The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


GB Snooze

Posted on July 17, 2021 by

Print Friendly

    668 to “GB Snooze”

    1. Mia says:

      @ Confused,

      Thank you for the video. It made me sad. I appreciate the matter is very painful for some and must still run really deep down in the veins of some people who saw first hand the damage done by settlers or was told about it by members of their family.

      While I believe today some elements of that animosity may remain, because some of those painful memories from the past still remain or because of the continuous purchasing of land from under our feet by outpricing natives, I believe this matter of the franchise is not on the same layer, but rather a parallel one. One where some settlers, or some pretending to talk on behalf of the settlers demand the right to dictate the rules that natives and “gone natives” must follow in what should be their referendum.

      I think this matter is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later if yes is ever going to have a chance in hell to actually win. If the right to self determination is deliberately set to fail with an inappropriate franchise, then indyref becomes a farce, just as it was in 2014.

      No other country in the world is expected to bend backwards and forwards, like Scotland appears to be, in matters of accommodating the wants of settlers to interfere with Scotland’s natives’ right to self determination as a nation.

      I personally know of several people who had simply holiday homes in Scotland and were given the right to vote in indyref14. Of course they were NO voters because they thought independence could upset their cosy arrangement of coming to Scotland for holidays whenever they wanted.

      We also know from indyref14 that settlers’ wishes and wants interfered with Scotland’s natives’ right to self determination. In fact it was what stopped it, just as it was what caused Wales to overall vote yes to brexit in the last referendum.

      I have no doubt that those demanding for the settlers that have just arrived to Scotland or have not been long enough to “go native” having a vote in what should be the Scots’ referendum would never dare to place the same demands if it was in any other country.

      But then again if it was any other country, the natives would tell them directly to do one, to take their nose out of their business or if they are not happy with the rules of their host country to find another where to settle instead.

      But for some reason, this is not acceptable from Scotland. Scotland is expected to extend to them the red carpet and allow the gerrymandering to happen even if that means harming themselves by self-denying themselves the right to self determination, which is the purpose of indyref in the first place.

      It is the self-entitlement and the sense of ownership of Scotland what really gets at me. We have a magnificent example during the brexit referendum of what a fair franchise may look like.

      England Mps did not hesitate to stop the “settlers” coming from what they perceived as the coloniser (the EU) taking part in the Brexit referendum. Also, the England MPs stopped the Brits that had been for long enough in the coloniser to “go native” there (long term ex-pats were denied the vote).

      So it is clearly bullshit that unionist parties and Sturgeon’s SNP attempt now to present a franchise that allows the natives to self determine as not inclusive, and merely with the aim of muscling in the settlers’ vote to push the result towards NO.

      Frankly, the only two things I found wrong with Cameron’s franchise was that those from commonwealth countries were allowed a vote (I think the majority were pro brexit) and also that those EU citizens that had been in the UK long enough to “go native” (but still majority pro EU) were refused the vote.

      I don’t remember any those same people that now feel so self entitled to demand a vote in the referendum when neither they are natives of Scotland nor they have been living enough on it to “go native” and feel Scotland as their nation, complaining about Cameron’s franchise.

      So why is it that we are expected to accept this bullshit in Scotland as if it was a given?

    2. Tinto Chiel says:

      @RoS 3.19: “The fact of nationhood or Scottish identity is not the motive force for independence. Nor do I believe that independence, however desirable, is essential for the preservation of our distinctive Scottish identity.”

      Good catch: I didn’t notice Sturgeon’s words at the time but I wish I had, and I bet Alex Salmond did too. It shows her intrinsic shallowness and ignorance of the complexities of Scottish culture and how only independence can begin to protect it from from the Anglicising and globalist forces we see all around us now.

      I’m convinced that, had AS stayed in power after 2014, he would have fully exploited the massive Brexit fault line in 2016 to show how The Union can never work for Scotland and would probably have led us to victory thereafter.

      Unfortunately, a decent man believed in his pernicious “Plan B” and we are all facing the grim consequences now.

    3. Hatuey says:

      I’m sort of impressed by the capacity of people on here to suspend disbelief and discuss independence whilst Sturgeon remains at the helm. It reminds me of the days of Tony Blair visiting Baghdad, a pile of smouldering ruins at the time, and people excitedly talking about the prospects for Iraqi democracy.

      Scottish politics is exactly that, a pile of smouldering ruins. Anyone that includes Sturgeon’s SNP in their plans for reconstruction is either a treacherous shill or a delusion idiot. That includes people like Lesley Riddoch.

      No honest assessment of the situation we are in (and how we might begin to try and fix it) can go any further than the immediate and pressing need for regime change. To ignore the corruption, the vindictive pursuit of political opponents using state power, the missing funds, etc., etc., is straightforward complicity.

      I suspect that’s the sort of conclusion Rev. Stu arrived at when he looked over the ruins at what was left standing and decided to find something better to do. I’m glad he did, for his own sake.

      These are horrifyingly hopeless times. That’s why I’m impressed by those who manage to carry on regardless. Maybe they just don’t see it for what it is.

    4. Stoker says:

      On a day when the fraudsters in the SNP launch another fundraiser their council chief in Glasgow “welcomes protesters at COP26” where 10,000 police officers will be deployed during the summit. “All we ask is that they respect our city & its residents.”

      Think it’s about time ‘All Under One Banner’ got the show back on the road.

    5. Mia says:

      “Maybe they just don’t see it for what it is”

      Or maybe they simply refuse to give up. Why should the overinflated ego or temporary power of a bent political fraud be more important than your sense of nationhood, your sense of justice and the future of your children and grandchildren?

      If there is something clear in the UK is that no political career lasts forever. Sooner or later the grey suits will lift the appropriate lids to let your rubbish out and encourage you to make the move away from the front line.

      Johnson and Hancock looked untouchable just a few months ago. Hancock has already been removed from the cabinet. Now the grey suits are concentrating in Johnson with their lid lifter extraordinaire: Cummings

      Sturgeon will be no exception. From the last few years we know there must be quite a few rather large lids keeping her in power. The minute she is no longer of use, the lids will be lifted and she will be sent running to the backbenches too.

    6. Pixywine says:

      Hatuey. At 7.01pm I agree entirely.

    7. Pixywine says:

      Glasgow SNP Council are bare faced hypocrites as it seems Only anti lockdown protesters present a health risk not Government approved “protesters”.

    8. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Stoker at 7:11 pm.

      You typed,
      “Think it’s about time ‘All Under One Banner’ got the show back on the road.”

      31st July…

      https://twitter.com/AUOBNOW/status/1409913777689141252

    9. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 4.14 pm

      You must have missed the debates BTL on this issue here and on previous threads.

      You’re just plain wrong about the imposition of residence criteria being normal practice for independence referendums. Some of them required “non-natives” to have 24 months residence, but many had no such criteria. None had anything like a 5 or 10 year residence criteria (naturalisation for citizenship in 28 EU countries is on average just under 7 years, with 5 being the most common choice).

      If you’re going to discard the referendum route, the only plausible alternative is plebiscitary elections, so the franchise would be as it is for UK general elections (British, Irish or commonwealth citizens) or Scottish general elections (same as UK plus EU citizens and those from other countries with permission to be here).

      Restricting the franchise for #indyref2 seems to have traction amongst some in the movement, ranging from pretty nasty blood and soil types, to those who buy the “we wuz robbed” school and Alf Baird’s “Scotland as colony” schtick. It will however also lose you some votes though, as it will appear to some to be a betrayal of civic nationalism.

    10. Confused says:

      Gosh Mia, you do write long comments!

      – yes, online discussions can easily lose context and nuance, even dripping sarcasm.

    11. Old Fogey says:

      @Andy Ellis

      O/T

      I agree with most of what you have said throughout this thread. As an Alba member I wondered whether you have considered hosting an online discussion event on the Alba platform to explore some of these topics in greater depth. I for one would find that immensely helpful in the run up to the Party conference.

      Thanks

    12. Republicofscotland says:

      “If you’re going to discard the referendum route, the only plausible alternative is plebiscitary elections.”

      Andy Ellis.

      No its not, in my opinion, and Craig Murray and Alex Salmond have both floated this idea, and I agree with it.

      That we call all our MP’s back from Westminster hold a vote at Holyrood on ditching this noxious union and if yes win declare independence there and then.

      This route doesn’t disenfranchise anyone so it will float your boat as they say, and I’ll tell you why, because voters have elected the MSP/MP they wanted to elect ergo they will have been represented in the vote one way or the other depending on the outcome.

      This way also takes out the unionist ran councils who would do their damndest to try and block any kind of vote outside of Holyrood, and if yes win to leave the union, we then begin negotiations with Westminster on whatever the next step would be.

      Westminster politicians for their part have no say whatsoever on how we leave this union its a foreign country, and I know of no other treaty in the world where one party needs the permission of the other party to leave. Scottish/some not MSPs and MPs will have voted on behalf of their constituents no matter what nationality they are.

      Infact to be honest this is my preferred option.

    13. Dan says:

      An occasional reminder that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s hoose!

      For aw the talk from those insisting we do everything “the right and fair way”, can stalwarts of that fixed course of action “because that’s the way it’s always been”, please explain how we mitigate against the actions of those with real power and influence that don’t play the right and fair way?

      If it is solely for “The Scottish People” (in whatever agreed franchise) to answer a question and produce a result that has any validity, how can that be done without the significantly influential and biased interference from external interests who hold the power and control the narrative of what is broadcast in Scotland during any campaign?

      With the clarity of hindsight we can see many aspects of external interference used to manipulate the result.
      Better Together’s Project Fear, The infamous Vow, supposedly neutral UK Civil Service winning an award for saving the Union, celebrities spouting their drivel, etc.
      The whole “Brexit” clusterfuck also highlighted the dark money and Cambridge Analytica issues, and it’s difficult to believe similar were not utilised in the 2014 Indyref, and would not be used again in the future with so much at stake.

    14. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Old Fogey 8.28 pm

      Thanks for that: I’m sure there’s an appetite for more discussion. Hopefully there are a lot more who agree with us too. I haven’t looked at the Alba site much to be honest. It’d be good to see local constituency branches get up and running post Covid of course! Not sure I’ll make it to Greenock for conference or not, but will be interesting to see what comes out of it!

    15. John Main says:

      Mia

      “every year far more No’s than Yes’ are coming into the country”

      Some people here think the sun shines out of your articles. I remain unconvinced so far.

      Have you any evidence to back up the statements you make, particularly the one above? Surveys, for example?

      Cos here’s the thing. Knowing what I do of the reasons why people leave their birthplaces, sell everything they can’t carry away, abandon friends and family, move hundreds of miles to a new country, a new career and a new way of life, I am convinced that these people are very receptive to anything and any idea that will make their new lives better. Cos that’s why they move. Better quality of life, more freedom, more dosh, better opportunities.

      I don’t think that incomers are automatically anti-Indy at all.

      They may become anti-Indy once they comprehend the criminality, cronyism and incompetence of Sturgeon’s government. Of course. But that is true also of indigenous Scots.

      They may become pro-Indy once they are here. If they see Scotland as a lifeboat that needs to be cut loose from the English sinking ship, that makes perfect sense. A lifeboat can only take so many people before it swamps.

      So please prove me wrong Mia. Not with anecdotes from your personal acquaintances. Not with your intuitive grasp of what English b*****d white settlers must “obviously” believe.

      Facts please.

    16. Andy Ellis says:

      @Republic 8.29 pm

      Absent some political earthquake the plan won’t work because the SNP won’t support it. Westminster MPs are irrelevant. The broader Yes movement may have a role in “normalising” the idea of plebiscitary elections as the alternative to a referendum that may never come, but I can’t see the “current” SNP embracing that, as their attempt to strangle Alba at birth amply demonstrates.

      It’s my preferred option too. I’ve been banging on about it for months, as did Rev Stu way before the last election. We either have to force the SNP to engage or hope their membership effects change: I have my doubts about that….so we need to prepare for the next Holyrood elections.

    17. Old Fogey says:

      @Andy Ellis

      My understanding is that there is some form of grassroots structure currently being formed but I suspect that nothing will be set in concrete until the conference – which is of course entirely proper. What I hope happens is that there is sufficient detail of policy options provided in advance and in good time, in order for members to make informed decisions.

      As an overseas member I’m hoping that there will be an opportunity to contribute online.

    18. David Caledonia says:

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      W.O.S.H
      ……………………………………

    19. David Caledonia says:

      ALBA for Independence

      ‘ snp for sweet fa

    20. Hatuey says:

      “Hatuey. At 7.01pm I agree entirely.”

      I should frame that.

      From a marketing and branding standpoint, the name AUOB is useless. They need a word and name that actually means something. I’m bored just thinking about it but that stuff matters.

      They also need to take a leaf out of Extinction Rebellion’s book and get into attention-grabbing PR stunts. One well-publicised stunt can do more for a cause than any number of people walking solemnly from A to B.

      Third, they need to raise money and deploy it effectively. There’s a lot of disgruntled ex-SNP voters around with money to spare. If anyone is short of ideas for the money raised, they shouldn’t be in a decision-making role. My personal preference would be Facebook and TikTok advertising.

      Fourth, keep the intellectual luvvies and lefties to fuck out of the frame. Everybody hates them. Most of them hate themselves. The emphasis should be on the future, prosperity, control, “us”, empowerment, freedom, etc.

      Fifth, don’t use big words.

      You’re welcome.

    21. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan 9.28 pm

      That’s just the dialogue of despair though isn’t it?

      We increased the pro indy % between 2012-14 in spite of a uniformly hostile media and Project Fear. If we don’t believe we have it in us to both gain a majority and use that majority to attain self determination, we might as well give up now.

      It’s not enough to blithely state “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s hoose”: what’s your alternative? Show us your route to indy.

    22. Mia says:

      “Some of them required “non-natives” to have 24 months residence, but many had no such criteria”

      Out of curiosity, of all the countries that had independence referendums, what was the percentage of countries that won independence among those where settlers from the colonial party were allowed to muscle in their vote against independence?

      What was the percentage of colonies that won independence without a referendum?

      And of the countries that won independence via referendum and where settlers from the colonial power were given the vote, what was the proportion of settlers from the colonial power? Was it as large as it is in Scotland?

      “naturalisation for citizenship in 28 EU countries is on average just under 7 years, with 5 being the most common choice”
      Yes, but you have to naturalise and become a citizen in order to vote in national elections and referendums. How can England settlers naturalise as Scottish citizens?

      Please can you give specific examples of European independence referendums where non natives and non citizens of the host country were given the right to vote?

      I have just checked the rules in Spain and non Spanish citizens are no allowed to vote in referendums.

      5 years may allow you to request citizenship, but you still need to gain citizenship to vote. Because you cannot seek Scottish citizenship, you have to establish a criteria to ensure only the “gone native” are allowed to vote to stop them frustrating the natives’ right to self determination. Cameron’s 15 year mark sounds about right to me.

      24 months of residence does not change your sense of nationhood at all. In many cases not even 5 years. There is a very good reason why England MPs left the “settlers” from the EU and the “settled in” ex pats (over 15 years out of the UK) without a vote in the brexit referendum. England MPs and England political parties set up a precedent with that franchise which was accepted by the EU, the rest of the world, England MPs, Sturgeon and the lot. Indyref14 demonstrated that the franchise used then was far too open, so much so that it allowed settlers to frustrate the right to self determination of the natives. Using it again is deliberately denying the natives their right to self determination, therefore the referendum is pointless.

      So why can’t we use the equivalent of Cameron’s franchise but adapted to Scotland?

      Don’t Scotland’s natives have the same right as England’s one to self determine?

      The UN clearly states that there should not be any interference of the colonial party in the process of self determination of the colony.

      I am afraid I cannot see how it can be perceived as anything other than direct interference in the process when you have settlers from the colonial party pushing the vote in the exact opposite direction to that of the natives, in other words, denying them their right to self determination.

      “If you’re going to discard the referendum route, the only plausible alternative is plebiscitary elections”

      I completely disagree. Plebiscitary elections is ONE possibility, the same as a referendum. A referendum is not a requirement to declare independence. Scotland is not an integral part of the kingdom of England, it is its equal partner in an international treaty. The other possibility is to simply end the treaty of union on the basis of being breached and on the basis of stopping being of benefit to Scotland. There is plenty of examples of England MPs claiming in the house of commons that no country can be forced to remain in an international treaty against its will. An absolute majority of pro independence MPs is more than enough to make this happen. It is only until relatively recently that, conveniently for Sturgeon and the British state, that route, which was the favoured one, got put to the side and deemed by those against breaking the union as invalid. It is not invalid. It never was invalid. It is the most logical one and it is perfectly valid. The only problem is that with over 80% of Scotland’s seats being held by uncommitted so called nationalists who are only pro indy to hoover the yes vote, that route has become a bit of an inconvenience and it is expedient for Sturgeon’s SNP to barricade it.

      The other route is to demand immediate decolonisation proceedings from the UN. I think there are more than enough examples to demonstrate the treaty of union has been abused to treat and exploit Scotland as a colony. Brexit, the theft of powers, the theft of our NHS and water are just examples.

      “It will however also lose you some votes though, as it will appear to some to be a betrayal of civic nationalism”

      Firstly, it will lose far more no votes than yes votes, you know that as well as I do and that is why a change in the franchise terrifies the bejesus out of unionists, including the closeted ones in the SNP that have wasted seven years of our time pretending to pursue independence while all what they are doing is stopping it with inane excuses.

      Secondly, that imposing a franchise which ensures Scotland’s natives can exercise their right to self determination without interference from settlers of the colonial force, is somewhat a betrayal of civic nationalism is in my view another of the examples of cosmic size bullshit Sturgeon’s government, spin doctors and praetorian guard have been frantically peddling at full force for the last 6 years.

