Great news, everyone!
Posted on
October 27, 2025 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
We’re important!
Something to look forward to there, then.
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
-
Recent Posts
- 12-04
- 12-03
- 12-03
- 12-01
- 11-27
- 11-22
- 11-19
- 11-14
- 11-08
- 11-07
- 10-29
- 10-27
- 10-24
- 10-22
- 10-17
- 10-16
- 10-16
- 10-14
- 10-12
- 10-11
A tall tale
Wee Books
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Life in Bedlam
Video
Just as our oil is set to run out – again..
Ffffffffff!
Back to being a buffer for England when Russia comes through the Norwegian sea to invade.
“The thing that P_t_n fears most about the UK is our nuclear deterrent,” the minister said.
shite
link to archive.ph
the UK nuclear deterrent is irrelevant to NATO; it is the chipolato down the spandex trousers of the aging rockster
– we rent it from the americans, and I doubt they would ever let us use it on our own.
Fact : the yanks never trusted the UK after philby, why would you let these inbred paedophiles loose with the megaweapon – you can’t trust these people, but if they want to pay you a fortune to prance around with it, take the money. It’s like those dumb young lassies who will -rent- a gucci bag for their lifestyle.
By now the boats hulls have worn out, they can be heard all over the atlantic; the subs probably pick them up just south of arran and if it ever looked like they were going to fire in anger, they would get a torpedo up their arse.
– oh and the last time they tried to test fire trident, it didn’t work so well.
Also, our aircraft carriers have propeller shaft problems and lack the missile frigates to defend themselves; they even shat it from the houthis.
None of those will save us if they strike first, Confused. America will wait to see what happens next if we are taken out, though. The UK has always been America’s aircraft carrier in European waters. Does anyone actually believe that Russia will do more than probe and test our defences? Even if the Americans didn’t save us, they would still strike the Russians to save themselves, and even Putin would not be safe – most of all from his own people if enough of them survived an American all-out nuclear offensive because, let’s face it, nobody would be stupid enough to invade with land forces, would they? The Swedes? The French under Napoleon, Hitler? All swallowed up by the Russian winter and terrain. Still, we are living in an age of such stupidity, malevolence and entitled viciousness coupled to witlessness, that you never can tell.
“we are living in an age of such stupidity, malevolence and entitled viciousness coupled to witlessness”
Are we?
I’m not believing that human nature has changed all that much since the time of the Pharaohs.
The root cause of everything you see is the excess billions of humans. I understand projections suggest there are still another 2 billion of us to squeeze onto this insufficient Earth before the middle of the century.
I can’t see that happening. The population will have to be reduced by a few billion before then. I think we can all see how that is likely to happen.
Buckle up. It’s gonna be a wild ride!
Most likely than not, it will involve escalating nuclear strikes between Russia and the USA. The USA hitting Russian bases in the middle of nowhere and Russia hitting bases in Turkey and escalating until the two superpowers get around the negotiating table.
I believe it is called escalating to de-escalate.
Oh dear! Does the world really need another zero-sum Malthusian tribute act?
Particularly one which is in essence implying that thousands of years of human progress cannot possibly have occurred because, you know, ‘human nature’ (whose definition, one wonders?) dictates that it’s not possible to learn, improve and move on.
Hint: Your subjective beliefs are irrelevant, The empirical evidence does not support them.
Ah, Dave, the living embodiment of thousands of years of human progress, but who still lacks the smarts to make it clear who he is responding to, myself or lorncal.
Just in case it’s me who has been so honoured, here’s a wee challenge for you, Dave.
Without looking it up anywhere, summarise in ten thousand words everything you would have to do to fashion a bronze spearhead. Starting with the clothes on your back only. You may assume you are free to go anywhere you wish, and exploit any natural resources you need. You are granted a pen and paper to write it all down, but that’s your lot.
Then, tomorrow, following the instructions you have just written down, off you go and make us a bronze spearhead or two. Razor sharp, mind!
