 01 20 13:57

    From the archives #11 | speymouth

94 to “From the archives #11”

  1. Graeme says:

    What do you mean by “breakout” ?

  2. Sarah says:

    Agreed.

  3. Sarah says:

    “Agreed” to the breakout, I mean.

  4. fillofficer says:

    no more evidence required, eh ?
    it’s now pretty clear that we will not be allowed to go our own way
    brexit, which is in fact english independence, will not work without scotlands resources
    mrs may actually said so in HoC ‘brexit won’t work if scotland leaves’
    boris’ reply to the FM will be carefully worded but it will definitely say NO

  5. mogabee says:

    Invisible bars becoming visible daily.

    Yes, time for us to go…

  6. Effijy says:

    The key aspect of all this is that all and any Westminster party lie and cheat Scotland at the drop of a hat and they have done so for hundreds of years.

    Tebbit has it all wrong when he says we would have little influence being a nation of 5 million in a then Europe of 250 million.
    England would have a majority just like us in such an event but they were happy with it.

    At least the EU would not have total control over Scotland.
    They wouldn’t take all of our resources, they wouldn’t insult us on a daily basis, we would get a seat at the top table and a say in how things are run.

    They wouldn’t bury a McCrone report on us, they wouldn’t make the Dunblane massacre top secret
    To hide corrupt politicians, they wouldn’t control our media, and they wouldn’t treat us as a colony in their Empire.

    Roll on Bojo the clown who hates Scots tipping us out of Europe against our will.
    Roll on him wanting to back a Middle East war with Trump.

    Everything he does will be a YES vote winner for us.

  7. Jock says:

    Mrs Thatchers autobiography contains a section about Scotland in which she says that electing a majority of Scottish MP’s is sufficient grounds for independence.

  8. ghostly606 says:

    Do you ever think we will be independent Stu?

  9. Josef Ó Luain says:

    @ Graeme

    You’re obviously new here, Graeme.

  10. Graeme says:

    Josef Ó Luain says:
    6 January, 2020 at 2:05 pm

    @ Graeme

    You’re obviously new here, Graeme.

    ——————————————————————-

    Why ?

  11. shug says:

    yes but when faced with a clear question the people voted against it

  12. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    The goalposts are getting pretty shoddy these days, what with all those uprootings and movings. All that’s left is to put them closer together than the width of a ball. But they’re so fragile now that even that ploy won’t stop a goal.

    And we only have to score once.

  13. kapelmeister says:

    Is Scotland a prisoner or a participant in the “precious” union?

    Yes supporters know it’s not the latter anymore. The question must be put repeatedly to others who are not yet Yes.

  14. scunner says:

    When they perceived Indy supporters as a minuscule fringe of tartan bampots, it was easy to make such a reasonable sounding suggestion.

    Note the ominous section where the then Cabinet minister suggested abolishing a future Scottish Parliament. I see them strangling it a bit first.

  15. Capella says:

    If parliamentary action is irrelevant, then extra-parliamentary action is necessary.
    Your move Boris.

  16. Colin Alexander says:

    Stu

    The SNP is the party of British Establishment law and order.

    For them independence is illegal without permission from our colonial masters, The British Empire.

  17. Republicofscotland says:

    Westminster can never be trusted on Scottish affairs, they’ve kept us small and compliant for centuries.

    The problem is that some in Scotland still see the union as viable, others see it as a gravy train. Some are petrified of change, and some revel in the division of Scots especially the West coast.

    Scotland is a plethora of opinions on independence. However I do know as long as we’re part of this union, we’ll never reach outr full potential.

    How we exit this unfit for puropse union, is of course another matter.

  18. Republicofscotland says:

    Oops meant to add for the Saturday AUOB, in Glasgow the weather, so far light rain.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcuvz3bch#2020-01-11

  19. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Here’s the Thatcher quote, from her memoir (*):

    If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.

    Seems fair enough when you compare it to some of the blinkered shite Slabbers like Dicky Leonard come out with.

    * as quoted here –
    https://www.arcofprosperity.org/thatcher-on-scottish-independence/

  20. James Boatman says:

    The article quotes the source of that statement as being “A Senior Tory” i.e. an anonymous gossip. Tebbit is the one saying there should be a referendum.

    Not like you to be so sloppy with your sources – you can’t get decent journalism anywhere these days!

  21. galamcennalath says:

    BritNats set the conditions for recognising independence at a level they believe won’t be achieved.

    In the past it was a majority of MPs. With the Tories, Libdems, and the ‘mighty’ Labour carving out their demographic and geographic fiefdoms, the target of half MPs was considered impossible.

    2013, there is no way Cameron would have agreed to the binding Edinburgh Agreement and Section 30 if he thought there was any chance of a Yes win.

    Now in 2020, everyone knows the chances of independence being the will of the Scottish people if tested is very high. The BritNats have therefore reached a point where there are no conditions they will risk agreeing to. Their solution is to suspend democracy in Scotland.

    If Scotland is taken out of the EU at the end of the month, and there is no agreement on how Scotland’s democratic right to choose our future has been agreed, it is a watershed moment. Up to that point it might have been possible to argue that the UK was a Union of partners. After that event, their Union is dead. It will have been replaced by a colonial setup where a foreign power rules with no democratic mandate. Some might argue that has been the situation for some time now. That seems a valid view. However, on 1st Feb 2020, NO ONE can deny the reality of Scotland’s subjugation.