      I have had a quick look in Spanish referendums, like the one they celebrated in Andalucia recently. Non citizens of Spain together with non residents in Andalucia were not allowed to vote. The same as Cameron, Vote leave, the tories or even labour, I don’t think the Andalucians gave a sht about your civic nationalism. What they were concerned about though is that it was the Andalucians’ voice and their voice only, what was heard in that referendum.

      I don’t see why the Scottish people should be forced by uncommitted nationalists and closeted unionists to have concerns about anything else.

    23. Mia says:

      “If we don’t believe we have it in us to both gain a majority and use that majority to attain self determination, we might as well give up now”

      If the closeted colonialists and uncommitted nationalists in Sturgeon’s SNP insist in using the same franchise that was used in 2014 and that was proven to have left the door wide open for rUK’s settlers to successfully frustrate the Scottish natives’ right to self determination, then I think we should give up on the referendum right now and demand from the political fraud either a different, more reliable and fair to the natives route or her resignation.

      Every year more and more settlers come in. She has pushed the referendum back already 5 years and she is hoping to push it back at least another 5. How many settlers from the rUK have entered Scotland in all that time? Can you ensure at all that the rate of conversion from No to yes of natives is in the same scale as the number of settlers coming in?

      Because if you cannot, then the idea that such referendum will offer Scotland’s natives any form of self determination or throw a different result to the one in 2014, is just an illusion.

    24. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      I have added the word “settlers” to the moderation filter, because ffs.

    25. ScotsRenewables says:

      Well done Stu

    26. Mia says:

      I am convinced that these people are very receptive to anything and any idea that will make their new lives better”

      Sorry, but being convinced is not a fact. You demand from me facts, it is only fair that I can demand facts from you as well.

      The fact is that in my neighbourhood, workplace and even family, people from the rUK, as a majority, see Scotland just as an extension of England and despite being here for years, they still reject independence because “it will break up the country”.

      “I don’t think that incomers are automatically anti-Indy at all”

      I am sorry, but your “thoughts” are not facts.
      The majority of RUK incomers I know are anti-indy and remain anti-indy despite having lived here for years, and that is a fact.

      It is only fair therefore that I ask you for the facts that prove recent rUK incomers vote as a majority for independence or even 50/50 against indy.

      In other words, what I am asking for is for the evidence that proves giving newcomers the vote will not cancel the native’s vote frustrating their right to self determination.

      Can you provide those facts?

      And if the incomers are so open to share the views on independence of the natives as you claim, why do you think Cameron, vote leave, the tories and labour left the EU citizens, including long term ones, without a vote in the EU referendum?

      It was not because the incomers from the EU were open to brexit. It was because they knew the overwhelming majority would be voting against brexit.

      Clearly they completely disagreed with your thoughts of openness and so do I.

    27. Confused says:

      A flick thru the old greybeards from time to time can be useful as there is nothing new in human behaviour; it’s all been seen and done before, hundreds of times – SIZZLERS CAUSING PROBLEMS … (capitals mine)

      Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A CITY CANNOT BE CONSTITUTED FROM ANY CHANCE COLLECTION OF PEOPLE, or in any chance period of time. Most of the CITIES WHICH HAVE ADMITTED SIZZLERS, either at the time of their foundation or later, HAVE BEEN TROUBLED BY FACTION. For example, the Achaeans joined with SIZZLERS from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with the other SIZZLERS who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later SIZZLERS were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new sizzlers; at Syracuse the conferring of civic rights on aliens and mercenaries, at the end of the period of the tyrants, led to sedition and civil war; and at Amphipolis the original citizens, after admitting Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by the colonists they had admitted.

      – one from that old racist bastard, Aristotle, having a right old piss on the diversity and multiculturalism, plus civic nationalism.

      Aristotle never said SIZZLER.

    28. ScotsRenewables says:

      Mia, you don’t present any facts either – just hearsay. My English friends are almost universally pro-indy, and my experience is every bit as valid as yours.

    29. Dan says:

      @ Andy Ellis at 9.59pm

      FFS, ever the negative with you these days.
      It’s not the dialogue of despair, it’s a sensible question to ask, discuss, and address so we can at least prepare and not turn up expecting to win a jousting contest armed with only a droopy melted finger of fudge and a unicycle with a flat tyre.

      The question of franchise has been prevalent of late and created bickering amongst Indy folk, but the fucking elephant in the room is the meek acceptance and apparent preference of far too many folk to ignore the more serious matters which question the legitimacy and legality of pretty much all recent democratic results.
      Yet folk still have some bizarre faith that by doing the same thing over and over again they will eventually obtain a different result.
      The electorate, even with the internet at their fingertips to inform them should they choose, are far to easily distracted and led into being divided.
      This means the electorate are so behind the curve it gives those with power, who actually bother to keep a close eye on things, the ability to read the room and change tack to offset or mitigate against any potential threats that look to be forming and challenging their position.
      Ergo the people are always pretty much outplayed by a faster more astute adversary.

      Wings was the biggest Indy site that has over almost a decade proved to be on the money and ahead of the curve on so many things Indy related. This was our sides astute resource to inform folk both in the articles and btl commentary. Why folk would turn their backs on such a resource and fragment and disperse away to lesser read sites and or the bubble of their twitter followers I just don’t get.

      So what do I think? Well basically I think it’s plainly obvious conventional representative “democracy” for the people is basically fucked as those with power can clearly influence and obtain the results they want and the folk just suck it up.

      How many examples do folk need before they wake up. 2014 Indyref, “Brexit”, The trashing of Alex Salmond and Jeremy Corbyn, Protecting Nicola Sturgeon and her cabal, Alba’s poor performance, 1.1 million 2nd votes for SNP to gain just a couple of SNP MSPs that manipulated the manipulated Party system to gain electoral advantage.

      So it’s either continue using the same tools in the same system that have consistently proven to take the piss out of us. Or look to utilise a different approach that we control and is more robust against the forces and influence of established power.
      No doubt this will be scorned by the small c conservative traditionalists, but something along the lines of what this linked site attempted do might be a way forward if folk could unite instead of divide.

      https://digitalcovenant.co.uk/

    30. sarah says:

      @ Dan at 11.37: well said. The electorate are totally under the influence of those who control the media and the government. They are not aware of the truth on many significant matters that reveal the nature of the governing party, nor of Scotland’s standing in international law, nor of its financial strength.

      On top of that I doubt the electorate is aware of Westminster government’s various moves to remove Holyrood’s powers.

      If we don’t get a move on Scotland will lose the ability to vote on anything at all.

    31. Hatuey says:

      “because ffs”

      That’s a great new name for AUOB. Right there.

    32. John Main says:

      Dan

      Thanks for the link. Most interesting.

      Here’s the eligibility criteria from those sensible, sober, organised and committed folk at the Scottish Digital Covenant:

      “All individuals resident in Scotland and born on or before 5th May 2005”.

      Makes me wonder why the f**k we are still arguing about it here.

    33. Captain Yossarian says:

      An update on the sinking school – When I started posting on Wings over Scotland I told the story of the young guy from Knightswood who grew-up next to the Forth and Clyde canal where he developed an interest in water and soil and how they interacted.

      He went-on to Strathclyde University to study engineering where he proved to be a brilliant student and so he went-on to Stanford and he proved to be brilliant there too. Throughout his time in engineering, he remained fascinated by water and soil and he became a world expert.

      Scotland has produced a handful of world-beating engineers since the second world war and he is one of them. He returned to Scotland and became Professor of Civil Engineering at Strathclyde University and President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers. He retired long ago and now has a farm somewhere in Argyll.

      Even now, it is fair to say he is in the top hand-full of engineers in the UK and, in terms of his record of lifetime achievements, he is probably number-one. I cannot imagine anyone getting close to this record nowadays.

      I have 40 opinions from the American Society of Civil Engineers which say that this school contains a design fault which had better be fixed or the school will be lost and we have seen from the recent events in Germany and Miami how quickly and unexpectedly that can happen. In Scotland, everyone has been well warned.

      The Scottish Government need an opinion which has more weight than my 40No and so they went to this chap three months ago and asked him to take a look at this school. So that they had a bang up to date opinion too, they went to an Edinburgh firm who specialize in software simulation of what happens when water levels rise due to days of constant heavy rain. These opinions have been with the Scottish Government for months. I expect them to be the same as my opinions, but no-one has said.

      I received another letter from my MSP, the MSP for Dumbarton, three weeks ago. In it she said: ‘The council have had another look at the school and the problems are only small ones’…..’if you continue to be worried, speak to the council’…..’the council continue to monitor the school and Ms Somerville advises me that the Scottish Government has taken your allegations seriously’….’If I can be of assistance in future, please don’t hesitate to get in touch’.

      I responded:’Thanks, but what about your engineering checks, by the Professor of Engineering and by the consultants from Edinburgh….when will they be issued, because my engineering checks say that this school will collapse’….’what do your engineering checks say?’

      I’m still waiting for her to respond. I don’t think she’s going to respond. I think we can safely say that she doesn’t want to respond. It’s much easier for all at Holyrood to vex about Covid at the moment. So, we have an unsafe school which is due to open again in 3-weeks time and no-one at Holyrood wants to talk about it. The joint position of our Labour and SNP parliamentarians is to cover it all up. To hide all engineering checks and ignore them as if they didn’t exist. The antithesis of open transparent government then and something I though would never happen in Scotland. But, it has happened and this is not the first time, is it?

      Happily, we have the Engineering Institutions looking over this now and the Law Society are looking into the actions of one of their lawyers who has known about this from day-one. I have confidence in the Engineering Institutions. They’ve been around for two-hundred years since the railways were being built, the bridges, the hydro schemes etc. They may have got one or two things wrong during that period, but I’m not aware of them. If you want something checked-out properly, leave it to them and they will do it straight away.

      If you want something covered-up; leave it to Holyrood and their lawyers.

      By posting up on Wings over Scotland, you get things done and things start to move again.

    34. The English had the baws to leave EU.

      “The enemies of Scottish Nationalism are not the English, for they were ever a great and generous folk, quick to respond when justice calls. Our real enemies are among us, born without imagination.”
      1930 RBCG.

    35. Dan says:

      @ John Main at 7:17 am

      Did you miss that I stated “something along the lines of” when referring to that site. I didn’t say we follow exactly what that site is doing.
      Alert readers would be aware of previous discussions over a year ago when the idea was launched.

      https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2020/06/03/the-digital-scottish-covenant/

      For various reasons due to significant events over the past year, people may now want to reconsider their views on the merits of using a similar mechanism to establish the will of the people. Rather than retaining faith in the now highly corrupted conventional democratic means those in power offer the plebs.

      The broad diversity of the YES movement has pluses and minuses.
      There are so many different individuals and organisations which cater for all manner of the views held by Pro-Indy folks. But that diversity is also in a way a weakness as the movement is effectively fragmented and therefore lacks unity, resulting in dilution of uptake of initiatives formed by the myriad different individuals and groups.

    36. Shocked says:

      My occasional skim through the comments has confirmed my prediction…

      “Meanwhile the comments will descend into the usual ethno nationalist rantings about who’s Scottish enough to have a say, demented dribblings about sovereignty by people who have not got the first idea and of course the old favourite, blaming the english for everything…”

      Surely it is no coincidence that it seems to be SNP 1 and 2 actors who are responsible for most of this drivel….

      Just as the police investigation into the thieving Murrells gathers pace and the New SNP has launched a fundraising drive to try and recoup what they have stolen these charlatans appear and try to divert from what’s going on as much as possible. Never have we seen sic a parcel o’rogues in Scotland, party first, Scotland and its people don’t even get a look in,

    37. Sensible Dave says:

      All

      Time for a pep talk!

      I note increased despair, desperation, defeatism, factionalism, in-fighting, etc here on Wings of late.

      The past/current “unionist/english/Westminster/capitalists are bastards” approach hasn’t worked (this is demonstrably true and beyond denial).

      Isn’t the answer simply this: Present a positive, truthful, inspiring case/vision for an Independent Scotland and win people over to the cause?

      As far as I can see, Scottish Nationalist parties present as Anti-Westminster, anti-nuclear, anti-NATO, anti-right of centre politics, anti-american, pro-russia, pro-high taxation, pro-high public spending, pro-EU, etc – … that’s a lot antis and pros that may be seen as unattractive or as deal breakers to many potential Yessers.

      Pep talk over.

    38. Republicofscotland says:

      Re my 8.29pm comment last night.

      This just reinforces it, that Aberdeen council are supporting Westminster’s freeports, which undermines Holyrood. Westminster wants freeports in Scotland that allows goods to arrive in Scotland that are tax exempt.

      The ports though are linked to poorer workers rights, criminality and tax evasion, but above that allowing the UK government to bypass Holyrood and implement them undermines the spirit of devolution.

      Westminster also wants to give funds (once from the EU) straight to councils and public bodies via its (UKSPF) UK Shared Prosperity Fund, again undermining Holyrood by cutting it out altogether.

      Gutless and spineless Sturgeon the Betrayer of Scots will never call back our MPs to have a vote at Holyrood on ditching this rancid union, she’ll just bitch about it, and once again hope the masses in Scotland adhere to her and her party. Meanwhile Johnson’s plans on rolling back of devolution don’t skip a beat.

    39. Republicofscotland says:

      There could be an almighty change in SLAB’s stance to Scottish independence, if Sharon Graham wins the race to become the next leader of UNITE replacing Len McCluskey.

      Graham wants to have a vote on whether or not UNTIE should keep funding SLAB, Graham wants to fund the SNP and the Greens instead of SLAB as she believes Scots should have the right to determine their own future.

      Graham is the only candidate for UNITE leader to publish a SCotland, Wales and Ireland section in her manifesto.

    40. Stuart MacKay says:

      Police Scotland and Public Health Scotland launch collaboration on public health and wellbeing, https://archive.is/PktdV

      Because clearly if you engage in reckless behaviour like putting stickers on lamp posts, tying ribbons to fences or simply not wearing your mask then you need to be transferred to a secure mental health facility for your own good.

      What could possibly go wrong?

    41. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Sensible Dave – I have had 6 or 7 needlessly wasted years due to Holyrood, which is nothing but a cozy alliance of the feckless.

      They will do nothing for Scotland. Holyrood doesn’t work. It’s a weekly cabaret-act and I think that realization has at last set-in.

      It was set-up by Donald Dewar with the best of intentions but it has failed miserably.

      We’re flogging a dead horse.

    42. Mia says:

      “my experience is every bit as valid as yours”

      Absolutely. But the key point is that any independence referendum MUST be truly an exercise of self determination for the Scots, because if the wishes and wants of incomers and the demands of those who oppose self determination are given more importance than the right of the natives to self determine as a nation, then indyref becomes a total farce and a tool to stop self determination rather than to facilitate it.

      So, for the sake of demonstrating that such indyref will ever be a genuine exercise in self determination and not a tool to supress it, I ask, where is the evidence that proves that the incomers vote either for independence like the natives did in 2014, or at least 50/50 so they do not push against the vote of the natives neutralising it or even defeating it.

      The onus is not on me proving the majority of incomers do not vote for independence. That is a given, and that is why England Mps refused all EU incomers (unless naturalised in the UK) a vote in the Brexit referendum. The onus is on those who claim incomers must be given a vote to demonstrate that such vote will not frustrate the right to self determination of the natives.

      Following Andy Ellis’ comment yesterday, I am beginning to look in more detail to the franchise of all independence referendums I can find, one by one. I have just looked at the one for East Timor. Here is the franchise they used that gave a resounding victory for independence (quoted from Wikipedia):

      “Those eligible to vote were defined as “persons born in East Timor”, “persons born outside East Timor but with at least one parent having been born in East Timor”, and “persons whose spouses fall under either of the two categories above”. East Timorese living in exile overseas could also vote if they could get to polling centres in Portugal and Australia”

      As you can see, residence in East Timor did not even figure in that franchise. As far as I know, this referendum was overseen by the UN and the result accepted all over the world.

      All what I am asking for is an equally rigurous franchise that will ensure Scots natives will genuinely exercise self determination rather than just pretending to.

    43. Robert Graham says:

      Totally off topic

      If Stewart Campbell the Rev is watching

      Every link is dead using the latest IOS on the iPad earlier versions work fine and every other site works apart from wings maybe a up date on the server is required

    44. James says:

      ”’Sensible” Dave’
      “Isn’t the answer simply this: Present a positive, truthful, inspiring case/vision for an Independent Scotland and win people over to the cause?”

      Where? On the BBC?

    45. James says:

      Republicofscotland:
      I hope Sharon Graham wins at UNITE and spikes the Scottish Red Tories. My union, which founded the Labour Party in 1900, cut all ties with, and stopped sending donations to NuLabour after a vote in 2004. The Scottish membership voted to fund the independence supporting SSP. The General Secretary was personally in favour of Scottish independence and Scottish self-determination, and hosted several meetings in Scotland promoting the cause. In 2014 the Scottish membership got to vote on indy and if it had been up to us we would be independent now as we voted ‘Yes’. Tragically he passed away in 2014 and was replaced by a NuLabour placeman. That union was originally called the National Union of Railwaymen and is now RMT. The General Secretary was Bob Crow.

    46. Captain Yossarian says:

      “Isn’t the answer simply this: Present a positive, truthful, inspiring case/vision for an Independent Scotland and win people over to the cause?”

      We can do it. What holds Scots back is the realization that we are being led by donkeys. Hence, something needs to change.

      By the way, the SNP employ more journalists than the BBC do; many more; almost twice as many and so no use blaming the BBC all the time.

    47. James says:

      Yossarian – I never mentioned the SNP.

    48. Sensible Dave says:

      James 10.31

      Your putting the cart before the horse James.

      You need the message first – then the medium.

