Wings Over Scotland

@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.

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.

Hatuey. At 7.01pm I agree entirely.

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…

link to twitter.com

Gosh Mia, you do write long comments!

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

“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.

@ 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!

@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.

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

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

Police Scotland and Public Health Scotland launch collaboration on public health and wellbeing, link to archive.is

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?

“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.

”’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?

“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.

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?

@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…?

@ 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.

“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.

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?

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.

link to twitter.com

Yeayyy! Fightin’ talk.

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.

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?

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.

@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?

@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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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

@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.

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

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…

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.

Mia @6.50pm.

Good comment Mia.

@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.

Roll up! Roll up!

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

link to twitter.com

“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?

@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!

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.

@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. 🙂

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

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

@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.

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

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.

link to wingsoverscotland.com

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.

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.

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

link to archive.is

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

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

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

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.

@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. 🙂

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.

@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.

“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.

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

@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.

@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?

….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.

@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.

“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.

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

@ 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 link to 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.

@ 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 link to gov.uk)

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.

blah. blah. blah

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

link to 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

@ 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.

“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.

@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.

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

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.