    We need some strong leadership and firm actions.

  22. Auld Rock says:

    Sad to have to say this but it now seems that the ‘bullet and the bomb’ are the only language that English/Brit Nats understand. Can they not learn from history just once?

  23. gordoz says:

    Regradless of the MPs aspect can I once again reflect on the Scottish parliament if that’s ok ? Think I posed this one before so don’t want to be a pain.
    We know the PR system of Holyrood is fixed, that’s a given.
    We also know list MSPs system can allow donkeys in Holyrood (ie A Wells etc). But a test on pure F/P/P MSPs plus % of popular vote more than Union votes cast regardless of turnout as it is an election, (if in manifesto) would surely suffice move towards indy. Bypass WM – No need for ref surely a clear concise mandate to create independent state satisfying UN ?

  24. Josef Ó Luain says:

    @ Graeme

    If you’ve got to ask – you’ll never know.

  25. jfngw says:

    @galamcennalath

    I have heard Ian Blackford cite on many occasions that Scotland will not be taken out of the EU against its wishes. Well on the 31st Jan he will have to, as they say, put his money where his mouth is. At this point in time Scotland is being removed from the EU against the wishes of its sovereign people.

    This is a watershed moment for the SNP, in my view, are they leaders or followers?

  26. Stoker says:

    And just for the related record:

    Tory John Major is also quoted as saying that the NHS is as safe with Bozo, Gove & IDS as a hamster is with a hungry python.

    When Unionists contradict each other then surely that’s the biggest wake-up call ever Scotland?

    Who would have thought we’d see the day pro-Yessers quoted Thatcher & Major as sources of fact?

    That’s how truly awful the situation is Scotland. If you don’t realise that by now then there’s really no hope for anyone.

    Time to end London dictatorship and take back control.

  27. ianmc says:

    An it was the SNP who gave that assertion away.

  28. Mist001 says:

    @ jfngw

    I agree. Blackford has made a point of this issue, so he’s going to have to pull something out of the hat pretty quickly otherwise we’ll know he’s just full of hot air and bluster and can’t be taken seriously.

  29. Yes the bullet, and the bomb in an earlier post I mentioned Michael Collins he did not plant car bombs that killed civilians he targeted the ruling classes and their under cover services only by them being the targets did they see reason only those who hold the power can hand back that power to the people I like everyone else on here do not want violence but they are leaving us no option or sometimes I think that if it comes to that then maybe the day the first life is lost the the price for freedom becomes to high

  30. Stoker says:

    And here’s another Unionist saying it: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpIxNlHWwAALRhO.jpg

  31. Garrion says:

    Can’t ask the thief to call the police. Need a change in perspective.

  32. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    gordoz @ 16:26,

    Even artifically restricting a tally to constituency MSPs (how?) doesn’t provide a clue in either suggested form (and why two?), since party politics inevitably intrudes. Who, for example, decides what the indy position of (say) the “Scottish” =ahem= Labour Party actually is? Just a few union placemen at the top? If officially there isn’t one, then what? If “anti”, how then is a pro-indy Labour voter supposed to respond? Or for that matter, the indy-agnostic SNP voter?

    The whole point of independence is to give everyone of every political persuasion the ability to directly elect those whom they believe will best serve the people of Scotland, rather than it be decided by arbitrary voters elsewhere with no real interest in us. So ultimately independence isn’t actually a political party issue. So why confuse the two distinct issues in an election that is manifestly ill-suited to the purpose?

    You have to face it, the only definitive way of deciding a binary issue like independence is a referendum. That just leaves open the not-insignificant questions of when, how and by whom it’s conducted.

    Though the Czech-Slovak “Velvet Divorce” option is also always available, I suppose!

  33. Mark says:

    Scotland will have its indyref2. Boris may try and bluff his way out of this, but as soon as the Scottish Government go to court, Boris will back down. Boris knows that no judge in the UK would prevent Scotland’s democracy from taking place. The name Union Jack describes the situation extremely well.

  34. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    jfngw @ 16:37,

    It’s a fair point, not least since the all-UK option is now as dead as the proverbial parrot, as even Keir Starmer now recognises.

    Raab (I think it was) once sneeringly referred-to Ian Blackford as “all mouth and no trousers”. Well, we had better hope he’s found a pair – or a kilt – by month’s end.

  35. brian lucey says:

    To reiterate
    Like or not there is zero chance of an independent Scotland joining the EU unless it is independent with the acquiescence of the UK. Spain would veto membership if it was any hint present of UDI or extraconstitutional. They won’t, if its #legal# within the UK context

  36. Neil Mackenzie says:

    Off Topic and all that but what’s up with the Wings Twitter account?

    The username no longer has a blue tick but has a page with a Wings logo and a bio blurb. It has no followers or tweets and, if you hit the ‘follow’ button, you’re told it doesn’t exist.