      I have taken a keen interest in this subject via my presence here for the best part of a decade and, honestly, I do not know of an “elevator pitch” for an Independent Scotland.

      I know lots of folk want Independence – but can someone write, in say 3 paragraphs, a “pitch” that can unite the people of Scotland in a positive vision for the country – that doesn’t alienate 100s of 1000s of folk on the issues I alluded to earlier?

    49. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Capt. Yossarian 11.01 am

      Exactly. The idea that we didn’t win in 2014 was because the MSM was entirely hostile was always facile. Of course a more balanced MSM wouldn’t have hurt, but in the final analysis we lost because we didn’t convince enough people of our case, or more precisely because too many still thought the risks of independence outweighed the potential benefits, while the risks of staying in the union weren’t seen as outweighing the benefits of the status quo.

      The “it wuz the meejuh wot dun it” narrative is every bit as spurious as the “it wuz the furriners wot dun it” narrative.

    50. Andy Ellis says:

      @James 10.31 am

      How do you explain the 20% point rise in support for independence between 2012-14?

      I must have missed the supportive media presence that helped with that…?

    51. Breastplate says:

      Sensibledave,
      No, no and again no.

      Self determination is the default status of a country, you Unionists should be burdened with presenting a positive case for the Union. Not the other way round.

      That we have some people who believe that we have to make an argument against staying in a disadvantageous, dysfunctional, disrespectful club run by sociopaths is a major strategic victory for the Unionists that I suppose has to be commended.

      But some people need to wake up.

    52. Mia says:

      @ Scottish renewables

      As an example of the importance of ethnicity in referendums, I invite you to take a close look at the 1995 Quebec independence referendum (I am quoting from Wikipedia):

      “‘Yes’ was the choice of French speakers by an estimated majority of about 60%. Anglophones and allophones (those who do not have English or French as a first language) voted “No” by a margin of 95%”

      “The heavily populated West Island ridings of Montreal, home to a large anglophone population, voted “No” by margins eclipsing 80%; some polling stations even showed literally no “Yes” votes at all”

      And then there is this nice bit:

      “He (Jacques Parizeau, Leader of the “Yes” committee) stated that the only thing that had stopped the “Yes” side was “money and the ethnic vote” and that the next referendum would be successful with only a few percentage more of French speakers onside. The remarks, widely lambasted in the Canadian and international press as ethnocentric, sparked surprise and anger in the “Yes” camp, as the movement had gone to great lengths to disown ethnic nationalism”

      Substitute the names of the leaders, the country, instead of “French speakers/non French speakers” put incomers and change the last bit for “the movement has gone to great lengths to practice civic nationalism” and such comment could have been issued in Scotland in the aftermath of 2014 indyref, and would not look out of place at all, don’t you agree?

      As you can see, it appears that in those places where there is an intrinsic vested interest for self determination of non anglophone emerging nationhood to be crushed, there appears to be a frantic urgency to water down, even demonise the evident importance of ethnicity in the concept of self determination as a nation. In Quebec they demonised ethnicity by putting it near to the word nationalism, when nationhood cannot be separated from ethnicity. Here in Scotland it got suppressed by using the plastic term “civic nationalism”.

      What does the concept of civics have to do with nationhood?

      It is crystal clear from the result in that Quebec referendum that ethnicity is the major determinant in the sense of nationhood.

      How many times have we been told in Scotland over the last 6 years that just a few generations more will oust the anti-independence vote?

      I ask in return, how do the numbers of births in Scotland compare with the number of incomers from elsewhere?

      For info, the official language in Quebec is French and the French speaking population in Quebec represents 77.1% (Also from wikipedia). in other words, the 180 degrees opposite vote of ethnic minorities originally from elsewhere frustrated the right to self determination of the majority, which was the French speaking population.

      Do you see the parallelisms here? I do.

      If Scotland has a second referendum and the franchise remains unchanged, you can predict that the result will be just like the one in Quebec in 1995: No will win by less than a 1%. And then, just like they are doing in Canada, when such result marks the last chance saloon of No winning fairly, they will just push for the change of the winning threshold to stop a yes win, making it mandatory a 60, 65 or 70% rather than the 50% that was acceptable for the No vote.

      Same pattern.

    53. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Mia 10.01 am

      I already posted information about that previously which you may have missed, taken from:

      https://www.catedraferratermora.cat/docs/Posts/Who-is-entitled-to-vote.pdf

      The information you are seeking is in Table 3 “Franchise” pages 44-46. It will show that your assumptions are wrong.

      1) Quebec 1980 & 1995: All Canadian citizens resident in Quebec (i.e. they didn’t exclude non-Quebec born immigrants into Quebec).

      2) Slovenia 1990: Slovenian citizens (internal citizenship provided on Yugoslav ID cards).

      3) Lithuania 1991: Lithuanian nationals pre-1940 Soviet annexation & their descendants plus USSR citizens who renounced Soviet citizens in a 2 year window between 1989-91. Soviet forces in Lithuania were excluded.

      4) Estonia 1991: All individuals with a permanent Soviet residence card in Estonia (this included a large mostly ethnic Russian but also other Soviet republic minority).

      5) Latvia 1991: All individuals with a permanent Soviet residence card in Latvia.

      6) Macedonia 1991: Macedonian citizens (internal citizenship provided in Yugoslav ID cards) residing in Macedonia or abroad.

      7) Ukraine 1991: All residents of the Ukraine, including Soviet soldiers stationed there.

      8) Bosnia & Hercegovina 1992: All Yugoslav citizens who had established their permanent residency in B&H.

      9) East Timor 1999: All those born in East Timor, with a parent born there, or whose spouse or in-laws were born there.

      10) Montenegro 2006: Individuals with a minimum of 24 months residency and Serb-Montenegrin nationality.

      11) South Sudan 2011: All permanent residents or individuals whose parents or grandparents were permanent residents since 1956.

      12) Scotland 2014: Residents with British, Commonwealth or EU nationality.

      13) Catalonia 2014: Residents with Spanish nationality, EU nationality, EEA nationality and Swiss nationality.

      You and those who agree with you are still, in the end, moving the goalposts from the 2014 pattern because you didn’t like that result, and don’t think we can convince non-Scots born people of our case.

      As the extract above shows, the kind of restrictive franchise you and others advocate would be very unusual. Many of these places – particularly the example you yourself used of East Timor – have a much stronger argument of being cases of colonisation. Even those which aren’t “conventionally” understood as colonies like the Baltic States did have large numbers of ethnic Russians and other Soviet citizens who were deliberately “planted” in the decades after the forcible annexation of their countries in the 1940’s.

      The optics and morality of a country like Scotland introducing a franchise stricter than some of the countries on the above list do NOT look good, given the conflict, occupation and ethnic tensions many of them had to contend with in their collective past.

      It makes Scots arguing for an exclusion of those not born here, or who “aren’t Scottish enough” look small minded, craven and nativist. It’s the antithesis of civic nationalism. You and others are of course free to argue your case, but how you feel it will encourage more people to vote Yes and get us closer to independence remains a mystery to me.

    54. Mia says:

      “How do you explain the 20% point rise in support for independence between 2012-14?”

      By the fact that at that time, the party in government in Scotland had a genuine nationalist, tireless strategist, shrewd, brave and resourceful operator, unashamedly committed to independence and to Scotland’s sovereignty and proper leader as a FM.

      Compare that to the recent loss of around 8% in support for independence under Nicola Sturgeon stewardship and her continuous flares of allergy to the words nationalism and independence. What is the difference?

      One is a real pro independence leader. The other has just been pretending to be one for the last 6 years.

    55. Mia says:

      @ Andy Ellis

      Thank you for all that info, much appreciated. Studying all that will keep me busy all afternoon!

    56. James says:

      Andy Ellis
      The public actually got to hear ‘some’ of the indy arguments during the indy campaign via the MSM. The rest of the time it’s been totally hostile ‘SNP Bad’ ‘Independence Bad’ ‘Scotland is bankrupt’ ‘GERS'(LOL) and other such bollocks.
      You’re not seriously saying that a biased state broadcaster and other media drip, drip dripping the same stories over, over and over again, day after day after day doesn’t influence people’s ideas? Or are you just a BBC apologist?

    57. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Andy Ellis – you are one of those on here who is keeping the site going and I admire you for doing that because some have given-up.

      This resource is worth saving. It is like Guido Fawkes in many ways and Guido Fawkes can say what he likes about anyone and he always gets away with it.

      What I will say though is that the background politics in England is the way it used to be in Scotland pre-Holyrood and pre the rise of Scotland’s political class of lawyers. It is completely non-threatening whereas in Scotland, it is threatening.

      If you take the case I have been complaining about for the past 4 months. We have arguably the best engineer in the world living among us in Argyll. He has been asked to advise on the safety of a school. He does that and then three middle-aged women from Holyrood and the city council say ‘We don’t need to listen to him’.

      That’s when you know we are in managed decline. Next year will be worse than this year and so-on.

      So, Scotland has it all and could make it on its own and I don’t think that many would argue that that is not the case. Unfortunately, we are plagued with dishonest liars at Holyrood and that, I’m afraid, will have to be stopped or Scotland will soon join Belarus, Hungary and Poland.

    58. James Che. says:

      Andy Ellis,
      The waiting game to independence is only ever a step away, the next election, or the next election or maybe the one after that,
      Maybe we should wait until we give them a mandate, or another mandate or another mandate, as well.
      Oh that’s right, we have been there done that, and unlike the non sovereign Catalans, we have tried many peaceful routes, mandates, marches, and rallies to get our message across,
      And unlike the Catalan people we are in a recognised international treaty, which we can and do have the right to withdraw from,
      England’s Westminster is not in sole ownership of that treaty,

      Withdraw all our MPs from Westminster, followed by a vote to leave the union under new rules that those intitled to vote must have residency of ten or fifteen years minimum,
      That way it cannot be seen to be racist or anti English, but inclusive to all longer term residents whom think of Scotland as Scotland and not an extension of England.
      Sorted
      End the old treaty of the union that you mention is not recognised by the UN anyway.

    59. crazycat says:

      @ Republicofscotland at 9.51

      I’ve already voted for Sharon Graham; I hope she wins. She would also be Unite’s first female General Secretary (I failed to find any information about her views on genderwoo, but voted for her anyway).

    60. Nally Anders says:

      Northern Ireland – another Bojo Fk up.
      Belter from Grousebeater.

      https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2021/07/23/oven-ready-bullcrap/

    61. Republicofscotland says:

      Watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Japan, it is interesting to see the tiny principality of Andorra, a land locked sovereign country wave its flag at the Olympics. will the day come when the Saltire flutters in the opening ceremony.

      On another note the oppressive apartheid murderous occupying forces in Palestine Israel is also in attendance, it would appear that crimes against humanity don’t stop you from winning a sporting medal.

    62. Republicofscotland says:

      Labour’s Dawn Butler did more in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes on in fives minutes in the house of Commons yesterday, than all the SNP MP’s have done in the last five years.

      The rules are set out to protect lies at Westminster, and dare I say at Holyrood, where Sturgeon’s acolytes daren’t mention the naked emperor, or should I say empress.

    63. John Main says:

      RepublicOfScotland

      “it would appear that crimes against humanity don’t stop you from winning a sporting medal”

      Good point Republic.

      Tell me, I’m not watching, is China there?

      Maybes you should list all the oppressive apartheid murderous occupying forces. Otherwise you come across as, what’s the word, obsessed?

    64. Republicofscotland says:

      Interestingly the National newspaper has a column on a journalist who wrote some nasty twitter comment on the death of another journalist, IPSO is mentioned and the quarter page articles goes on to define IPSO’s powers, and the journalists code of conduct.

      My point is I don’t recall the National producing a similar article when MSM journalists named and jigsaw identified complainers in the Alex Salmond trial, nor do I recall it doing a similar post when Craig Murray faced prosecution.

    65. Dan says:

      Wake up call for the electorate and a potential political game changer as Scottish supermarket alcohol isles begin to get low on stock!
      Will a drought of stimulating elixir be the last straw and amplify Scot’s (whatever a Scot means in fair and inclusive pc speak…) thirst to dissolve the union as a solution to the lack of available medicinal fluid.

      150% of Scots would probably have voted to remain in the EU had they known a vote for “Brexit” would mean nae swally.

    66. Mia says:

      @ Scots renewables

      Here is the info of a recent referendum in Gibraltar. It is not about independence (I am still frantically looking for the franchises of Gibraltar’s 1967 and 2002 sovereignty referendum). This particular referendum is about amending the Crimes (Amendment) Act 2019

      https://www.parliament.gi/uploads/docs/referendum/referendum_2021/faq-referendum.pdf

      As you can see, the franchise is as follows:

      “Who can vote in the Referendum?

      British, aged 16 or over who have been resident in Gibraltar for ten years or more on the 24 June 2021, or persons registered or entitled to be registered as Gibraltarians will be eligible to vote”

      As you can see, again, the “civic nationalism” doesn’t even enter the equation, whereas nationality as Gibraltarians and continuity of residence do. 10 years residence in Gibraltar is the minimum that is acceptable to be able to vote.

      As you can see, what I am asking for is no outlier but rather what other territories under British control already enjoy in their recent referendums.

    67. Andy Ellis says:

      @James 12.19 pm

      No, of course I’m not saying that. I’m saying – and you’re ignoring – that DESPITE having next to zero positive coverage in the MSM the movement increased pro-indy support by 20% in 2 years.

      Now we’re saying we can’t increase it by a smaller amount even after brexit, the mis-handling of Covid-19 and the SNP sitting on its ares doing SFA for 7 years?

    68. Andy Ellis says:

      @James Che

      The Catalans are in effect sovereign, and so is any other people that decides to be so. The UN charter makes self determination a right – a jus cogens – in international law. It doesn’t matter that Spain insists (wrongly) that Catalans or other communities can’t have independence because there’s a constitutional prohibition agains it in Spain, any more than to protect the territorial integrity or economic interests of the country. A jus cogens over-rides any such pretensions.

      Thus, the international community doesn’t care about Scotland’s past, the treaties of union, the claims of right etc., etc. They might signify a lot to us, but they don’t amount to a hill of beans to the international community or UN because EVERY people has a right to sovereignty, it just isn’t automatic or unconditional.

      Your plan won’t work. It won’t be recognised until and unless we’ve exhausted the other routes: we haven’t done so. That’s EXACTLY why Rev Stu and those of us who complained about the SNP & SG not legally challenging Westminster about holding a referendum without a S30 Order have been making a song a dance about it. We need to show we’ve tried that, been unreasonably refused, then moved on to a different route (plebiscitary elections anyone…?) because the original route has been frustrated.

      You’re NOT going to get international recognition for UDI, or anything that smacks of it except in very extreme circumstances of violence, ethnic cleansing or total breakdown.

    69. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 11.30 am

      A big chunk of Quebec’s anglophone community has been there for generations. Indeed, at some points the city of Montreal was majority anglophone.

      The situation in Quebec isn’t really analogous to ours: 99% of anglophone Qubecers oppose independence for Quebec. There has also been a considerable exodus of anglophones from Quebec to the rest of Canada. The fault line in Quebec – and to an extent Catalonia – is linguistic, not necessarily political.

    70. Mia says:

      @ Scots Renewables and Andy Ellis

      I have just looked at the franchise for the sovereignty referendum of 2013 of the Falklands Islands

      According to wikipedia:

      “In order to vote in the referendum, electors had to be resident in the islands, aged 18 or over and have Falkland Islands status”

      Also from wikipedia:
      “Falkland Islands status is a legal status in the Falkland Islands (the Falklands form of belonger status) defined by section 22(5) of the Falkland Islands Constitution and the Falkland Islands Status Ordinance, 2007 and is considered to be the closest thing to citizenship that the Falkland Islands can grant”

      If you are interested in reading more about the Falkland Islands’ status, you can do so here

      “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_status”

      As you can see, either being born in the islands, being naturalised, being a direct descendant of somebody born in the island or a continuous residence in the islands of a minimum of 7 years appear to be a requirement to apply for Falkland Island’s status and hence to have been able to vote in the referendum.

      Both Gibraltar and the Maldives appear to have a constitution and from that constitution a definition of or close to what is citizenship. That allows them to define the franchise to make it fairer. Scotland doesn’t have either constitution defining what being a Scot is nor any concept of Scottish citizenship or “Scot status”. THAT is what so far seems to be the outlier among British territories, not the kind of franchise I am asking for.

    71. Pixywine says:

      A “vaccine” that appears to confer no immunity?

    72. Mist001 says:

      BUT…Scotland currently being a part of the UK, that means that everyone in the UK who is a citizen of a certain age pays tax in the UK has a right to vote in the UK, no matter which part of the UK they live in.

      To deny UK tax payers a vote BEFORE Scotland is independent is to deny them democracy and if Scotland managed to become independent in those circumstances, that would mean that Scotland would immediately be starting off as an undemocratic nation. A dictatorship? A fascist state?

      And what idiot’s going to vote for that?

      These are the conundrums which have to be solved before independence can ever happen.

    73. Republicofscotland says:

      john Main @1.18pm.

      Fair point John, however the West embraces the oppressive, apartheid, occupying force of Israel.

      “Palestinian weightlifter from Gaza, Mohammad Hamada, will be making history by being the first such athlete to compete at the Olympic Games in Tokyo”

      Good luck young fella.

    74. James Che. says:

      Andy Ellis.
      You have you’re wires mixed up.
      If the treaty of the union past history doesn’t mount to a hill of beans, why bother being recognised for any reason with the international community.
      They just make their own rules apparently according to you. While ignoring treaties.