  37. FiferJP says:

    So that’s both sides said a majority of MPs equals a mandate? John Major for the Union side and Dr McIntyre for the SNP (1973 Kilbrandon Report, not available online but printed edition can be bought, and quoted in “The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution”, by H M Drucker and Gordon Brown, Longman 1980, ISBN 0 582 29520 3, PP 56-58). I can understand the Tories changing the goalposts but unsure why the SNP would ignore a route to Indy. Unless, like me, they think they have no chance of winning IndyRef 2. I personally think Boris would convince more undecideds to vote No than Nicola would convince to vote Yes.

  38. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    All true, but though I’m a longstanding supporter of EU membership, if dogmatic UKGov intransigence were to prove totally intractable, I wouldn’t exclude a native SG-sponsored IR2 and take my chances with the likes of Spain. And much though I regard it as a queasy ultra-lefty fudge, there will always be an EEA/EFTA backstop.

    Independence is not to be bartered, not with anyone.

  39. Sarah says:

    @Neil Mackenzie: Twitter blocked the Wings account weeks ago. Rev Stu is his new Twitter.

  40. jfngw says:

    @brian lucey

    Spain require it to constitutional, the UK runs on parliamentary parties based on the number of MP’s not the quantity of the vote. By UK constitution, although untested, Scotland has the number of MP’s to claim that it carries the legitimacy according to WM rules to end the union. It’s not UDI, it is exiting a union, if Scotland decides to end this union, England has no right to oppose it.

    If the EU rejects Scotland’s application, not all is lost, there are other ways to trade with the EU, but the Spain would lose any negotiation on fishing in Scotland’s waters.

  41. John H. says:

    Mark 5.14pm.

    “The name Union Jack describes the situation extremely well.”

    Union Jackboot more like Mark. The UK is on the edge of fascism now.

  42. CameronB Brodie says:

    re. “invisible bars”. I just happen to know a bit about overcoming structurally produced cultural oppression.

    Introduction to Community Psychology
    Chapter 9

    Oppression and Power
    https://press.rebus.community/introductiontocommunitypsychology/chapter/oppression-and-power/

  43. Robert Louis says:

    In my lifetime, it was always a majority of pro indy mps that would end the union. It was that simple.

    Who created the new hurdles? The SNP did.

    The civil service in London must laugh their socks off that the Scotgov, has not just simply asserted Scotland’s consitutional rights. Instead they dance on the head of a pin, trying to justify ever more contorted reasons why they cannot be allowed to even hold a referendum.

    Meanwhile, we are all dragged out the EU against our clearly expressed wishes.

    I have always been of the opinion, that a majority of pro indy MP’s was sufficient. Start from that point in talks with London and you’ll have your section 30 immediately, with bells on. But no, the SNP starting point is to meekly ‘request’ a section 30. No wonder Westminster ignores them. I’d ignore them too.

  44. CameronB Brodie says:

    Here’s one that might convince the medically minded to make every effort to stop Scotland being dragged out of the EU, which requires a radical re-interpretation of the British constitution and a disregard for moral law. This can be expected to be harmful to the social psychology of those living in Scotland, who thought they lived in an open democracy.

    Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social Psychological Analysis

    Shared Beliefs in a Society: Social Psychological Analysis is an important contribution to current social psychology, still struggling to refocus its gaze on the societal, cultural and institutional levels of psychology. While there has been much debate on the individualising nature of social psychology, there have been too few serious attempts to provide a rigorously social focus for the discipline – both in terms of theoretical approaches and the actual content of research projects.

    Bar-Tal’s recent book, which draws together much of his previous work on societal beliefs in Israel, attempts to provide this refocus on a societal psychology and so demonstrates the psychological importance of the connections between “individual beliefs and the beliefs that characterise the social system of which the individuals are members” (p. 152).

    eprints.lse.ac.uk/41756/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Howarth%2C%20C_Book%20review%20shared%20beliefs%20in%20a%20society%20social%20psychological%20analysis_Book%20review%20shared%20beliefs%20in%20a%20society%20social%20psychological%20analysis%20%28LSE%20RO%29.pdf

  45. Doug says:

    I believe most people in Scotland are waiting [increasingly impatiently] for the Scottish government to become seriously bolshy [and ballsy] in its dealings with Westminster. SNP MPs can start by systematically disrupting proceedings in Westminster.

  46. robertknight says:

    shug @ 2:12 pm

    “Yes but when faced with a clear question the people voted against it”

    Absolutely! 62% voted against it, and what is more, just two years previously, the people were told the way to avoid the same outcome was to vote “No”, and a majority did.

    Wouldn’t it have been much simpler if 62% of the people in our country had voted “Leave” in 2016? NEWSFLASH! We didn’t!

  47. Graeme says:

    Josef Ó Luain says:
    6 January, 2020 at 4:32 pm

    @ Graeme

    If you’ve got to ask – you’ll never know.

    —————————————————————-

    Josef I asked you a reasonable question I think it deserves a reasonable answer, so just in case you don’t understand the question I’ll ask you again, Why is it obvious I’m new here ?

  48. Neil Mackenzie says:

    I know – knew – the Wings Twitter account was suspended but the page has changed, now. It used to be completely bare with nothing but a notice saying the account was suspended. Now, as I say, there’s a Wings logo and a bio blurb. Something has been done to it and I asked wondering if it had any significance that anyone knew about.