      With the right to self determination. Along with political recorded history of being in capture of our own Scots sovereignty, with the automatic right to end the treaty of the 1707 union (being) the only other signature country to that treaty, and having that treaty broken and altered beyond its original by the British [english orientated ] Parliament, in many different ways and occasions over 300 years, of course we can call an end to it.
      Legally UDI is what governments and parliamentary members can be accused of.
      UDI is not something that people can be accused of, especially sovereign people with the right to self determination.
      Time to separate the restricting politics from the sovereign people.

    75. J.o.e says:

      To compare our current situation with anything up to the last 5 years is insufficient.

      We are currently in a period of massive and continuing (deliberate) demographic change.

      To have the people who want basically open borders for our countries to also want it made easy for all comers to have democratic representation…hmm…what could that lead to? What would any logical person suggest the outcome will be?

      Yet these people, the same ones who speak fondly of global government, characterize the attempt to save the Scots ability to choose democratically the course for their country as ‘disenfranchising non-Scots’.

      I looked at RT and there is an article about a book that apparently explains that trans men have competitive advantage over women in sports.

      This is the world we are entering. Where you need a book to explain the patently fucking obvious that all of us know.

      The same for nationalism, ethnicity and the peoples of the world. What was once clear, logical and made sense is being dismissed as ‘nativism’ and ‘exclusive’.

    76. twathater says:

      Mia can I just say you are wasting your time presenting info on other countries franchises for referendums, Andy(the Rev undercover)Ellis has decreed the only acceptable franchise is the one where all incomers are permitted to outvote the indigenous natives,he even has a good list of nasty names he can resort to if you don’t agree with his decree
      He even has the ability to read the revs mind and thoughts

    77. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      What I think…

      Most Scots, like most humans, are conservative with a small c.

      “conservative |k?n?s??v?t?v|
      adjective
      1 averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values: they were very conservative in their outlook.”

      That is, they don’t like change and desire consistency.

      What we, the pro-indy contingent, need, is the magic bullet that would convert the small c conservatives to WANTING change, ie independence as opposed to the Status Quo.

      I don’t have a clue what that magic bullet could be but, some discussion about a central bank, or discussion about EFTA membership as a precursor to joining the EU, or discussion about women’s rights, or discussion about the removal of nuclear weapons, or bringing the OAP up to the average of developed countries, could go some way to help.

      This has to be ‘word of mouth’ as the MSM will NOT report anything that threatens ‘this precious union’.

      We have to bring these topics up with workmates and so on, to get people to question the ‘Status Quo’.

    78. Captain Yossarian says:

      @Brian Doonthetoon – I read on here a few days ago that Holyrood now employs 55No spin doctors. The BBC employs 35No journalists. On that basis, the MSM is Holyrood itself nowadays and they employ 240No lawyers so that every other journalist in the country is afraid of them.

    79. Dan says:

      @ Bdtt

      I’d add maintaining free at point of need health service provision for our society is also an extremely good discussion topic.
      In my experience on street stalls that particular subject is the one that folk of all political hues will generally engage in decent conversations about.
      Even if an individual through their work has some kind of private health cover for themselves and immediate family, it is likely many of their extended family and friends will not.
      With that point made it is often enough for them to take stock and consider the implications should that societal “constant” that we take for-granted begin to be eroded.

    80. twathater says:

      BDTT of course you are correct , involvement , discussion , and planning a future Scotland would be fabulous , but as you know NONE of our political parties ESPECIALLY the SNP has a vision for Scotland, she/it/her has been in power for 7 years and has NEVER provided ANY information proving Scotland’s resources or how we would be better off independent
      She/it/her wants the status quo , money , power, celebrity status and we will not move forward until she and her cabal are gone, no matter how much I or we argue for change on these forums

    81. Republicofscotland says:

      2To deny UK tax payers a vote BEFORE Scotland is independent is to deny them democracy and if Scotland managed to become independent in those circumstances, that would mean that Scotland would immediately be starting off as an undemocratic nation”

      Mist001.

      They weren’t denied a vote on the 2014 plebiscite and look what happened, indigenous Scots voted yes but others voted no, which helped carry the vote. No in a one off plebiscitary vote, keeping the vote to just indigenous Scots is the right way in my opinion.

    82. Dan says:

      Of course discussing free at point of need health service provision with soft small c conservative previous no voters may well broach the subject of all these New Scots just rocking up and gaining access to said services with them having made little if any previous tax contributions…

      Obviously that can be difficult to counter, but you could add that Immigration is currently a power reserved to Westminster, and an Indy Scotland would be empowered to develop an immigration policy that best served our society and economy with various eligibility criteria. Ya ken, like most other sensible countries have without being classed as blood and soil arseholes…

    83. Mia says:

      “The fault line in Quebec – and to an extent Catalonia – is linguistic, not necessarily political”

      Sorry but this is nonsense.

      Why do I have the feeling again that you are attempting to push the discussion towards the fabricated nonsense of civic nationalism in order to undermine ethnicity and its different expressions as the root of nationhood?

      It won’t work.

      Language goes hand and hand with the sense of nationhood, it is an expression of nationhood. You know this and I know it too. If it wasn’t the world all over would speak the same language and with the same accent.

      Why do you think Franco’s fascist thugs would threat to kill you if you were an adult or beat you to a pulp in school if you dared speak Euskera, Galician or Catalonian instead of his beloved Castillian?

      Why do you think the British state useful idiots in the Tory and labour benches in Westminster mock the Scots accent and forbid any language that is not English in Westminster?

      This is the third decade of the 21st century Andy. Electronic translators have been around for a while and I believe they have had them in the European Parliament, incidentally another union parliament, for quite some time.

      What is stopping the powers that be putting translators in Westminster as part of the expensive renovations they were planning so people in Scotland, NI and Wales can speak their mother tongues?

      What is stopping them is that language is an expression of nationhood. Different languages in westminster mean having to accept that different nations indeed exist in the UK and that does not go very well with the British establishment’s one nation state they are trying to force down our throats.

      There is much more than language that is separating those communities in Canada and you know it. The language is telling you that those populations are fundamentally different in origin, in ethnicity and want different things.

      The same with the Falklands’ Islands. Those islands were empty when colonised and the majority of those living there are of the British origin. They have been there for generations too and yet still feel as british as the first generation did.

      So what does that tell you?

      it tells you that the sense of nationhood is something complex that you cannot acquire simply by the act of selling your house in the neighbour country and crossing the border. It tells you that time may just an element on the equation but another element is the sense of identity, of belonging, of allegiance to that host nation.

      I agree with Cameron, in absence of a citizenship ceremony where you have to swear allegiance to your host country as you have to do in the UK or any other country to get naturalisation, the 15 year mark sounds about right.

      With regards to the claiming that it is only language what defines Catalonia’s desire for independence, sorry but you are completely out of whack on that one and clearly don’t know Catalonia enough nor the Catalonians. The language is just ONE of the many characteristics that demonstrate Catalonia is a different nation. There is an awful lot more. The same that there is an awful lot more that defines the Basque Country, Galicia or Scotland for that matter as nations.

      The Brits may think they have succeeded in almost driving Gaelic and Scots in Scotland to extinction, but so Franco did think before he died that Catalonian, Galician and Euskera were pretty much dead. Mother tongues have a peculiar way of passing from generation to generation even when they are “forbidden”. Particularly if they are forbidden.

      Looking at how Catalonian, Galician and Euskera have proliferated in their respective nations of Spain in so little time, tells me that Scots and Gaelic can come back in Scotland in all their glory too. The only thing that is needed is the determination of the Scots to continue using them everywhere including Westminster and specially HOlyrood.

      I must admit I find shameful that Gaelic and Scots are not being used in Holyrood on a regular basis. Scots and Gaelic in Scotland should have the same status as English in Scotland’s parliament, as they are the mother tongue of some Scots. They should have the same status in Westminster too.

      You would like to know that the same tactics used in Scotland to undermine Scots of Gaelic were also used by the Francoists in the regions of Spain after he died. Here are some examples:

      “only the unwashed and uneducated use a language other than castilian”
      “speaking other languages other than castilian is separatist and anti-spanish”
      “Catalonian, Galician and Euskera sound ugly and unpolished”
      “Catalonian Galician and Euskera are not languages, just dialects of the castillian” (Catalonian and Galician are languages that like castillian evolved from the latin. Euskera is a much older language that predates latin and certainly castillian”
      “Teaching languages other than castillian in Schools is far to expensive. The money can be put to a better use”
      “Printing road signs in other languages that are not castilian will confuse people and cause accidents. It is also discriminating for those who do not speak the language”
      “Stop talking gibberish and start talking Spanish”.

      I have heard it all and more. It is always the same strategy: undermine the language, ridiculise traditions and oppress the sense of nationhood as a way to reach unification and compliance.

      What defines nationhood is much more than language. Language is just an expression of it.

    84. Republicofscotland says:

      So its one-hundred days until the COP26 takes place in Glasgow, we’re all saved hallelujah!

      Or maybe not, call me an old cynic, but with the UK government issuing licences to pump oil from the Cambo field, and with US president Joe Biden also issuing around 6,000 oil exploration licences, plus the German premier Angela Merkel and the US president Joe Biden finally allowing Russia’s Nordstream II pipeline to enter Europe, I think that the up and coming COP26 is nothing more than a backslapping exercise to shut the masses up.

      Here in Scotland the failed Justice secretary Michael Matheson now has the fancy title of Cabinet secretary for Net-Zero Energy and Transport, has pledged that Scotland to help deliver the Paris Agreement on climate change, another empty pledge from a government that promises much but delivers little, the Scottish government have so far failed to meet their CO2 reduction target, and there’s not enough electric vehicle charging points either.

      The world leaders have absolutely no chance of limiting the rise in temperature to 1.5 degrees and I’m sure they know it, the world has been slowly but steadily heating up with glaciers melting, seas warming and the melting of the tundra.

      The frozen tundra contains unimaginable amounts of frozen methane as does the ocean floors, once they reach a certain temperature, its game over as methane is a potent greenhouse gas, the giant wheel of climate change has been gathering speed in recent decades, it cannot just be stopped, it will takes decades if not centuries to bring it too a halt, by then certain countries on the planet will in my opinion be to hot to be inhabited by humans, and most animals, and some plants.

    85. Ron Maclean says:

      “Deprive the people of their national consciousness, treat them as a tribe and not a nation, dilute their national pride, do not teach their history, propagate their language as inferior, imply they have a cultural void, emphasise their customs are primitive, and dismiss independence as a barbaric anomaly.” Reinhard Heydrich

    86. Republicofscotland says:

      Mia @6.50pm.

      Good comment Mia.

    87. Republicofscotland says:

      Ron MacLean.

      Yes there are many parallels in that paragraph on the Germanisation of Czechoslovakia that fit Scotland’s position within this three-hundred years old union.

      I think with Johnson in mind and Westminster over the centuries, that this has bearing as well.

      “One of the Nazis’ most-repeated political slogans was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer – “One People, One Empire, One Leader”.

    88. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Andy Ellis 11.18: “How do you explain the 20% point rise in support for independence between 2012-14?”

      I think this site and the WBB had an awful lot to do with it, an immensely energetic grass roots campaign activated by those two factors, plus the committed leadership of Alex Salmond and the tantalising prospect of independence being just a-tick-in-a-box away after 300 years of hopeless stagnation, if we could only doorstep enough voters. Most campaigns pick up a momentum as you approach the last few weeks and ours came very close.

      It certainly wasn’t the official Yes campaign “run” by the anaemic ex-BBC Blair Jenkins and our own milquetoast FM, so the patriots had to do it for themselves because they knew the MSM were uniformly opposed to the campaign.

      But full marks to Nikla for splitting the movement and miring her party in sleaze.

    89. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Mia 3.31 pm

      You’re moving the goalposts again, whether because you don’t see the distinction or because you’re being disingenuous is hard to tell. Citizenship of (already) independent states is not the same as deciding the franchise in an entity trying to become independent from a larger unit.

      It doesn’t matter (and the international community is entirely indifferent to) what the status of the unit attempting to secede is: they just don’t care if it’s an ancient nation like Scotland that voluntarily gave up its independence for a consensual union, or whether it’s a country which has never, ever been independent like East Timor or South Sudan.

      The article i linked to earlier has a useful discussion of the issues and comes down heavily on the side of those resident voting.

      With respect to the Falklands, I’ve always been a strong supporter of them deciding their own future. However, those punting the false “Scotland as colony” narrative ought to consider that the vast majority of the UN consider the Falklands a colonial possession and would turn them over to Argentina in a heartbeat, irrespective of the wishes of the population.

    90. Breeks says:

      Roll up! Roll up!

      SNP’s Ponzi Scheme Independence Campaign needs the new intake of suckers your help.

      https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1418147557243441157

    91. Andy Ellis says:

      @twathater 5.18 pm

      Don’t be butt hurt all your life mate! The sad fact for you and all the other nativist roasters is that you represent a small and relatively unimportant – if annoying – section of the overall movement. Shockeroonie, I happen to agree absolutely with Rev Stu on this: he’s been quite eloquent about it, and like me has little time for those arguing for a change in the franchise making it more restrictive.

      Incomers can’t outvote native born Scots: they might hold the balance, but you can’t expect the advantages attendant on allowing immigration (in a country with an ageing population that wants to increase immigration not turn them off coming by overturning a decade long commitment to civic nationalism) while depriving them of a say.

      I don’t need to read Stu’s mind and thoughts, he’s made them abundantly clear. Most of the rest of the movement agrees with him and me thankfully, not the narrow minded “blut und boden” fringe and its hard of thinking acolytes, or those who insult the real victims of colonisation by equating the Scots experience with colonisation.

      You all make me ashamed to share a political movement with you, never mind a country!

    92. Republicofscotland says:

      “Incomers can’t outvote native born Scots: they might hold the balance, but you can’t expect the advantages attendant on allowing immigration (in a country with an ageing population that wants to increase immigration not turn them off coming by overturning a decade long commitment to civic nationalism) while depriving them of a say.”

      Andy Ellis.

      Oh FFS get over yourself how many times do you need it spelt out and in how many languages, we gave them the vote in 2014 and it cost us independence. We cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.

      As for roasters, you’re the only roaster I can see that wants to have an exact rerun of 2014 where yes loses. I could picture you, and your words of comfort after we lose the next one using your inane formula, (Aw we lost, but look on the bright side we gave everyone and their dog a vote, so we’re a shining beacon of democracy in the eyes of the world).

      Give it a rest Andy, at first it was interesting, then slightly funny, then sad, and now its just bloody tedious, are you even for independence, I wonder?

    93. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Wee Friday Night Teaser…

      If you had a couple of minutes to list Nicola Sturgeon’s failings over the past 7 years, how many could YOU get?

      This is as good a summary as any:

      https://twitter.com/DaveLukewarm

    94. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 6.50 am

      The whole point of our movement is supposed to be that it is civic nationalism. We were meant to be eschewing ethnic nationalism, not glorifying it and ensuring the benefits of our new nation were restricted to the natives. If that’s your nationalism, we’re not on the same side.

      I didn’t need the overlong exposition on languages (DEAR GOD, please at least try to edit your input. In your case particularly, less is more). I’m aware of the issues, the only reason I brought it up was to make a point that maybe the Quebec and Scotland comparison wasn’t particularly useful.

      I’m all for promoting Scots and Gaelic, but – much like misguided attempts by the narrow minded to restrict the franchise – their promotion has little resonance with the bulk of voters. They’re not buying the “cultural oppression” schtick anymore than they buy the “Scotland as colony” narrative.

      You’re playing to a small and relatively unimportant basket of deplorables. Good!

    95. Andy Ellis says:

      @Republic 8.32 pm

      Gies peace. You can’t prove they cost us independence, because you don’t know how people would have voted if the franchise had been changed.

      As usual for the nativist freak fringe, anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t a “real” independence supporter, just like non-natives aren’t “real” Scots.

      If we lose again it’ll be down to regressive nativism like yours not those of us pointing out what a crap idea it is. If the new Scotland looks like your dystopian “Scots first” wet dream you can keep it.

    96. Israel restrict who can vote in their national elections,

      Norway restrict who can vote in their national elections,

      New Zealand restrict who can vote in their national elections

      according to Andy they are all `blood and soil nazi` nationalists.

    97. James Barr Gardner says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      23 July, 2021 at 8:41 pm

      I didn’t need the overlong exposition on languages (DEAR GOD, please at least try to edit your input. In your case particularly, less is more). I’m aware of the issues, the only reason I brought it up was to make a point that maybe the Quebec and Scotland comparison wasn’t particularly useful.

      FYI Montreal, Canada (3.8 million)
      With over 59% of the population being able to speak both English and French, Montreal is the second-largest primarily French-speaking city in the developed world, after Paris and the fourth-largest french speaking city in the world.

    98. Andy Ellis says:

      @Scott Finlayson 9.01 pm

      Israel is an independent state.

      Norway is an independent state.

      New Zealand is an independent state.

      Seeing a pattern genius?

      When we’re independent, we can establish naturalisation criteria. Like other independent states. As I already demonstrated, what the nativists moon howlers are proposing is out of step with other countries which have held referendums, because most of them don’t use the restrictive franchise being proposed, and yet….they manage to achieve what we’ve failed to do….how’s that do you think?