  49. Ben Starav says:

    During the 2014 referendum Teddy Taylor, the last Tory MP in Glasgow, claimed twice on Radio Scotland that Thatcher confided in him she only had one policy for Scotland and it was… the total destruction of the SNP. Such a pity she was not around in 2015 to see them take 56 of the 59 Westminster seats. At least she witnessed the ‘terrorist’ Nelson Mandela become the first black President of South Africa.

    BTW many Weegies didn’t grudge her a state funeral they just didn’t think she had to die first.

  50. Col.Blimp IV says:

    Doug says:
    6 January, 2020 at 7:12 pm

    “….SNP MPs can start by systematically disrupting proceedings in Westminster.”

    That isn’t nice.

    It isn’t nice to block the doorway,
    It isn’t nice to go to jail,
    There are nicer ways to do it,
    But the nice ways always fail.
    It isn’t nice, it isn’t nice,
    You told us once, you told us twice,
    But if that is Freedom’s price,
    We don’t mind.

    It isn’t nice to carry banners
    Or to sit in on the floor,
    Or to shout our cry of Freedom
    At the hotel and the store.
    It isn’t nice, it isn’t nice,
    You told us once, you told us twice,
    But if that is Freedom’s price,
    We don’t mind.

    //www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvC4xq32AX8

  51. crazycat says:

    @ Ben Starav

    Pedantry alert:

    This doesn’t really matter, but since a few other people have from time to time said the same thing, Teddy Taylor was not the last Tory MP in Glasgow.

    He lost his Cathcart seat to John Maxton in 1979 – the only Tory MP (apart from buy-election winners, whose seats reverted to the norm) to be deposed in that election; a year later he was back in the Commons, but in an English seat. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Taylor)

    The actual last Tory in Glasgow was Tam Galbraith, who died in 1982. The ensuing by-election (in Glasgow Hillhead) was won by Roy Jenkins of the SDP. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Hillhead_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1980s)

    At the time I lived about a quarter of a mile from the constituency boundary, in Maryhill, so I remember it well.

    Pedantry over.

  52. crazycat says:

    @ Me

    Oh dear oh dear – that’ll serve me right for being a pedant!

    By-election, not buy-election.
    Also the first paragraph is poorly worded. I hope it’s intelligible nonetheless.

  53. terence callachan says:

    The House of Lords is unhappy about Scotland going on and on about independence

    It’s not just the Scottish people in the House of Lords who are unhappy
    The Scottish people in the House of Lords of course have the greatest fear that once Scotland is independent there will be no longer be a need for Scottish lords there and they are right to fear that because they would quickly be chucked out.

    But many more in the House of Lords will follow the Scots out the door shorty after
    Once Scotland is independent
    England which at present is seen as this whole island by most f the worlds people
    will quickly shrink not only on the map but in global importance and influence
    and that shrinkage will lead to a shrinkage in world influence
    and a shrinkage in member numbers in the House of Lords

  54. Tinto Chiel says:

    Thanks for the quote from the horse’s arse, Ian B @4.03. Most instructive.

    As galamcennalath said: “If Scotland is taken out of the EU at the end of the month, and there is no agreement on how Scotland’s democratic right to choose our future has been agreed, it is a watershed moment. Up to that point it might have been possible to argue that the UK was a Union of partners. After that event, their Union is dead. It will have been replaced by a colonial setup where a foreign power rules with no democratic mandate. Some might argue that has been the situation for some time now. That seems a valid view. However, on 1st Feb 2020, NO ONE can deny the reality of Scotland’s subjugation.

    We need some strong leadership and firm actions.”

    And jfngw said: “I have heard Ian Blackford cite on many occasions that Scotland will not be taken out of the EU against its wishes. Well on the 31st Jan he will have to, as they say, put his money where his mouth is. At this point in time Scotland is being removed from the EU against the wishes of its sovereign people.

    This is a watershed moment for the SNP, in my view, are they leaders or followers?”

    Stoker @ 4.39 and Robert Louis @6.39: quite agree. We have no reason after the end of the month to wear out the old groove so often repeated by Ian Blackford.

    I do hope, as many have asserted here over many threads, that the SG will have a winning game plan ready and waiting once we have been dragged out of the EU. For me, nothing shows how redundant and unjust this glorious union is than our forcible eviction from the EU despite our democratic rejection of Brexit by 62%.

  55. CameronB Brodie says:

    OK dokey. In order to understand Westminster’s high-handed and culturally chauvinistic stance towards Scotland, it helps if one understands the psychology of racism. From a post-colonial perspective, Westminster is undeniably a racist patriarchy that views Scots as inferior others who must be silenced and excluded. That sucks.

    The cycle of oppression: A psycho-socio-cultural formulation (DRAFT 1).

    Bringing the social and psychological together

    A common critique of mainstream psychotherapy models is that they take little account of social and cultural forces and of their effect upon psychological structures and relational processes. This is a significant limitation in terms of culture competence. Many minority and marginalised groups continue to see mainstream therapy and mental health services as irrelevant.

    More concerning is that some may come to experience the therapeutic process as one which exposes and weakens them into powerlessness and; which renders invisible the power of the social context and its related wounds and traumas. It is not unusual for therapists and other helping professionals to feel overwhelmed and helpless in relation to the idea of actively working with social and cultural forces within the therapeutic encounter.

    Discrimination, oppression and cultural mistrust

    Perception and experiences of oppression such as discrimination and harassment in the workplace (or in other life domains) are commonly reported amongst all members of minority groups. The link between such experiences and chronic stress, poor psychological wellbeing and ill physical health are well established. Perceived and actual discrimination can elicit what has been termed cultural paranoia, a healthy and adaptive response to experiences of oppression. Nonetheless, cultural paranoia can give rise to feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and bias against members of the dominant groups. It can also produce hyper-vigilance and fear.

    It is thus likely that those who are experiencing it to a high level, will be in some form of distress. From the therapeutic perspective it may be helpful to consider how cultural paranoia may impact on trust and on the working alliance….

    Images, discourses and the internalisation/replication of oppressionM

    Unsurprisingly a proportion of minoritized individuals will internalize oppression. Internalized oppression can affect relationships within and between minority groups and between minority group members and those who are from the dominant group. This internalisation may manifest in mistrust toward the in-group, idealisation of the dominant culture, distancing from minoritized identities or the holding of stereotypical views about members of the in-group. Further, internalised oppression can, In extreme cases, lead to low self-esteem, self-hatred and even violence towards members of the in-group.

    Assessing internalised oppression can be difficult because it is associated with high levels of shame and stigma and may therefore not be readily disclosed nonetheless; careful questioning may elicit such processes. Thus, any recurrent negative statements made about the in-group(s) may need further probing as may any negative emotion evoked by questions about the subjugated identity.

    Various standardised questionnaires exist to assess internalised oppression which may be useful when the therapeutic relationship is firmly established. Acculturation and stages of identity development may also influence the relationship with the dominant group (in addition to the one which may be formed with the therapist) and whether the therapeutic values and norms may be acceptable.

    https://racereflections.co.uk/2014/12/26/the-cycle-of-oppression-a-psycho-socio-cultural-formulation-draft-1/

  56. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think I’m pushing my luck posting links again. The Rev. will probably clear it tomorrow, (TA Rev.), so folk might be interested in a peak at the cycle of oppression and its psycho-socio-cultural formulation @ 9:01pm..

  57. Dr Jim says:

    Jean Claude Junker said “entry into the EU is by majority vote and Scotland already meets all the criteria so on our side there would be no problem with Scotland becoming a member if they wish”

    The door is wide open for us the next steps will all be this month and early February

  58. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Dr Jim @ 21:18,

    The EU would be totally bonkers to refuse us entry. Not too likely – the English Disease is in no way catching on the Continent.

    Besides which, once the UK has definitively departed, the EU might quite appreciate Scottish return as a very diplomatic poke in the eye for its ex-member.

  59. Benhope says:

    I recall the quote from Alasdair Gray or a Canadian (We will govern as if we are already an independent country).

    Should Nicola Sturgeon or the MP in Westminster in charge of foreign affairs make a statement?

    Scotland recognises the sovereignty of the Iranian and the Iraqi people and we will not interfere in their internal politics.

    Is this too radical for the SNP?

  60. Richardinho says:

    In my view, a majority still counts IF the party standing for independence actually states that in their manifesto that they consider it to count. Of course, the SNP do not currently do that. If they were, they might get less votes (or maybe more, who knows?), which might be why the party under the current leadership do not do that.

  61. Dr Jim says:

    Actually Independence was in their manifesto, y’know under the bit where it says material change of circumstances such as etc

  62. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Benhope @ 23:02,

    Why on earth would the SG bother? It would serve no useful purpose, since it might pander to some people while gratuitously aggravating others. Entirely pointlessly, since it would do nothing to bring indy any closer. For that you need issues that have widespread resonance across the entire spectrum of Scottish public opinion, homegrown ones that can bring ordinary people on board, not just political anoraks with a hobbyhorse to ride.

    You distractionists are an perennial nuisance. If it isn’t one tangential issue it’s another.

  63. Dr Jim says:

    Nicola Sturgeon actually has made several statements on Iran and Trump and they’ve been in most of the papers and momentarily on TV, oh and online in her Twtter account and the National digital, the link is on this website, top middle of the page under The National where all the other links to information stuff is

  64. Dr Jim says:

    Today like all days the Internet is full of people distracting diverting and disseminating crap, it’s like they sit at home all day looking out the windows at pigeons then invent something to stick on the Internet when they wake up from their trance

    Mostly today has been endowing the First Minister with powers she doesn’t posses then complaining about her lack of using those powers

    I’m sure Jakey Rowling has probably given the FM a Harry Potter magic wand but in true real life they don’t work like the inside of Rowlings head

    After all this time there are still folk who don’t understand that Scotland is governed by a devolved administration with severely limited powers, we aren’t even allowed to collect our own taxes for Pete sake and that’s just one of the reasons why Scotland should be Independent because Scotland subsidises all those jobs in England who collect our taxes and collate them and we pay their wages for doing it, that means a loss of jobs here for people who could be doing the same thing in our own country

    Every person in England who has a job involving Scottish issues is one job less for people in Scotland, but our money goes to pay them for doing it

    Think Insurances,Income Tax, National Insurance, Road Tax, DWP, or the approximately £1.5 billion more than Ireland pays for its defence that Scotland unwillingly contributes to the exchequer, all of these jobs are not here, think of the income to our own country if they were instead of subsidising England government jobs

    I read the other day that Scotland’s *share* of UK defence spending is more than Israel spends and they could practically kill half the world if they wanted to while Scotland disnae even have a patrol boat wae a water pistol on it, aye money well spent, but not spent in Scotland

    Nae wonder ah drink, well I’d like tae but I cannae afford it, I’m away tae ma bed

  65. Still Positive says:

    Dr Jim @1.47

    Well said.