      Let’s also not forget the Norwegians voted 99.5% for independence in 1905…..I can’t find any information on whether they excluded all the foreigners. 🙂

    99. David Caledonia says:

      We’ll drink a drink a drink
      To nicola the pink the pink the pink
      The savior of the human race
      For she invented medicinal compound
      Most efficacious in every case

    100. David Caledonia says:

      What is wrong with being a nation a list or as the yanks call it, a patriot, what is so wrong with only giving a vote of national importance to only native born scots who actually live in scotland
      I remember Jack Charlton took the republic further than scotland has ever been in the world cup.
      But to do it he put you in the team if your granny had a half pint of guiness 50 years ago.
      Who do we want in our team, we want scots or anyone born here 16 years ago who now lives in scotland and was born here before any major elections come up
      How could anyone say that the likes of galloway should have a vote on scotlands future, he want’s independence for orkney and shetlands for goodness sake, the man has a brain, but it is cerainly not tuned into scotland or its future

    101. David Caledonia says:

      All scotland has to do is call a referendum, anyone born here and living here gets to vote, and to vote you have to be 16 years of age
      I would never go to any country to live and take part in any kind of referendum to decide that countries future, even if I had lived there for 50 years, after any referendum if the country voted for independence then I would accept any voting rights they allowed me to have

    102. David Caledonia says:

      Why would you give a vote to anyone that has lived in england for 65 years, voted tory or labour all their lives and decided to retire to scotland
      Does anyone think that most of these people would vote against the tory or labour parties in scotland, I have a liverpool friend, he has lived in scotland for years and always votes labour, I asked him why and he said, i hate those nationalists, that was his stock answer to me, only time he takes any interest in politics is when its voting time……. great guy, but not a good import for scottish independence

    103. Fred says:

      ‘Scots and Gaelic in Scotland should have the same status as English in Scotland’s parliament, as they are the mother tongue of some Scots.’

      I stand to be corrected, but I’m not aware that there is actually anything in place to stop an MSP speaking their mother tongue in Scottish parliament, certainly if you look at Mhairi Black she’s not afraid to speak Ned at Westminster.

    104. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Andy Ellis 9.36: “Let’s also not forget the Norwegians voted 99.5% for independence in 1905…..I can’t find any information on whether they excluded all the foreigners. ?”

      I doubt, given Norway’s poverty while linked to Sweden, that it had many “foreigners”, but it did have a press largely owned and run in Norway, unlike Scotland, which has no major title owned by a Scottish proprietor.

      Are you suggesting such a situation is of no significance in such an overwhelming result?

      People have tried the “become the media” stuff since before 2014 or so and all we’ve seen is a lot of Indy bloggers gradually falling by the wayside because of the uneven struggle (including our own host) against vested political interests and a compliant and corrupt press.

    105. Andy Ellis says:

      @ David Caledonia

      More nativist crap. Charlton did what any sane manager would do, exploited Article 18 of the FIFA constitution:

      “any person who is a naturalised citizen of a country by virtue of that country’s laws shall be eligible to play for a national or representative team of that country”

      Irish law says anyone with a parent or grandparent born in Ireland is entitled to citizenship. Scotland will doubtless do exactly the same post indy: it was certainly the plan in the 2014 White Paper.

      Galloway will only have a vote if he lives in Scotland, not because he was born here. QED.

    106. David Caledonia says:

      I never talk crap, and what the hell is a nativist when its at home, as for charlton and the rules or atricle 18 or 118 or whatever, if your not born in Ireland you are not irish the same as a guy with the meat and two veg is not a woman

      Very simple to understand, and no piece of paper can change
      the facts, and fifa and any other numpties that try are not
      worth even talking about

    107. David Caledonia says:

      I think I am right in saying that Denis Laws kids where born in scotland, he has lived most of his life in manchester but he wanted to make sure that his children could play for scotland if they wished

    108. Dan says:

      Andy Ellis says: at 8:51 pm

      If we lose again it’ll be down to regressive nativism like yours not those of us pointing out what a crap idea it is. If the new Scotland looks like your dystopian “Scots first” wet dream you can keep it.

      You’re really going for it on this matter aren’t you. Polarising the issue and not allowing any nuance to discussions, whilst laying the negativity on thick with anyone that doesn’t accept your exact view.
      Just how much face to face Indy campaigning have you done with the wider public?
      I ask because I don’t recognise your hardline authoritarian debating style, and castigating in a derogatory manner folk that hold a different view to yours as being any use whatsoever.
      If you tried that at a street stall where you would be speaking with a broad spectrum of the public you don’t know, it would not go well.
      Remember it is the previous No voters you need to convince, not pro-Indy folk. Those No voters are the reason the Union prevails, and much as it might piss you off, those No voters may well harbour more socially repressed or regressive views in comparison to more confident and enlightened folk.
      They are often the small c conservative and dour types that you really need to work gently and with respect to even begin to get them to consider things from a different perspective.
      Straight out telling them they are roasters and wrong just ain’t going to cut it.

      That’s why the genderwoowoo is such a skipfire of a policy to be focused on at this time. We know fine well that policy will not fly with the small c conservative types when the true reality of what it actually entails gets broadcast into the tellys of the electorate.

      I see Rev’s been back in briefly but I don’t see your post in response to my linked one being released from moderation.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/gb-snooze/comment-page-1/#comment-2668315

      Any chance you could respond to the points in it so I can get your take and extract a bit of subject matter to work with, rather than just continuing with the polarised guff.

    109. Pixywine says:

      Do I smell identity politics? Terrible unnecessary smell. Identity politics has and continues to poison politics. Academic going nowhere and there is the little problem of worldwide Fascist takeover of our lives.

    110. Pixywine says:

      Andy. The “whole point” of the Independence movement was and is Independence not an exercise in virtue signalling. You’ve bogged the thread down with trivia. You should rejoice the only people who can travel unrestricted these days are fit young men of fighting age currently rocking up on the Kent coast by the hundreds per day. In life Andy when we are soft we get taken advantage of.
      Meanwhile we have medical Apartheid and the Governments Media faking a narrative of accusation against the unvaccinated. Just so you know I’m kosher I have my Yellow Star ready because I still refuse to take part in the Great Medical Experiment.

    111. Pixywine says:

      Are genitically modified people-vaxxed- owne under patent by virtue of the product they have been injected with?

    112. Breeks says:

      wee monkey says:
      24 July, 2021 at 12:52 am
      Most of you will not believe this. “shrugs”

      https://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2019/12/how-much-of-scotlands-tax-revenue-does.html

      Dude, I’m pretty sure “keverage” is old Uber Unionist and dog food salesman Kevin Hague. That fact alone is a pretty solid reason for not believing a word of it, and you should maybe be a wee embarrassed monkey for posting shite like that here. But don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone. 😉

    113. Breeks says:

      https://archive.is/6IjVO

      You never mentioned you’d taken up mining Rev Stu.

    114. twathater says:

      When you look at the brexshit situation how many incomers , sett lers , refugees or as the Brits like to distinguish themselves as, ex pats or patriots, to Spain , Portugal, France or any EU country proudly BOAST LOUDLY that they voted for brexshit and they were exalted that england was taking it’s sovereignty back from these furriners without realising the irony that THEY were the furriners in someone else’s country , how many of these new citizens of each of these foreign countries have applied for citizenship of these countries or how many have NO intention of becoming NEW citizens because they are proud British (English) and have no need to , yet they still want to dictate terms and opinions in their HOST countries

      Yet these self same people were rabidly outraged when the EU negotiators were insisting that you can’t have ALL the benefits of the club if you refuse to be in the club , which resulted in even more outrage and claims that these people were penalising poor england for wanting their sovereignty back

      It has been stated many times that Scotland has NOT voted for a tory govt since 1955 yet we continue to get what england votes for , 2016 Scotland voted 62% to remain in the EU yet we are dragged out because england wants out , believe it or not this tory govt is even more corrupt and amoral than the SNP SG , the RED wall in the north fell because Northern English people preferred and TRUSTED tories so Scotland suffers again

      When you look at all that shit that England has FORCED Scotland to endure = 5 years of brexshit MADNESS , endless tory and liebour lies and corruption , you could almost guarantee that anyone sane and lucid coming to Scotland to escape England’s lunacy would vote for independence BUT NO 72% of our NEW CITIZENS still want Scotland and Scots to suffer the indignity and hardships of the great yookay ( England)

      So it appears this civic nationalism only applies to Scots everyone else looks after their own interests

    115. twathater says:

      Andy Ellis if I remember correctly you stated that you had been away from Scotland for 25 years living in England and returned in 2018 with your wife who is English and who would now vote yes the same as yourself

      May I ask did you vote in the 2014 referendum if so did you vote yes , the reason I ask is if you did not vote yes or did not vote at all you obviously cannot appreciate sufficiently the despondency and disgust when it was exposed that indigenous Scots had indeed voted for an independent Scotland but had been DENIED their independence by the weight of numbers from incomers aligning with unionist supporters

      That indigenous vote for YES was despite a concerted corrupted and vile opposition who used every avenue available legal and illegal including funding BLACK money through unionist contacts in Ireland and senior politicians and sports celebrities lying to PENSIONERS on their own doorsteps , that does NOT even include the MSM and broadcasters who propogandised everything against independence and for the union nor the appeals for statements from Lizzie and the exhortations by Obama organised by Cameron and the illegal action in the breach of purdah by Cameron , Brown and the daily redcoat in promising the VOW

      I will wear the coat of nativist with pride and your interpretation of blood and soil nationalist epithet is meant to denigrate and demonise and to shut down discussion

    116. David Caledonia says:

      I still don’t know what a nativist is in relation to politics.
      Boris Johnstone seems to always refer to the SNP as the nationalists this, the nationalists that.
      The latest buzzword seems to be nativist and people are even declaring they will wear the coat of nativist with pride
      Ifsomeone referred to me as a natterjack should I suddenly wear that with pride

      Nah, I don’t think so

    117. David Caledonia says:

      You see, certain people use language to corrupt the mind of people that fail to grasp what is really happening.
      Churchill was brilliant with his use of language, and it got the job done.
      So when someone tries to stick a new label on you, ask yourself why, is it maybe because the old label has lost its potency with over use of its message
      I have been called many things, but I would love to be called raspberry jam, but there is a problem with that they can’t find a label big enough for my head lol

    118. David Caledonia says:

      The plan, the white paper, the genius of idiots, the people who make the rules up as they go along.
      You think the piece of nonsense that came out in 2014 was good, just look at all the nonsense in 2021, and the year is not over yet

      Oh, the joy of nonesense and when its utter its even better

    119. J.o.e says:

      The people pushing open borders and easy access to democratic representation do not have to win this argument.

      They only have to keep it going long enough til its too late.

      How many more election cycles do we have left until the change has been so great that we no longer are capable as Scots of deciding what we want for Scotland?

      When such cynical tactics are employed then democracy is no better than any other method of governing a people.

      In fact with a corrupt media, a hostile financial elite, a twisted justice system and ever corruptible political players I would say that democracy quickly becomes plutocracy with a nice face.

      That’s where we are now and the prospect of the Scots gaining democratic control over their own country and running it for the benefit of the Scots dwindles with each passing month.

      We are not alone. The nations of Europe are all under the same pressure except for those evil ones we are all told to hate (and you dutifully do so judging by some comments).

      So again – the ‘ewww don’t be a blood and soil nationalist’ types will not win the argument long term. But they don’t have to.

      Then it will be ‘yes, but we must respect democracy! Don’t be a Nazi! Those people are here now so you will just have to accept their wishes too.’

      A rope will have been made out of your sense of virtue and ignorance and our aspirations as a people will have been hung with it.

    120. @Andy Ellis,

      as you said,

      “When we’re independent, we can establish naturalisation criteria”

      how very nativist of you.

    121. Andy Ellis says:

      @David Caledonia 10.39 pm

      “Nativist (adjective): relating to or supporting the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.”

      We’ve already established that as well as being a supporter of regressive policies, you’re so ignorant you can’t work Google.

      Anyone who really believes your blood and soil nationalism is no friend of Scottish independence. Your barking narrative would give my daughter (who was born here and then spent 25 years in England) more rights than someone who came here years ago and has worked, paid taxes and contributed for all that time.

      Some of your mates want to deprive incomers of any say for 10 or even 15 years.

      I suppose we should just be thankful you lot aren’t advocating building a wall and making the English pay for it? Moon howlers the lot of you. 🙂

    122. Andy Ellis says:

      @Scot Finlayson

      Why would an independent Scotland be any different to any other country on earth?

      If you can’t see the difference between an independent state delimiting it’s naturalisation criteria, and a non independent people identifying who should be eligible to vote in an an independence referendum, I can’t really help you.

    123. Republicofscotland says:

      Wee Monkey @12.52am.

      Posting a link to a wannabe economist whose really a dog biscuit salesman, and who has been slapped down on numerous occasions by a REAL economist Professor Richard Murphy, shows me that you don’t have a clue.

      But then again, I think you’re a Turner puppet.

      You’re correct we don’t believe it.

    124. Andy Ellis says:

      @twathater 3.35 am

      No, I didn’t have a vote in 2014 because I was still in England. Like many Scots abroad I shared the sense of despondency about the actual result: it wasn’t necessary to be present to be affected by that. I don’t remember any real sense of outrage about the “we wuz robbed” narrative, which didn’t slither out from under it’s rock of regressive cover until later when detailed analysis of the vote had been done.

      The reason for that is that most reasonable non “blood and soil” types correctly identified the issue as being our failure to convince enough “soft No’ voters to switch, a lacklustre one-dimensional relentlessly positive Yes campaign that never really laid a glove on Project Fear and surrendered the field to the No campaign on issues like currency and EU membership.

      Even the turnout – though high – could have been higher: rates exceeding 90% are not uncommon in other countries. Even in proudly Yes cities like Glasgow and Dundee the turnouts were lower than 80%.

      I don’t need to denigrate or demonise those holding regressive views. Reasonable civic nationalists see you and your beliefs for what they are. Nobody is stopping you discussing them: don’t even try that old chestnut. I’d rather the moon howlers were front and centre trying to justify their views. Indeed the BTL comments here are awash with their output.

      Nobody is trying to silence you, it’s much more useful and more fun just to hold your views up to the light, point and laugh.

    125. Andy Ellis says:

      @Pixywine 1.28 pm

      It’s been obvious from your input over along period that you have nothing to contribute in the way of debate.

      Anyone who thinks conjuring the ghost of wearing the star of David as a lame anti-vaxx protest is in any way appropriate deserves nothing but contempt.

      Folk like you disgust me.

    126. Andy Ellis says:

      @Dan 11.04 am

      Aren’t most issues polarised? Although there may be room for nuances in policies and around implementation, in the end there is often a polarised Yes/No or Wrong/Right answer. Of course people can and do take opposing sides, and are often never reconciled. Such is life, such is democracy.

      People are free to reject my views, just as I’m free to reject theirs. Big whoop! There’s no compulsion. Nobody is trying to shut them down. If they don’t like people calling them out or ridiculing their views, they probably need to…you know…grow up a bit?

      I’m not manning a street stall am I? I’m not a party spokesperson. I’m just some guy on the internet, interacting with othersBTL on a politics blog. Some people will agree with me, others won’t.

      It’s true I have called some out for being roasters. Mostly that’s because they are roasters. Perhaps I have lost my temper with purposefully dim and unpleasant at times, but honestly…..some of these nativists and anti-vaxxer types are just such hard work, not to mention thoroughly unpleasant individuals (Yes, pixywine and your Star of David analogy we ARE looking at you!).

      I hadn’t looked at your other comment yet: I may have missed it in the backward and forward.

      WRT having a period of years or months to qualify for a vote, all I did was point out (with reference to some real information for the hard of googling) that specifically for independence referendums, it was actually UNUSUAL to have a criteria other than residence. Some instances required national ID cards (which of course we don’t have) and a few required relatively short residence periods of 24 months.

      You and your mates are proposing anything from 10 to 15 years. Again as I pointed out, the EU average for naturalisation for citizenship (NB! not for voting in a referendum on independence) is just under 7 years. The largest number of 28 EU states have 5 years, and some have less. By all means, argue for longer qualifying periods, but don’t pretend you have custom and practice on your side, because you just don’t, OK?

      Soft No voters are going to switch based on a multitude of factors, just like any other voters. It’s not going to help the Yes movement win if you attract a few % points from folk who buy the “we wuz robbeed by furriners” schtick, if you simultaneously alienate a few % points of support who see it as an abandonment of civic nationalism.

      You can think it’s polarising guff all you want, but look at the evidence. None of the nativists have yet come back with any evidence. They’ve literally got to be spoon fed facts that anyone with an internet connection can find in seconds, but all they’ve got is subjective guff about one of their mates who runs a company and feels hard done by.

      I’m beginning to understand why Rev Stu decided to throw in the towel. Some of these nutters are just dumb as a box of rocks, others are just regressive pieces of work trolling for the LOLZ. Goodness knows how Stu put up with it for as long as he did!

    127. Mia says:

      “When we’re independent, we can establish naturalisation criteria”

      Neither the Falkland Islands nor Gibraltar are independent states and yet they already have naturalisation criteria. Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands have also a constitution.

      This means that we do not need to wait until we are an independent state to set up a constitution, to define what being a Scot is, to establish naturalisation criteria and to grow the backbone of setting up a defiant franchise, a franchise that benefits Scots and not the colonial force subjugating Scotland.

      Cameron established a bold franchise in 2016. That franchise was not disputed and was accepted not only by Nicola Sturgeon herself and her SNP carcass, but all over the world. I don’t remember Sturgeon nor her eviscerated SNP accusing Cameron and England MPs who passed this franchise of anti-civic nationalism.

      So what exactly is stopping us adopting that franchise, particularly when it has already been shown that the 2014 franchise allowed the no vote from incomers to neutralise the yes vote from natives and therefore frustrating their right to self-determination?

      Under Cameron’s 2016 franchise, somebody who was a UK citizen but has spent more than 15 years out of the UK could not vote in a UK referendum. Your daughter, if she has lived the last 25 years out of Scotland, would not be able to vote under such criteria.

      But again, under Cameron’s criteria, no incomer from the rUK would be able to vote in Scotland’s referendum unless they naturalised first.

      What we need to have in order to establish a constitution of our own and our naturalisation criteria is a REAL nationalist leader, that is not in the business of pussyfooting around and giving more credence to the demands of a colonial force than to the needs of the people of Scotland, like this political fraud has been doing.