  66. North chiel says:

    Dr Jim “ on the ball again” @ 0147. “ Scotland is governed by a devolved administration with severely limited powers” . Yes indeed, and we should also emphasise the “ reserved powers “ held in London and the jobs that would be “ repatriated “ to Scotland after independence:
    Home office & immigration ( embassies etc) . How many jobs say for Edinburgh? Department of Energy ( How many jobs for say Aberdeen? Ministry of Defence ( How many jobs for say Stirling?) ministry of Trade & Industry ( How many jobs say for Glasgow?) . Social security/ pensions etc ( How many jobs for say Dundee?). Not to mention , Foreign office, Broadcasting, Consumer rights, employment, data protection ( I am sure that Inverness, Perth , Orkney & Shetland , Western isles, etc could accommodate some of these state departments) . Not to mention a Scottish Treasury with full taxation powers etc .
    Not to mention matters such as vehicle & driver licensing etc . For goodness sake you can’t even work in your own country ( Scotland) as a Security guard without “ permission” ( via a “ licence” ) from the Security Industry authority ( based in you’ve guessed it London England) .
    Perhaps our government in Edinburgh should study in detail how the “ velvet divorce” was agreed so quickly and efficiently between the Czech Republic & Slovakia ? If we need assistance from our European friends to set up and administer our Scottish state institutions , I am quite sure all we need to do is ask ?? With full control of immigration , we have complete access to people we could require for Scotland to thrive and prosper in the years to come ( not forgetting the opportunities and hope for our young people to take their rightful place at the “ heart” of the rebuilding of our country , culturally, politically and technologically going forward .
    It’s time to be “ brave” , it’s time for Independence Scotland.

  67. callmedave says:

    Jess Phillips on radio shortbread there not endearing herself to Scottish voters much by saying she would not ‘grant’ any S30 for a new referendum to take place.

    I lost interest really when she stupidly included the words
    “when ‘they’ had the referendum up ‘there'” in a sentence

    The Scots and Scotland not even acknowledged by name FGS!

    Aye! 🙁

  68. Abulhaq says:

    Scots do need to read more history of the Scotland-England relationship. Tebbit’s comment about it being ‘strategic’ is what it has always been concerned with, securing English domination of the territories abutting the English state. It lost most of Ireland, it will not make that error again, except over Scotland’s dead and acculturated body.
    Scots, individual Scots, did well out of England’s imperial predations but the nation of Scotland was neglected. Colonialism is like that, some make it, however, the vast majority do not.
    And those that did make it were likely to identify with England and Englishness, their ‘Scottishness’ being a mere quaint betartaned, kilted, whisky fuelled ‘add on’.
    Throw the Brits out….nothing complicated about that, is there? Or are some just to addicted to the British opiate to take the liberating action?

  69. Abulhaq says:

    Re Iran-Irak
    The British created the administrative fiction that is Irak out of the ethnic based provinces of the Ottoman Mesopotamia in order to protect the flanks of British India. They divisively exploited the Syriac Christians, bombed the Kurds, set up a Sunni ie minority, government in country that is mainly Shia, later the Americans invaded overthrew their former ‘friend’ Saddam Hussein and the rest is bitter history.
    Western interference in the region has been driven by greed for oil. Iran too, a battle ground between British and American imperial interests. Proxy wars, puppet kings, compliant functionaries etc.
    They make a wasteland and call it peace…..famous words of Scottish prince.

  70. 10/30 says:

    Dr Jim @1.47

    Aye…..and Scottish exports from Scottish ports.

  71. mike cassidy says:

    Fintan O’Toole wields his scalpel again.

    Trump administration weaponises its talent for lying

    ” .. existing law gives Trump as president sweeping powers to attack whoever he himself “determines” planned, authorised, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks”

    http://archive.is/jDtbv

  72. galamcennalath says:

    callmedave says:

    Jess Phillips

    No IndyRef2!

    She was born in Birmingham and is MP for a constituency there. What has Scotland’s future got to do with her? Frankly, she needs to mind her own business and keep out of Scotland’s.

    Or is she just yet another English nationalist who believes they have some deity given right to keep Scotland within their Greater England?

  73. Craig Murray says:

    We don’t talk about foreign and defence matters, it’s a reserved power = we are perfectly happen to stay in this box the UK has put us in and only do what we are allowed to do.

    We can’t condemn Trump’s assassination of Solomeini it might upset some people = we have no problem going along with Britnat neo-con foreign policy. We don’t actually want to be an independent states as such, just some more domestic powers.