      What we need is a real nationalist and pro independence leader who has the backbone to bypass the fraud and her carcass of a party and who starts to walk forward instead of waiting for a green light that will never come.

      The green light from Sturgeon’s SNP carcass will never come because it has all the appearance of having turned into a spin off of New labour, into a totally futile political apparatus whose only use is to suppress democracy, to deny Scotland its right to self determination and to hoover up yes votes in order to use them against the progression of independence, for the preservation of the British state and for ensuring England has full access to Scotland’s resources.

      That we are not officially an independent state lands squarely on the lap of Nicola Sturgeon and her eviscerated pretend SNP. This woman and her party should have ended the union the day the people of Scotland sent 56 nationalist MPs to Westminster. Not doing so was deliberately ignoring the will of the people of Scotland and artificially using our yes votes to preserve the union. Just in the exact same way she proceeded to ignore our votes against brexit in 2016 and using them instead to help England dragging us out of the EU against our will. Our votes in 2016 for an indyref mandate were used by this political fraud to hand over to England a veto over Scotland’s sovereignty so they could do for her the dirty work of denying us our right to self determination while she kept her pretend pro independence credentials intact.

      That we are not yet an independent state may be the fault of Nicola Sturgeon and her useless SNP’s betrayal of the yes voters. But that we have not a constitution and naturalisation criteria is our fault. There is nothing stopping us bypassing the political fraud. We don’t need her permission to do that.

      If we wait for this fraud and her SNP carcass to actually drive us to independence, we can be waiting forever while she purposely pushes us in the precise opposite direction as she has been doing for the last six years.

      As far as I know, natality in Scotland is decreasing. Any idea how the number of births in Scotland per year compares to the number of incomers from England per year? Any idea what percentage of the 16 year olds who acquire their right to vote per year are a second generation from incomers from England and therefore more likely no voters?

      Because if the number of people coming from England each year surpasses our natality rate, and the proportion of 16 year olds descendent from rUK incomers is increasing per year, then what this political fraud is doing by keeping the same franchise of 2014 and by pushing indyref back is ensuring yes will not win.

      It is not a question of “blood and soil” nationalism and it is not a question of “converting no voters” either. It is a question of cold hearted mathematics.

    128. James Che. says:

      Andy Ellis.
      It hurts me too if only people born in Scotland get to vote. Because of due to my fathers employment Not long after the war I was born in England, the following year my sister was born in Scotland, my older brother was born in Scotland, my mum and dad were married in Edinburgh,
      Except for one that one year I have lived in Scotland, I was educated in Scotland, married in Scotland, my children were born in Scotland. And their children were born in Scotland.

      However I agree with most of those here that the decision of the indigenous Scots should not be diluted by those newcomers that are the slow to convince NOs. As it was in 2014. Even if that includes myself at the end of the day,
      There is time enough for us all to be welcomed after the Scottish people obtain their long held wish of an independent country..
      When the indigenous Scots find out I was born in England that has not altered their friendly nature to me, or shown the least animosity as British newspaper propaganda try to instigate,
      Since 2014 Westminster’s parliament has been corrosive to farmers, to fishermen, to those who did not want Brexit, and is about to do the same with vaccines against the sovereignty of the Scots people.

      Westminster is continually undermining the rights of not only the Scots but all people in Britain as we watch them at present altering human rights to suit themselves.
      If I can help Scotland become independent, No matter what it takes, even to the exclusion of my being able to vote. I will before it is to late for the people living here.
      It’s their solely their decision.

    129. James Che. says:

      Whoops, should read “ it solely their decision”. And it is their country.

    130. Dan says:

      @ Andy Ellis at 10:02am

      Aye, many issues are polarised, but that is why it is important to discuss things so that an agreed consensus can be reached once folk understand the justification and validity of the opposing views.
      That’s why I would have liked to have read your responses to the specific points I made in a previous post, and not just a general response about franchises used elsewhere.
      The reason for wanting to hear alternative views is because I do not just sit on the internet, but am regularly out in public discussing stuff with all sorts of folks, ranging from the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, to Eton educated Estate owners. So it would be good to build up an understanding of different views so I can develop my own responses to use in discussions, rather than just be constrained by my own limited comprehension and ideas about stuff.
      You say you haven’t read my post in question, but you posted this response.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/gb-snooze/comment-page-1/#comment-2668351

      Anyway, just bulldozing towards, or implementing a specific outcome or policy without taking due consideration of the proportionality of views that may not agree with said outcome is undemocratic, and the modue of a dictator. See Self ID and Hate Crime Act as examples close to home, and “Brexit” a little further away.

      Disappointingly I note you are now grouping me in with those you call blood and soil roasters with your “You and your mates are proposing anything from 10 to 15 years.” quip.
      Just fuck off with that right now as nowhere have I stated that. I’ve only been looking for opinions and justifications from folk that want to instantly enfranchise folk and not use any sort of length of residency qualifier at all.
      I pointed out there is a pre and full settlement status regarding EU Nationals residing in the UK. makes you wonder why there is a difference between the two if it makes not a bit of difference the length of time an individual has resided here.

    131. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 10.39 am

      Fine: go do! If you’re so convinced right is on your side, go out and convince your fellow countrymen that anything the Falklands and Gibraltar can do, we can do better. The Scottish government can then introduce whatever scheme gains the support of all these people demanding a change of franchise.

      We’ll wait……

      Meanwhile, I’d rather just concentrate on convincing a majority of residents that it was a no brainer to take what too many perceive as the risk of independence, rather than stay in the UK and endure the risks of the “global UK”.

      It is a question of converting No voters (both natal and non-natal). Separating the sheep from the goats and deciding who a “real Scot” is isn’t going to help us get there, it’s going to slow us down or stop us.

    132. @James Che.

      `If I can help Scotland become independent, No matter what it takes, even to the exclusion of my being able to vote.

      I will before it is to late for the people living here.

      It’s solely their decision.`

      well said and i think most sane people coming to a new country would agree with you.

      as the founder of SNP said 100 years ago,

      “The enemies of Scottish Nationalism are not the English, for they were ever a great and generous folk, quick to respond when justice calls.

      Our real enemies are among us, born without imagination.”

    133. Andy Ellis says:

      @James Che 10.48 am

      The bulk of the nativist inclined posters BTL here don’t even represent the majority of WoS folk, still less Scots at large (whether you exclude non-native born Scots or not!). As I said to Mia, if you’re so convinced your case is strong and folk are as animated about it as you all claim, go ahead and effect the change.

      You now appear to be saying that only those born here should get to vote, which is another level of bonkers. You should get to vote if you live in Scotland. Although I’d personally prefer to keep the 2014 franchise, there’s a decent case to be made for saying that a limited residence qualification of (say) 2 years should be instituted. I reckon that might even gain pretty wide support: I doubt longer periods would fly, but as I provided evidence for, it would put us out of step with the vast majority of other independence referendums.

      I’ve yet to hear a convincing rejoinder either from our nativist chums about why they don’t support extending the vote to native born Scots residing outside Scotland? Surely, if being a born Scot is a qualification for those inside Scotland, being a born Scot and putative citizen of Scotland post independence ought to be enough of a rationale to let them vote in the referendum too?

    134. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Dan 12.28 pm

      I just tried to re-copy my earlier message. Also gone into moderation. Doubtless some work appears which offends the filters. I give up!

    135. Breeks says:

      Mia says:
      24 July, 2021 at 10:39 am

      ….Cameron established a bold franchise in 2016. That franchise was not disputed and was accepted not only by Nicola Sturgeon herself and her SNP carcass, but all over the world.

      But I would now dispute that 2016 franchise, and even the 2014 franchise too Mia. I don’t believe Scotland’s Independence should be determined under domestic UK Legislation, even where this includes the token glove puppet of a Devolved Assembly.

      A Scottish Referendum on self determination is a matter for Scottish Nationals as International Law defines them, and should also be using the levers and protocols (and franchises) recognised under International Law, NOT domestic UK Law. Why in gods name are we asking permission of anybody? Do we truly expect the colonial UK Government to say “that’s fine Scotland, on you go”?

      I actually suspect the International Community would find it “quaint” for Scotland to be floundering against the endlessly evolving sophistry of UK Law and unwritten conventions, and worse still, they might perhaps interpret Scotland’s hapless and amateurish interpretation of national sovereignty as a sign we are not yet ready as a Nation for International Recognition. We do not appear to actually know what we are doing, and haven’t a clue where the finishing line is.

      Scotland is much, much, too timid, subservient and demure in it’s self defence against increasingly brazen and emboldened UK colonial encroachment, and under Sturgeons feckless watch, it actually feels like Scotland is now out of control in an unconstitutional tailspin, with a useless blithering idiot in the cockpit, who is deaf, dumb, and blind to the mountains now filling the whole windscreen.

    136. Confused says:

      There’s a bit more of “this” over on Iain Lawson’s blog; some fruity comments.

      So, boiling it down …

      let’s give all these people who – don’t deserve a vote by any sensible reason, and who hate us anyway, the chance, which they will take, to exercise a veto on our basic rights to be a people, with a land … tell me how that one goes!

      – how fucking dumb would you have to be to go along with this?

      “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” – INDYREF 2014, Silver Medal, The YES movement

      and all because some bedwetter might call you a “racist”.

      @Ellis – Since you are so proud to use your real name online, I checked out your linkedin / “facebook for suits”.

      – you seem to have spent a long time in England or pseudo-England; I cannot see anything other than you being fully anglicised – your worldview, conceptual frameworks, terms of reference – it is all “seen through an english prism”. Your “scottish nationalism” seems very suspect – where did it come from? Is it even real?

      No wonder Alf Baird triggers you – for you are the personification of all he writes about, what is holding this country back; you’re a FAKE-NAT mate, and people wanna watch you.

      Degree scrolls are panini stickers for the middle classes (maths/sciences excepted) – all your education has done for you is to “internalise the doctrinal filters” that makes the likes of you worthless as anything other than blether-fodder for the middlebrow “analysis” like news-shite – why don’t you fuck off and have a “national conversation about what it means to be scottish” with gerry hassan, another navel gazing windbag? Your output here seems to be nothing other than spinning a mental straitjacket over independence.

      – they “got your mind right” alright, seeing as indy seems to be such a conceptual impossibility, rather than a natural state of affairs; the best way to understand “international relations” is by watching gangster movies; then watch a hollywood war movie and apply a global negation; I would be embarrassed to have made study of a subject and be so ignorant; people who know their stuff have concentrated essence, synthesis with other knowledge and fluency of use – they can also distill insight into useful chunks for the lesser mortals. I’m not feeling it, mate – comparing you to Craig Murray say, he has “been places, done things” and can put it across clearly.

      “NATIVISM” – is that your new sneer-word? – backing off from “blood and soil”, but you imply there is something wrong with – being born here, educated, worked here – as were your parents and grandparents (beyond which I have not checked, but them too probably); is there a problem with me, the likes of me, thinking “Scotland is OUR country”; it seems everyone else should get a say in the matter, just not us. If indy is not for the “natives” then who the bloody hell is it for? The middle class with their ambiguous loyalties? – they do alright, always do alright anyway – it’s just a vanity project for them. You remind me of the exclusively middle class types who infested every socialist movement during my student days – they had never met a working class person and still preached “revolution” – yeah “smash the state” and “nice jobs”, do-me-a-favour.

      Ever consider some humility – see the “LAWS OF JANTE” – or just try to be less of a “cunt”; if I thought you brought anything genuine with any sincere desire, I would be singing your praises. As it is you are merely a guy with a spectacularly mis-appraised estimate of his own abilities and worth, trying to bully “some easy marks”.

      And not much of a “Dale Carnegie fan” either – who have you antagonised on here? – there was Brodie, an aspberger/OCD, but essentially a good egg, Alf Baird for obvious reasons and even GrouseBeater, who does not “get into it” with anyone much, just writes nice essays; that got a bit testy, no? Do you lack social skills – are you “on the spectrum”?

      – you seem to lack any self awareness; you see how it comes across? It is reminiscent of the way jews, “anti zionist jews” infest palestinian rights lobbies all over the place; how is that working out for them? Well, not so well – but they do have a lot of finely worded policy statements on “anti-semitism” and “holocaust denial”.

      Andy – do you know you’re an Englishman? I wouldn’t give you or your daughter any voting rights at all.

      just another english bastard trying to tell the scots what they cannot do, with spurious arguments from authority based on “international relations” (not that he has any apparent practice in this); your contempt for the scots seems to infuse every sentence.

      – fuck off back to angland and take your logorrhea with you.

    137. Andy Ellis says:

      @Confused 1.15 pm

      Just another in a long line of snivelling anonymous on-line cowards who are always happy to abuse people and question their motives from behind the safety of anonymity. We saw you like in the #indyref1 campaign and you’re no different now.

      Nobody who disagrees with your warped world view can be a “real” nationalist, but now I’m an Englishman? Riiiigght.

      You sound a bit triggered mate. Of course it’s not uncommon for the ill educated and potty mouthed to feel threatened when someone exposes and ridicules their crass prejudices. Imagine our surprise to find you’re a Cameron Brodie fan, or think it’s OK for Grouse Beater to defame someone publicly on here who had actually gone out of his way to support him when the SNP subjected him to a kangaroo court.

      I suspect the only balanced thing about you is that you have chips on both shoulders bud.

    138. J.o.e says:

      ‘Scotland is much, much, too timid, subservient and demure in it’s self defence against increasingly brazen and emboldened UK colonial encroachment, and under Sturgeons feckless watch, it actually feels like Scotland is now out of control in an unconstitutional tailspin, with a useless blithering idiot in the cockpit, who is deaf, dumb, and blind to the mountains now filling the whole windscreen.’

      This is because the grass roots reinforce only a weak sense of national self preservation, if they do at all. Nationalist Scots have been largely indoctrinated into globalist friendly view of nationalism.

      Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP and our utterly weak and/or treacherous political class are merely a product of a Scottish electorate who will stand for their shite and keep their heads buried in the sand.

      We need more people thinking like this – We are the Scots and we will take back our homeland. We will reinforce our culture and we will work for the health and longevity of our people. No apologies. No caveats. No playing to the ‘international community’ who don’t give a single shit anyway.

      Unfortunately I think that type of general attitude is a long way off. Our people have become a bunch of hand wringing bed pissers incapable of really thinking for themselves.

    139. Mia says:

      “But I would now dispute that 2016 franchise, and even the 2014 franchise too Mia”

      I reject both franchises too, Breeks. I apologise if I have not been sufficiently clear. I am not seeking to apply directly Cameron’s franchise on indyref, but rather an adaptation of it suitable for Scotland’s situation. The fundamental difference between the brexit referendum and indyref is the colonising force. In the Brexit referendum, the “colonising power” was the EU, and quite rightly any EU interference had to be suppressed. In Scotland’s indyref, the colonising power is the UK itself, therefore all interference from the UK outwith Scotland has to be suppressed. Because if that is not done, then the Scottish people cannot possibly exercise their right to self determination freely.

      Cameron’s franchise was too harsh on the migrants from “the coloniser”. I think the reciprocate rule that he applied to the ex pats should be applied to the migrants. 15 years.

      But for all its faults, I have to acknowledge that Cameron’s franchise at least respected the fundamental right of self determination of the people of England in that referendum and has set up a precedent.

      The franchise from the 2014 indyref did not. It has now been shown that such franchise was far too open, so much so that it allowed the no vote of the RUK to trash the vote of the natives. This is in my personal view allowing, if not inviting, direct interference from the colonising entity to frustrate Scots’ right to self determination and therefore it violates the principles of the UN because the Scots are not exercising that right freely.

      Now that this is known, frankly to push for the same flawed franchise to be used again in indyref cannot be seen as anything other than a deliberate act of self-harm, just like asking for a S30 over and over again when you know it is going to be rejected, and it can only be interpreted as the aim to use the franchise as a reliable tool to frustrate the people of Scotland’s exercise in self determination.

      If I have to choose between the franchise of indyref2014 and Cameron’s one (but adapted to Scotland in line with what I wrote above), I would throw the one of indyref14 in the bin and choose Cameron’s.

      Cameron ensured that those coming from the “coloniser” (which was the EU in the brexit referendum) were not given a vote, unless they naturalised. This move clearly acknowledges that the English ruling elite thinks civic nationalism is a pile of poo and that it takes far longer than a few years to change allegiances and to adopt your host county as a nation. Look how long is taking to the old incomers in NI to change allegiance.

      Cameron allowed the commonwealth migrants to vote because either they knew their vote would not push against the one of the natives, or it would be close to 50/50. But he refused the vote to those UK citizens who had been out of hte UK for long enough to “go native”. The threshold imposed was 15 years.

      Cameron’s franchise was tested and proven to work. Indyref2014 was also tested and proven to fail.

      Overall, when you look at both franchises coldly, adopting Cameron’s one but moulding it to the Scots needs (the EU is no longer the “colonising force”, that would be the rUK), this would be the only one of the two that respects the right of the native Scots to exercise their right to self determination without interference from the colonising party.

      Adopting the Scottish version of Cameron’s franchise for the next indyref, if the procrastinating queen ever brings herself to call it, would mean that unless Scotland has a naturalisation process where people from the rUK swears allegiance to Scotland, they should not be given the vote at all. Equally, native Scots who have been out of Scotland for over 15 years, would not be given the vote. As per the rest of the migrants, for as long as their vote do not trump the natives’ one, can vote.

      The outrage of the people from England demanding a vote in the Scottish referendum and the unionists and “civic nationalists” demanding it is totally misplaced and Cameron’s franchise demonstrates it down to a t. They did not raise their voices when the EU citizens, independently of how long they had been living in the UK, were denied the vote unless they naturalised first. But Cameron was right to leave them without a vote because their vote alone would have pushed the result in England in the opposite direction, frustrating their self determination. That is precisely what the vote of the people originally from England did to the result in 2014, no matter how painful it is for them to acknowledge.