  74. I hope if we ever do win our freedom we do not waste money by having embassies all round the world with hundreds of staff we have a thing now called Skype where you can talk face to face with anyone any where so no more jobs for the boys spend the money saved on the people doing away with food banks homelessness etc, I mean we do not want to get rid of our over lords just for some others to take their place

  75. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Dr Jim @ 01:47,

    It’s postings like this one of yours that make WoS worthwhile. You can really get to the heart of things, not least about our FM in this one, yet manage to put a wee smile on my face while you do it:

    …while Scotland disnae even have a patrol boat wae a water pistol on it

    Priceless! Whiles a cringingly pathetic situation all the same. How could we, running things for ourselves, possibly do worse than this?

  76. CameronB Brodie says:

    It appears that my link explaining the cycle of oppression and its psycho-socio-cultural formulation won’t be cleared, as it has disappeared. The Rev. has never done that before, so unless he’s pissed off with me for some reason, that suggest external interference with this site. I don’t know if that is possible or if I’m simply a little paranoid, which is only be expected given the cultural oppression I’m experiencing.

    The cycle of oppression: A psycho-socio-cultural formulation (DRAFT 1).
    https://racereflections.co.uk/2014/12/26/the-cycle-of-oppression-a-psycho-socio-cultural-formulation-draft-1/

  77. cirsium says:

    @Abulhaq, 9.14

    Scots, individual Scots, did well out of England’s imperial predations but the nation of Scotland was neglected. Colonialism is like that, some make it, however, the vast majority do not.
    And those that did make it were likely to identify with England and Englishness, their ‘Scottishness’ being a mere quaint betartaned, kilted, whisky fuelled ‘add on’.

    Well said

  78. Stoker says:

    In the interests of destroying any doubt, created unintentionally or otherwise, the EU has already made it clear on several occasions that they want an indy Scotland as part of their set-up and that Scotland meets *all* the criteria.
    __________

    North chiel wrote @ 3:38 am – “Yes indeed, and we should also emphasise the “ reserved powers “ held in London and the jobs that would be “ repatriated “ to Scotland after independence:”

    Excellent point! And so obvious too. Staring me in the face and only now am i realising this for the first time in i don’t know how many years. How can we forget important stuff like this? Maybe we’re that spoilt for facts we can’t possibly store everything? Thanks for the reminder, Nc.
    __________

    Dr Jim wrote @ 1:47 am – “I read the other day that Scotland’s *share* of UK defence spending is more than Israel spends and they could practically kill half the world if they wanted to while Scotland disnae even have a patrol boat wae a water pistol on it, aye money well spent, but not spent in Scotland”

    And don’t forget about the rescue services side of defence, RNLI etc. Scotland is extremely inadequately covered by sea, air & land rescue services, especially given our terrain and conditions etc. The groups that we do have do a tremendous job but most are stretched to breaking point. England, compared to Scotland, is a relatively flatter country with calmer seas but their coverage far exceeds the unacceptable minimalist pickings they’ve left Scotland with.
    __________

    Abulhaq @ 9:14 am – Well said!

    __________

    callmedave @ 9:12 am – The bigger issue here is the so-called “Scottish” twat who failed to challenge her. Who in their right mind would sit and accept that kind of disdain aimed at their own country? I certainly couldn’t just sit and let it slide. I’d have humiliated her into hibernation even if it meant getting the sack. No wonder the BBC in Scotland don’t release listening figures for their individual radio shows. London’s main propaganda platform.

  79. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Abulhaq @ 09:38,

    Post-WW1 activity in the Middle East was not one of imperial Britain’s finest moments on the world stage, it must be freely acknowledged. My only present-day consolation is that an independent Scotland will be a different actor entirely, and as a quite natural consequence of its geopolitical situation, no deep policy consideration even required.

    No doubt that will have a knock-on effect on our southern neighbour as well, though in what way we can’t yet tell. Disproportionately diminished, though, one might presume. Mayhap it’s considerations like this which animate the likes of Jess Philips. For such people, of all political parties and of none, when they bother to take an interest at all, Scottish independence has nothing to do with us and everything to do with them.

  80. CameronB Brodie says:

    Scratch my last comment, I’ve just spotted the link is still there. Sorry.

  81. CameronB Brodie says:

    While I’m at it, I might as well post this.

    Reframing Internalized Oppression and Internalized Domination:
    From the Psychological to the Sociocultural

    web.colby.edu/ed215s/files/2010/12/Tappan_TCR_2006.pdf

  82. Bill McLean says:

    Gallemcennalath and Call me Dave. Recently moved to Birmingham for family reasons. Have taken an interest in local politics and the ongoing Labour shambles. Jess Phillips seems like a decent sort, but in common with most here knows nothing about Scotland – and could care even less. She will never reach the higher stages of politics here – too honest! Most of them know little of their own history and politics let alone ours. Jess’s remarks appear to be arrogance borne of ignorance – she is not alone. My Wife’s Sister-in-law spotted our card from Nicola and declared “I don’t like that Nicola Sturgeon” – she is a really nice person but knows nothing about Scottish, or indeed English politics. This ignorance has led them to Boris’s fantasy world. They really need help down here. Very sad.