      “I don’t believe Scotland’s Independence should be determined under domestic UK Legislation”

      I agree 100%. Who do you think is pushing for including in the franchise the vote of those from the rUK without a threshold of years of residence? Sturgeon is proving to be nothing but a Westminster puppet that is throwing the Scots under the bus for the sake of keeping Westminster and Usa happy.

      If you were to abide strictly by the UK law in referendums for the Scottish one, everybody with a UK passport would be allowed to vote and they would be bussed in their hundreds of thousands to frustrate the vote. But such franchise would mean automatic denial of self determination and would invalidate the referendum result.

      That is precisely why in my posts above I ask for a naturalisation system, a constitution that defines what being a scot means, and an Scottish status, equivalent to what the Falklands have, with a minimum time of residence (7 years in the case of the Falklands if I remember correctly) to avoid such a situation materialising.

      If I actually believed that the political fraud and her New labour MPs and MSPs operating under the SNP old flag had any intention of allowing the people of Scotland to exercise their self determination, I would be shocked that they did not change that franchise on the 15 November 2014, that they did not start some form of naturalisation process and a constitution.

      But because I do no longer believe this political construct in power has any intention whatsoever to deliver a fair indyref, I am not surprised. In fact I can see just how convenient for them to keep the same flawed franchise and to wait several years more to let sufficient rUK incomers to offset the natives’ yes vote.

    140. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 5.50 pm

      According to Wikipedia using 2019 figures, the birth origin % for Scots population is:

      87% Scotland
      8% England
      0.3% Wales
      0.7% NI
      0.4% Ireland
      1.1% EU pre 2001
      1.5% EU post 2001
      4.0% Other countries.

      But yeah, it’s the “furriners” stopping us exercising self determination.

      Also….identifying with David Cameron and his fixing of the EU referendum franchise. Anyone else see a problem with this picture?

      Jeezus wept….

    141. twathater says:

      Andy Ellis I am happy that you went on your rant slinging slurs about to anyone who fails to accede to Andy’s doctrine

      People should now be aware that you are as dangerous to an independence vote as Nicola Sturgeon and her fellow fake independence supporters , you are both eagerly willing to hand over the control and future of Scotland to persons from all airts and pairts without question or consideration

      Based on your history and open hostility towards anyone who dares to espouse views in favour of protecting the indigenous people’s of Scotland it is clear you fall into the Nicola Sturgeon camp of progressive world citizen who is contemptible of Scots and their culture

      You state

      The bulk of the nativist inclined posters BTL here don’t even represent the majority of WoS folk, still less Scots at large (whether you exclude non-native born Scots or not!).
      Where is your evidence for that statement , I would argue that the comments here and on Yours For Scotland actually prove the opposite of your claim

    142. Andy Ellis says:

      @twathater 3.27 am

      It’ll be news to Nicola and her cult that I’m aligned with them, but all that proves is that you have a tin ear for politics and/or reading difficulties. I’m not sure seeing myself as a progressive world citizen is a bad thing, but if the alternative is being a regressive ethno-nationalist like so many of the nativists polluting the BTL comments here I’m happy to identify as such.

      You asserting that I’m contemptible of Scots and their culture, and it actually being the case are of course two different things. I think most – if not necessarily all – of the regressive roasters touting the nativist narrative are just plain wrong. Some of them, as they have proven over and over again, are just plain unpleasant and abusive.

      I don’t see lots of posters supporting your views. Many of the regulars have of course moved on since Stu’s early retirement, but you can hardly claim your woo-woo views command broad support, either here or elsewhere. Where’s the evidence of anyone in any of the pro-indy parties supporting your views? What high profile individuals are agreeing with you, and what proportion of the movement as a whole do they represent?

      When nativism becomes an accepted platform and you can quote me polling figures supporting your regressive views, get back to us huh?

    143. Mia says:

      @ Andy Ellis,

      Well, according to the National Records of Scotland, this is the information for 2011:

      Total population in Scotland at the moment of the 2011 census: 5,295,403

      Born in Scotland: 4,411,884
      Born in England: 459,486 (this figure alone is an equivalent to more than a 10% of the figure for those born in Scotland)
      Born in Northern Ireland: 36,656
      Born in Wales: 17,381

      Born out of the UK: 369,997

      So in total, people born out of Scotland represents 16.7% of the total population of Scotland. If you compare that figure with that of those born in Scotland, the value represents as much as a 20%. Sorry, but that is not insignificant. That is a hell of a lot.

      Let’s now go to the actual values for the voters (16 years of age and older)

      According to the census in 2011:

      3,569,936 were born in Scotland
      473,695 were born in the rUK
      335,441 were born outside the UK (we don’t know how many of these have been naturalised as UK citizens).

      When you calculate the total number of potential voters born out of Scotland the figure is 809,136, which is equivalent to a 22.7% of the voters born in Scotland. That is not insignificant at all. It is a heck of a lot.

      And that does not take into account, because you cannot get that information from the census, how many of those born in Scotland have direct rUK ascendency and therefore will be much more likely to be No voters. For instance, it would be most interesting to find out what is the percentage of no voters among the children of those who came from NI to Scotland. I bet you the percentage is significantly higher compared with those of Scots ancestry. The same applies to those who were born outside the UK and have been naturalised as UK citizens and sworn allegiance to the UK.

      So when you add all those figures and bear in mind that the youngsters of non scots ancestry are more likely to vote no because of the environment they were brought up (potentially traveling often to the rUK to see their families), turns out that a 22% is a heck of a lot.

      So here is a little example for you:

      Imagine this scenario:
      On the day of the referendum, only 70% of those born in Scotland go to the polls (that would be 2,498,955 natives voting)

      However, with the strong motivator of “not breaking up the country” or avoiding depriving the rUK of Scotland’s natural assets, 90% of those born outside Scotland go to the polls (that would be 768,679 voters)

      let’s imagine that 55% of those born in Scotland who go to vote, vote yes (that would be 1,374,425 yes votes from the Scots natives) and let’s imagine that only 10% of those born out of Scotland vote yes (that would be 76,868 yes votes from those born out of Scotland). The total number of yes votes would be 1,451,293.

      Before you protest 90% is a huge figure, I encourage you to take another look at the figures thrown for the last indyref for Quebec. There were anglo speaking areas in Quebec where 100% of the vote was against independence.

      If 45% of those born in Scotland who go to the polls vote no (that would be 1,124,530 no votes) and 90% of those born outwith Scotland who go to the polls vote no (that would be 691,811 no votes from this population), then the total figure for No would be 1,816,341

      In other words, if only Scots natives had voted, yes would have won by 55%. When you include those not born in Scotland with a strong motivation for the UK to remain intact, then that yes vote plummets to a 44.4%

      Do you see the wee problem here?

      As I said above, with the information available in the census I could not work out how many of those potential voters born in Scotland would never vote yes because their ancestry is from the rUK (for example with MOD, civil servant parents or oil workers) and strongly directed towards NO. Needless to say, that there are others who will never vote yes because members of their family live outwith Scotland or they or members of their family work outwith Scotland and perceive Scotland’s independence as an obstacle to see their family, particularly after brexit and the need to put a border if Scotland rejoins the EU.

      I think therefore to expect anything more than a 55% yes vote among the natives is unrealistic. That is why the rumours of pushing the threshold to 60% have nothing to do with the idea of making the vote more clear, but rather to ensure independence is blocked.

      In the same way, the inclusion of sectors of the population born outwith Scotland and with a much higher motivation to vote no than the natives, has nothing to do with “civic nationalism” and an awful lot to do with using the franchise as a tool to frustrate the natives’ self determination.

      Bear in mind that this information is from 10 years ago. A lot of things have happened since:

      brexit, an independence referendum and the prospects of another independence referendum. These 3 factors are strong motivators for the powers that be to encourage swathes of no voters from the rUK to migrate and register to vote in Scotland.

      Now let me show you something even more alarming:

      From 2001 to 2011, Scotland’s population increased by 233,392 people (about a 4.6%).

      When you look at the net numbers, of those 233,392 extra people, only 1,484 were born in Scotland (more were born in Scotland, but some would have died in those 10 years and others migrated so they are no longer in the census, 1484 is the net gain).

      This means that of the net 233,392 extra people that Scotland gained in those 10 years, 99% are from different ancestry, with no sense of Scottish nationhood and much less motivation to vote yes. Now that is alarming because it is telling you that Scotland appears to be haemorrhaging yes voters and swapping them for no voters.

      And that was 2001 to 2011, when the polls said that the appetite for independence was very little, therefore there was not much apetite for the british state to encourage migration from the rUK to Scotland. I would love to see the census for 2021, wouldn’t you?

      P.S. NI is smaller than Wales. Yet, did you notice how many people from NI (staunch no voters) come to Scotland compared with the figures for those who come from Wales (possibly more open to yes)?

      All the data above has been either taken from https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ or calculated from that data after downloading the tables.

      Sorry, but looking at those figures, any suggestion that giving the vote to those who were born elsewhere and have not been in Scotland for long enough to be identified with Scotland as a nation, will not affect the natives’ exercise in self determination is either an illusion or a desperate attempt to hide reality.

    144. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 10.35 am

      The problem I see is that Scots as a nation can’t contrive to construct a pro indy majority when >80% of the population are born Scots and a proportion (even if a minority) of those not born here also support independence.

      The rest is whataboutery and whatiffery.

      However you try and slice and dice the demographic figures, nothing will change the fact that nativists are trying to compensate for the inability to convince “oor ain folk”. It’s hardly a ringing endorsement of the Yes project and, more particularly, of those leading it.

    145. Mia says:

      @ Andy Ellis

      As you know, it is not enough to be born in the UK to automatically become a UK citizen. For instance, at least one of your parents must be a UK or Irish citizen living in the UK, or if not, fulfill some other requirements (you can read it all here https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizenship/born-in-the-uk-from-1-july-2021-onwards)

      If Scotland’s naturalisation process were to follow rules similar to the UK ones but applied to Scotland, quite a few of those born in Scotland from parents of different ancestry, parents traveling to Scotland for work or study but not naturalised, would not immediately gain Scots’ status either.

      Looking at the data from the census I discussed above, it would be very interesting to know how many of those 1484 extra people born in Scotland are actually from Scot ancestry or from a different one. I bet the majority are from non Scots ancestry.

      No matter how much we abhor their politics, we must learn from the masters. The British state has been using franchises all over the world to find the way of keeping their most valuable colonies under their control, so they know exactly what to leave out and what to include in to avoid interference from abroad when it comes to their own referendums/parliamentary elections.

      That is why their rules of citizenship are some of the most stringent and possibly the most accurate to avoid that interference.

      Who designs the law, designs the loophole, so rather than being so quick at attacking me and insinuating I am somewhat a racist for actually paying attention at Cameron’s franchise and attempting to understand the logic behind it, I invite you to actually drop the civic nationalism nonsense that you are using to cover your eyes and ears and look at both franchises with a cold, realistic and analytic mind.

      Civic nationalism and an excessively open franchise is not going to bring us independence Andy Ellis, it is going to deny it from us as it did in 2014 and as it did to Quebec. You know it, Sturgeon knows it and those of us who are starting to look at the actual numbers, are beginning to see it too quite clearly.

      What is going to bring us independence is cold hearted mathematics together with dropping the attempts at reinventing the wheel to find a way where those who come directly from the colonising power and have vested interests in stopping independence can vote to and block our yes vote.

      There is a very good reason why the most established independent countries all over the world have stringent naturalisation rules. Scotland can never become a real independent state if it insists in opening citizenship to everybody for the simple act of crossing a border, while it continues to swap its own population for the one from somewhere else.

    146. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 11.30 pm

      If we’re down to quibbling about the voting rights and intentions of 1484 people in a whole population Mia, we might as well give up now.

      The independence that nativism and non-civic nationalism brings us isn’t independence I’m interested in. There are many others who feel the same, but you are apparently sanguine about throwing away their support and votes.

      Why is that?

      Are we the wrong sort of Scots?

      Not nationalist enough for you?

      Strange that we still represent the rank and file Yes movement and the overwhelming majority who don’t buy in to this misguided and deeply regressive nativist narrative.

      You continue to tilt at windmills and disingenuously make the false equivalence between the naturalisation criteria for countries which are ALREADY independent, and the franchise criteria used in independence referendums for people seeking to establish their independence.

      You lost the argument on whether most countries allowed “non-natives” to vote in independence referendums, and like all the others touting the regressive nativist narrative failed to engage with the facts, by moving the goalposts to naturalisation for post-independence citizenship. Of course, it’s the same rationale as Rev Stu pointed out week s ago: you didn’t like the result in 2014, don’t feel confident we can win fairly, so you want to change the rules to your advantage.

      Not only won’t you convince the majority of the independence movement, you won’t convince the international community that the proposed changes are proportionate, fair or necessary. The biggest threat to achieving independence therefore isn’t leaving the franchise as it is, but gerrymandering it to try and get the result you want.

      Of course, your plan will come to nothing anyway, as we aren’t getting a referendum any time soon: you’ll have to win plebiscitary elections on a general election franchise. Perhaps you should be advocating for change in that?

    147. Confused says:

      blah. blah. blah

      – get yourself a blog, Ellis – go be a “thuoght leader of the movement”

      https://wordpress.com/

      if you build it, they will come. Otherwise I might have to send you a bill for a new scrollwhheel and physiotherapy for tendinitis.

      The Max Headroom avatar is telling – he was a digitally constructed fake, if I recall, given to spouting smug, gnomic nonsense phrases

    148. Andy Ellis says:

      @Confused 1.04 pm

      Thanks, I’ll give your advice all due consideration. Nobody is forcing you to read still less interact.

      Still, given the quality of your output it’s hardly surprising that you find it easier to throw rocks at others than come up with any original thought of your own.

      I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies that you’re more effective at self editing than your mucker Mia?

      Your grey fog avatar is as good an indication of your intellect as the abusive trolling posts.

      Snivelling anonymous cowards rarely interact in good faith though do they..? I mean, it’s not hard to see why you’d want to remain anonymous given your posts content, but why I’d be taking any advice from someone without the courage to post under their own name escapes me.

    149. Mia says:

      @ Andy Ellis

      I appreciate that for those people living in Scotland who were born elsewhere and are yes voters, it is very difficult to accept that their ancestry group could be helping to frustrating the Scots’ right to self determination.

      But by all means, do not take my word for it, go yourself to the website and analyse the census data to your heart’s content.

      For what I see from that data, if we really want Scotland’s independence and a fair way for the Scots to actually express their right to self determination, refusing to see the problem is not going to make it go away. It is allowing it to become bigger.

      Clearly you are attempting to belittle it but the figure 1,484 is very important for several reasons:

      1. it tells us that the net population of native scots grows at a tiny rate of less than 200 people per year. In other words, the native population in Scotland appear at all practical effects not to be growing at all.

      2. The ancestry of those 1,484 people who were born in Scotland in the space of 10 years is also important because if their ancestry is not Scots and are not from an environment where sense of natural Scots nationhood is more natural, then the real growth of the native Scots population is even less, and could potentially be decreasing from year to year. In other words, waiting more years is not helping yes. It is helping to block independence.

      3. 1484 is less than a 1% of the total net increase in population in Scotland from 2001 to 2011. In other words, for each extra person that the subgroup of natives got during that time, 99 who were not born here come to Scotland. Considering that this process may have been going for quite some time now, and considering that at all practical effects the Scots native subgroup does not appear to be increasing, I leave you to calculate how many more years are needed for people with a non Scot ancestry (that is those not born in Scotland and those born in Scotland to non Scot parents and that therefore have less allegiance to Scotland and more vested interest in Scotland to remain in the uK) to have a higher representation in the population than those of Scots ancestry. My guess is that it will not be long.

      You can throw as many toys out of the pram as you wish, but the data from the 2011 census and its comparison with the 2001 one, tells us a few things:

      1. the native population in Scotland is hardly increasing

      2. the amount of people coming into Scotland born elsewhere is disproportionally high compared to the increase in native population

      3. Giving this may have been going for sometime, it is wise to thing that a significant chunk of what is considered as natives today, are in fact people from a different ancestry whose allegiance to Scotland remains proportionally low and that are therefore more natural no voters.

      I think my analysis shows how, with the figures given by the 2011 census, the populations of non Scot ancestry can easily block the Scots’ exercise in self determination if they have a higher motivation to vote no.

      Please bear in mind that for this exercise I have only used those figures for people born outside Scotland. But this is understating the influence of a different ancestry to the Scots’ in the result. A lot of people born in Scotland are from different ancestry and more naturally allegiant to their country of origin. There is nothing wrong with this, it is a natural thing and that is the reason why most countries do not give you citizenship simply for being born in the country. You basically get at birth the citizenship that your parents have.

      The values I presented in the previous comment are already obsolete, mind. Following the tendency observed from 2001 to 2011, it can be expected that the net number of potential voters from non Scot ancestry today, 10 years after that last census, is much higher, therefore the proportion of Scots/non Scots ancestry will be lower.

      Yes will not win if everybody is given the vote and voters of different ancestry, with allegiances to other countries and rather than Scotland have a net increase in population year after year much higher than the increase the subgroup of Scots ancestry gets. I think that stands to the obvious.

      Speaking from memory, a couple of years back, if I remember correctly, The Rev published a couple of articles where he showed quite clearly that even after the monumental mess that the tories were making, yes was hardly moving. Of course Sturgeon’s allergy to talk about independence played a big part on it, but I also think that the fact that a big chunk of Scotland’s population is of non Scots ancestry and therefore their allegiance is not with Scotland but rather with their country of origin, could explain this stasis.