  83. CameronB Brodie says:

    It is quite simple. In order to be able to make effective claims to legal and political rights, you need to be recognised as possessing a legally defensible identity that has force and effect in the real world. Westminster clearly does not recognise those living in Scotland as having a legally defensible identity, so Westminster does not consider those living in Scotland as possessing legal and political rights. Where’s the justice in that? There’s not even the potential of justice for Scotland and its people.

  84. Jack Murphy says:

    Blair Paterson began his Post at 11:59 am today:

    “I hope if we ever do win our freedom we do not waste money by having embassies all round the world with hundreds of staff we have a thing now called Skype where you can talk face to face with anyone…”

    True,and may I add an even more pertinent fact—- many independent countries worldwide SHARE Embassies and Consular facilities.

  85. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Bill McLean @ 13:14,

    The “I don’t like that Nicola Sturgeon” reaction is all too typical, alas, though if you were to inquire as to why, they will likely struggle to give any substantive one. It’s born out of ignorance, as you say, and out of a fear that she represents a very potent threat to the status quo, which for so many English people is just fine, thank-you-very-much, and in no need of any inconvenient disturbance in the internal organisation of their precious UKOK (=England).

    What they totally fail to realise is that it is their very own inability and unwillingness to adapt to changing political circumstances which is actually corroding the very UK they are so desperate to preserve. In fact, post EU withdrawal, the anticipated increasing attempt at dominance over Scotland by a grossly unrepresentative Tory government, which might possibly even enjoy some gratuitous support in England, will merely accelerate the disintegration of the UK that they fear.

  86. Dorothy Devine says:

    Add to that the malign influence of the media.

  87. CameronB Brodie says:

    Of course, the science of understanding cultural subjugation, is intrinsically linked with women’s historic struggle against cultural patriarchy, which hurts the poor and destroys the planet. MKAY! MKAY?

    Patriarchy and Inequality: Towards a Substantive
    Feminism

    https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=uclf

  88. Bill McLean says:

    Robert J Sutherland at 3.20- thank you for your response. Agree completely!

  89. CameronB Brodie says:

    Again, sorry if folk think I trying to force a political outlook on folks. This is serious stuff though, as Scotland’s public health is in jeopardy thanks to Brexit and other stuff. So I hope this political strategy is effective or I’m going to be mighty pissed off.

    Feminism and public health ethics

    Abstract

    This paper sketches an account of public health ethics drawing upon established scholarship in feminist ethics. Health inequities are one of the central problems in public health ethics; a feminist approach leads us to examine not only the connections between gender, disadvantage, and health, but also the distribution of power in the processes of public health, from policy making through to programme delivery.

    The complexity of public health demands investigation using multiple perspectives and an attention to detail that is capable of identifying the health issues that are important to women, and investigating ways to address these issues. Finally, a feminist account of public health ethics embraces rather than avoids the inescapable political dimensions of public health.

    Keywords:
    feminism, public health ethics, justice|

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563367/

  90. CameronB Brodie says:

    And one for those who wish to understand identity politics a bit better.

    Intersectionality and Feminist Politics
    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571274/document

  91. CameronB Brodie says:

    Right, there’s a new thread so I don’t mind finishing my logical flow logically. 🙂

    Sorry for the length of this passage, but I think it important.

    PRACTICAL POLYPHONY: THEORIES OF
    THE STATE AND FEMINIST JURISPRUDENCE

    Polyphony: “The harmonious combination of two or more melodies, i.e. composition considered horizontally as distinct from Homophony, which is vertical in the principle of its structure.”‘

    It may be that some people call themselves “liberal,” “radical” or “Marxist” with full confidence that the terms have common definitions which will describe all of their views and all of their actions. It seems equally possible, however, that the views of many people are less perfectly matched to common political theories, and that their actions are in less than perfect conformity with their theories, whatever they may be.

    Individual feminists – whether or not they are publishing feminists – may similarly hold positions derived from various identified types of feminism as well as from sources which have no explicit reference to feminist concerns. Feminist jurisprudence, as a movement within the American legal academic environment, has in it ideas derived both from feminism and from American legal academic conversation generally.2

    This paper first notes the difficulties which surface when a conventional theory of the state and law associated with liberalism is combined with two particular themes in feminist jurisprudence – the theme of subordination and the theme of groups. Initially, difficulties arise because the description of women suggested by dominance or oppression theories is not the description of freely choosing individuals that participation in the liberal state generally requires.3

    Further difficulties surface because the emphases in some feminist jurisprudence on the importance of group life and authority and on the importance of individual narrative and experience generally – though often in fact narrative of the experience of group membership – have no similar priority in conventional theories about law and the state.

    The paper then suggests that feminist jurisprudence has certain affinities with psychological and pluralist theories of law and the state. These theories are useful for feminist jurisprudence not because of what they say about women but because of what they say about law and society. It is not that one cannot think about feminist issues without these theories; it is simply that it is easier to think about at least some problems using them, for psychological and pluralist theories, more directly than others, seem to spell out jurisprudential consequences of the idea that the personal is political….

    http://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=law_papers

  92. Mike d says:

    Dr jim. 12.02am we all know the reason ian murray keeps getting re-elected. By playing to the base instincts of the mini knuckledraggers.



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