      My conclusion is that unless that franchise is tied down to ensure Scots can really self-determine, another referendum is pointless because it will be a tool to frustrate that self determination rather than to facilitate it.

      Perhaps the idea rammed down our throats that an indyref is the gold standard, has been grossly overstated for the benefit of those with a vested interest in Scotland remaining in the union.

      Judging by the census data, it looks that for a country like Scotland, relentlessly subjected to colonisation for 300 years and subjected to a constant loss of native population due to migration/early death and constant influx of incomers in higher numbers than the net increase of native population, a referendum with an open franchise is not an appropriate route to ensure self determination of the Scots. It will probably ensure more self determination of the other ancestries.

      What is clear from this is that what Sturgeon and her praetorian guard are parroting about “we need to wait and convert more no voters” is a lot of bullshit. Looking at that census data, every year potentially more and more no voters are coming in while natural yes voters may be leaving. In other words, what Sturgeon and co they appear to be asking us to do is to convert new voters while they are bringing more and more no voters in and allowing natural yes voters to migrate out of Scotland.

      “Not only won’t you convince the majority of the independence movement, you won’t convince the international community that the proposed changes are proportionate, fair or necessary”

      Cameron did not have any problem convincing the international community his franchise was sound. Why should Scotland have a problem then?

      How can you ever claim credibly to the international community and to the Scots themselves that the referendum is a genuine exercise in self determination when you are deliberately using a franchise that is purposely blocking that self determination?

      The only way you can ensure they accept it is if you don’t tell them the truth, in other words if you mis/disinform them. Is that what you are asking for?

      Do you want yes to win, Andy Ellis or what you are really after is for Scots’ right to self determination to be frustrated again?

      What is more important to you, Andy Ellis, that a person with allegiance to another country is given the vote so they can vote no and help frustrate Scots self determination, or to ensure the Scots exercise that self determination?

      Because frankly, I can no longer tell.

    150. Southernbystander says:

      Andy Ellis I admire your perseverance here but I’d give up if I were you. It can be doing your health no good and you’ll convince no-one left here that the nativist narrowing of the franchise narrative is a dead end, let alone unjustifiable on moral or even practical grounds.

      Such is the mindset of zealots (and that includes intellectuals like Baird who have real potential power): they become fixated by an idea, an ideology and the prism they see the world through gets narrower and narrower, whilst at the same time it gets more encompassing and thus more and more distorted. If you are a true believer in the narrative of Scotland as a colony of England, of all the English living in Scotland as essentially colonialists, and Scottish Unionists and No voters as all corrupted with the coloniser’s mindset, knowingly or otherwise, like the Word of God, there is no arguing with it.

      Such a mindset could just as easily justify the franchise being changed to only those who voted Yes in 2014. That would work, probably.

    151. Mia says:

      “Such is the mindset of zealots (and that includes intellectuals like Baird who have real potential power): they become fixated by an idea”

      Prof Baird is basing his position on his long term and extensive research. Where is your research that gives an ounce of validity to your position?

      I am basing my current position on the analysis of the data published in Wikipedia, on the data published in Scotland’s census and a calculator. I wrote in comments above some of the figures I found. Where are your figures?

      Taking a position on the basis of evidence does not make us zealots. That make us informed or at least making an effort to be informed and put us in a position to answer back to uninformed bullies who think that disproportionally lashing out by calling those with the stronger argument zealots or racists will actually make their non-argument look better.

      So let me ask you again, what exactly do you base your position on? Do you base it in extensive research like Prof Baird bases his, do you base it in investing time going over the figures as I did or do you simply make up as you go along and let your overbearing self-entitlement do the rest?

      Sorry but we are way past the situation where using bullying as a sport and simply launching indiscriminating ad hominem to attempt to shut down a discussion where your argument has basically being burned down to a crisp, is an acceptable option.

      If you have a problem with the argument present the figures that led to you forming yours and the references that support those figures. Otherwise you can stick your misplaced ad hominem and self-entitlement where the sun does not shine.

      Over to you.

    152. Andy Ellis says:

      @southernbystander 3.46 pm

      Trust me, I’m in rude health. Playing rhetorical whack-a-mole with regressive nativists is about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, it is a truism that you can’t educate port, and also that you can’t kill a bad idea.

      The sad part is that these zealots actually think they have right on their side (’twas ever thus I guess?) but what is worse they have somehow convinced themselves that they represent the mainstream, and believe they will convince the mainstream Yes movement to support their tawdry and regressive narrative.

      No wonder the movement is dead in the water. 🙁

    153. Andy Ellis says:

      @Mia 3.35 pm

      I don’t really care what you – or your fellow travellers – think of me Mia. The very fact that I’m so easily labelled as not a “real” nationalist, or “not really Scottish” by the hard of thinking nativist zealots, tells us everything we need to know.

      Of course I want to win. I don’t want the victory to be at any cost though Mia, and neither should any reasonable progressive person. I’m instinctively suspicious of those who argue that the ends justify the means.

      I don’t believe it’s worth jettisoning civic nationalism because we can’t persuade enough Scots residents to vote for independence.

      Cameron could convince the international community because the UK was already an independent state and he had a democratic mandate to carry out his policy. Scotland is not an independent state, and those in the pro-independence movement advocating for a restriction of the franchise represent a small section of a minority which has been unable to push support for independence over 50% except briefly, and without sustaining it.

    154. Mia says:

      “I don’t believe it’s worth jettisoning civic nationalism”

      And right there precisely lies the fundamental difference between you and me.

      You are using the words “civic nationalism”, whatever they mean, as an excuse to dismiss ancestry. Ancestry is used in pretty much every other country in the world to assess the right of an individual to citizenship. The UK uses it too.

      Dismissing ancestry opens the door for the indirect interference of the colonising force into what should be the exercise of self determination of the colonised. That is obvious even to a child.

      It is therefore my view that your “civic nationalism” violates the principles of the UN that state that the exercise in self determination must be done without any external interference.

      It is also my view that your “civic nationalism” is an excuse to block the Scots natives exercising their self determination.

      I directly call the words “civic nationalism” bullshit. There is nothing civic in mis/disinform Scots in order to get them to participate in something that far from letting them exercise their self-determination is purposely depriving them from it.

      Instead of “civic nationalism” I would call such action for what it really is: “covert british nationalism maskerading as innocuous Scottish nationalism”.

      If you are dangling in front of the Scots the opportunity to exercise their right to self determination as Sturgeon has done for the last seven years, then DO GIVE THEM that opportunity or shut up.

      A pretend referendum where you have deliberately manipulated the franchise leaving purposely ancestry out of the equation when you know that the size of the native population in Scotland has not increased meaningfully for years while the incomers are increasing exponentially by comparison, is not the real deal. Is another deceiving tool designed to make the Scots believe their fellow countrymen do not want independence so the colonising force can continue exploiting their country for a bit longer.

      They did it in 2014 and will do it again if we let this political fraud get away with it.

      You may believe “it is not worth jettisoning ‘civic nationalism'”
      I however don’t think the concept of “civic nationalism” ever existed outwith the minds of those intending to block independence.

    155. twathater says:

      Mia your responses to Mr Nativist is a waste of time and energy , Mr Nativist obviously is here for other reasons than independence , there used to be a poster on here and other blogs before getting barred called (me bungo pony) who was a Sturgeon sycophant and apologist who loved to use the word “malcontent” because he felt it triggered people . Mr Nativist is on the same trajectory , he even has English supporters who previously appeared when commenting to be non judgemental and quite neutral re Scots independence now supporting HIS nativist accusations , IMO this is THE PERFECT example of why we DESPERATELY NEED the franchise to be amended

      WHY is Scottish independence the business of people who have nothing to do with it

      WHY does anyone from anywhere feel that their opinion on Scotland’s independence should be listened to or acknowledged when it is non of their business and does not relate to them

      WHERE is the irony of someone from England commenting on a Scottish independence blog calling people NATIVIST

      MEANING / Supporting the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants

      AHEM Brexshit, taking back control, taking sovereignty back from furriners, we will not be dictated to by furriners , these furriners are holding bozo to ransom , we will get the easiest deal in history from these furriners

      Not only is our visitor aiming misconstrued perceived insults about willy nilly at other posters he has the gall and temerity to attempt to denigrate and demean notable and distinguished stalwarts of the independence movement for holding views that are opposite to his

      Yes Mr Nativist wants to give untrammeled power over our and our countries future to ANYONE from ANYWHERE with indigenous Scots opinions and beliefs being ignored and sidelined, i’m sure that reminds me of someone else , oh YES Nicola does the same thing with the worldwide consultation on GRA the results she REFUSES to publish , no matter it ONLY affects SCOTS women , QUESTION does that make SCOTS women NATIVIST for demanding their rights are paramount

    156. Andy Ellis says:

      @twathater 5.27 pm

      Since you’re another anonymous wonder, I’ve no idea if you’ve been a regular here or not. I’ve certainly never noticed your whingeing until recently: seems a lot of moon howlers and regressives of both the far right and the nationalist nativist blood and soil extremes have begun to infect the BTL comments since Rev Stu announced his retirement. Perhaps it was inevitable.

      Scottish independence is surely the business of everyone who lives here? Even if you succeed in implementing your politically regressive nativist wet dream and exclude a section of non-Scots born residents, isn’t it their business what happens in the place many of them have lived for years, paid their dues and contributed to our mutual advantage?

      Who are you to say that they can’t have a say because they weren’t born here and haven’t lived here for the random number of years you and your moon howling mates decide? Is it 5 years..? 10? 15?

      I’m not from England you utter plank. I was born in Scotland and have spent half my life here. I went to an English university and have worked in both England and Scotland. My daughter was born in Scotland. I returned to Scotland in 2018 after 25 years in Sussex, but apparently I’ve been infected by something that makes me suspect in the eyes of you and your myopic cult…I’m no longer pure enough to have a say, because I don’t agree with your narrative, despite the fact it enjoys negligible support from a movement that treats your regressive xenophobia with the disdain it so richly deserves.

      You and your ilk are a stain on the independence movement.

    157. Dan says:

      Andy Ellis says: at 4:46 pm

      Playing rhetorical whack-a-mole with regressive nativists is about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel.

      More simplistic pish! You haven’t acknowledged you were wrong, or apologised for including me in your lazy polarised grouping of anyone simply wanting to discuss the franchise matter as being roasters, blood and soilers, natavists, or whatever other derogatory term you can come up with.

      You’ve spent fucking hours on this subject repeating the same shit. Yet you can’t be arsed to answer the specific points I put to you, using the excuse the response gets held up in moderation.
      You’re clearly an articulate individual Andy. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to respond to the points I raised in that post.
      Understand those points are not put to you so that you can simply come back and have a go at me, which seems to be your modus with everyone that doesn’t align with your view. They are put to you by me as a messenger, because they are exactly the sort of concerns and reservations put to me by the very people that need to be convinced of the positive aspects of Indy.
      The issues in question are based on my real interactions during conversations with the wider public during face to face campaigning.
      If you had spent any length of time campaigning with the wider public face to face and actually listened to what people say, you might have developed a more productive approach to interacting with folk.
      You may want to get all highbrow and intellectualise the aspects because you think these points are from low brow uneducated pork. But the reality is these points are what lower life forms than your elite self are concerned or have reservations about.

    158. Andy Ellis says:

      @ Dan 6.20 pm

      I’m not wrong. You asserting I am signifies nothing. If you aren’t one of the out and out roasters then due apologies, but it’s undeniable that many of those doing so are exactly that, as their statements and lack of ability to form cogent arguments here testifies beyond all reasonable doubt.

      If you don’t want to continue, retire butt hurt and beaten. Nobody will think any less of you than they already do. I’ve responded to you posts. A few got modded. Tough. If Stu doesn’t un-moderate them I can’t be arsed re-hashing them. None if it hasn’t been covered elsewhere.

      As Rev Stu said in one of his earlier pieces, and I re-iterated, nobody is saying it can’t be discussed. That is SUCH a crock of shit. You and the nativist moon howlers just can’t help returning to your own intellectual vomit.

      Don’t come the “I’ve campaigned and listened to the little people and you haven’t you soi-disant intellectual” codswallop either. For every man in the street echoing the “we wuz robbed” mantra there are others saying the opposite who will be horrified if the franchise is changed. We have to educate folk, not pander to their baser instincts, and that is EXACTLY what is being advocated.

      How the hell do think brexit happened? All the little Englanders were convinced the EU was stealing their sovereignty. The ideological zealots spouting this guff are the brexiteers and UKIP of the indy movement. Any sensible nationalist should shun them the same way they shun Nicola cultists and gender woo-woo mens’ rights activists. You’re all a clear and present danger to the chances of achieving independence in this generation, yet you’re all convinced you have a point, that you’re somehow the “silent majority” and on the point of changing the direction of the whole movement.

      If it weren’t so pathetic it would be funny.

    159. Dan says:

      Andy Ellis says: at 7:50 pm

      I’m not wrong. You asserting I am signifies nothing. If you aren’t one of the out and out roasters then due apologies…

      Aye, ok then. You’re adamant you’re not wrong for including me in with those you perceive and group as roasters / blood and soilers / natavists / bigots / zealots, etc, then go on to offer an apology if you have…
      I guess this is the eel-like wriggling contortions you have to do when you’ve tried and failed to pigeon hole everyone into one group, when you’ve actually been interacting in conversations with various different individuals.
      …And then proceed straight back to grouping folk together later in your post…

      I’m not going to get butt hurt over a “conversation” with such an articulate and keen typing enthusiast that can’t be arsed to respond to several points put to them on the lame excuse of not getting posts though moderation, yet will produce inordinate amounts of repetition typing the same old stuff whilst denigrating folk.

      As this current interaction between us clearly isn’t going anywhere productive for folk reading in, along with not wanting to piss Stu off with btl bickering during his “retirement”, I’ll respectively leave it at that.

      A reminder to all that Stu did add “5ettler5” with an s in place of the 5’s to moderation filter recently.

    160. twathater says:

      Mr Nativist for your info I started reading this site in 2013 and started posting after 2014 I think , whilst you were still down in Sussex thinking about returning to dear old Scotia and giving us nativists the full benefit of your educashun and worldliness’ whilst simultaneously exposing the stupidity of the residents and their inabilty to govern themselves

      Be more aware Mr Nativist
      The person who was agreeing with your nativist diatribes and was denigrating Prof Alf Baird identifies himself as Southernbystander and has previously posted that he is English resides in England but likes reading about independence
      But no matter Mr Nativist he is exactly the type you want to gift our future and independence too , and he sounds like a good ally for your views

      And BTW you utter PLANK I never at any time (check) said you were English , I don’t care about the English but I do care about the damage and poverty they are inflicting on the poorest of Scots

    161. Tinto Chiel says:

      Re the franchise, I noticed this btl comment from Grousebeater’s essay “The Arrogant Englishman”:

      “I am one of the English-born people who live in Scotland and regard it as the country in which I belong in and to. I am a staunch supporter of independence, and was before I ever moved up here. Nonetheless, the way the last referendum was set up baffled both my wife (a national of another European country that obtained independence during the latter part of the 20th Century) and me. We had been living in Scotland for about six months to the day when the Referendum took place, yet we had a vote! Of course, we used the vote for “YES!”, but neither of us thought then – nor think now – that we *should* have had that vote. Even now, with eight years in Scotland, it would be inappropriate for the franchise to be extended to us – ten years should be the very minimum. Don’t let anyone, Scottish, English, or any other nationality, tell you otherwise.”

    162. twathater says:

      It is nice tinto chiel to read about someone with dignity who thinks new Scots or incomers should have the integrity and honesty to allow Scots to make the independence decision or at least be full time resident paying Scottish taxes for at least 10 years

    163. Tinto Chiel says:

      @twathater: yes, if I put myself in the position of a Scot who happened to live in France, say, and who was allowed to vote on an issue of vital importance for that country such as in a national election or referendum, I would have to refuse to vote because I am not French and France is not my country. I suspect you would do the same.

      That situation would never arise in France anyway (or in the first five other European countries I happened to check), since only a citizen can vote in these “big” elections. Is this “blood and soil” nationalism or the common acceptance that being a citizen (or equivalent term) of a country has value and dignity and that such a person should have first dibs on questions of national importance?

    164. twathater says:

      Tinto Chiel I like many others in Scotland and on here no doubt have relatives in England and elsewhere , even before EVEL political parties apart from Labour were quite relaxed about NOT voting on English only issues, I would estimate most would not even turn up to vote, and that is quite correct.

      The FACT Sturgeon took it upon herself to actively and openly demonstrate against the democratic views and votes of English and Welsh people whilst completely ignoring the regressive and undeniable threat to the people of Scotland is something that united Scottish and English voters , here was a woman??? elected to fight for an independent Scotland ignoring that fight whilst pursuing the overturning of a democratic vote by another nation
      That is indicative to me of a person who is comfortable in ignoring the concept of nationhood and culture , the issue of borders and immigration and the protection of her indigenous people , she is quite happy and comfortable to open up the governance of her country to the views and opinions of people who have no vested interest in Scotland surviving or progressing
      I would suggest she is an enthusiastic supporter of a new one world order as long as she is near the centre of it

    165. Dan says:

      @ twathater

      Aye, pretty much. And we can’t forget the carrot dangler’s efforts to implement “International Best Practice” with regard to a certain contentious policy… Which a majority of Scots don’t agree with, and that have never been given a clear opportunity to express their views on such a society altering matter.
      And that’s even with the Scottish Parliament passing a bill and now having the ability to hold a referendum on such matters.
      A course of action you’d hope any true democrat representing their electorate would want to do to establish the will of the people before going full on genderwoowoo…

      I also have no recollection of my countryfolk ever having been asked to contribute input to the development of said contentious International Best Practice, which sort of makes a mockery of tagging on “International” to Best Practice.



    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