You stand at the pinnacle of thousands of years of human progress, Dave, so what’s your problem with achieving something they cracked in the Bronze Age, then gave up as hopelessly out-of-date?
Firstly, to help you out in your very obvious cognitive struggle, here’s a blatant clue to start with, hatey:
lorncal did not use the term “human nature”. I’m sure you’ll figure it out eventfully.
Secondly, thank you for making my point for me. Though it would be useful to have advance notification, to use a metaphor, of whether your line of argument at any particular time is going to be a wave or a particle?
Now, I may be back shortly, I’m just off to construct something that is actually useful.
“they even shat it from the houthis”
A bold statement.
I tend to the view that they “shat it” from the limited terms of engagement that means they can only ever fight the likes of the houthis with both hands tied behind their backs.
It’s a constant thread running through all your posts, Confused, that the people we might end up fighting are constrained by no rules or limits, whereas our side has to jump through hoops and complete reams of risk evaluation paperwork before even a shot can be fired.
It’s a limitation of your world view. It causes you to assume that this asymmetry is a law of nature.
It’s nae. It’s a deliberate choice that can be revoked.
It’s this wishful thinking on your part that leads you into all kinds of blind alleys. Take the small boats crisis, for example. Everybody just “knows” that the orthodox position is that nothing can be done.
And yet, just 24 hours of the Royal Marines empowered to machine gun every illegal small boat they found in The Channel would end the crisis for good.
– if you are going to have a go, shit for brains, at least read the post : the royal navy avoided the area because the houthis now had decent missiles and they have no destroyers to defend themselves. The propeller shaft trouble stopped them attending a big war games. Do some reading.
as for the glory of british arms : the paras are hard cunts when they are shooting priests
I will watch with awe at the british armed forces doing large scale amphibious assaults in yemen and crimea
I will watch with awe if you ever mature enough to be able to post in debate on here without lazily resorting to primary school playground name calling as your first resort.
“the paras are hard cunts when they are shooting priests”
Sez you.
The paras are hard cunts when they are sweeping Argentinian invaders into the sea.
Sez me.
Ach, we’d just need to deploy our very own John Main – Weapon of Mass Disruption, and after a day of any invading force having to listen to his relentless pish stating that anything Scotland has is wrong / broken / shite, they’d likely just turn around go home as it just wouldn’t be worth the grief and effort to own Scotland.
We could also deploy GERS figures as a secondary defensive measure.
Aye that should sort it out nae bother!
That should scare the bejesus out of his storm troopers when they come ashore. An old ex army friend of mine told me that the english army didn’t stand a chance against such an agressive foe.
wee jonnie main would be off sharpish along with the rest of his mates.
Given the “aggressive foe” hasn’t even been able to mount a successful invasion of a weaker country across a flat land border, I think the chance of them successfully rocking up on the East Coast is basically nil.
LOL. Stop being so funny.
Aye, he/she/it’s a ‘weapon’ right enough!
AW c’mon Dan that’s no fair wee Johnny could maybe speak for us to get help from the Is rahelly forces to face down the mad and bad P*t*n and his bad Orcs , now we know what his promotion of all things Is rahelly was all about we should never have doubted his prescience , now that their war is over they will only be too pleased and eager to help out the uk as we are part of the SPECIAL relationship with merica and donny is part Scottish
Also the eminent and beloved Keir Starver with his defence of Is rahell 24/7 surely must be working on the presumption in good faith that us being in a SPECIAL relationship with merica and Is rahell they will all rush to our defence
Can I sign up the noo or do I have to wait to see what the FM is going to do
Aye, we’ll take the hit, as that annoying saying goes, for team GB/NATO/Europe/the world. First among non-equals. Bye-bye Scotland, hello hideous death, untreatable radiation burns, multitudinous cancers and future children born as unrecognisable blobs. Present-day weapons hundreds of times worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki together. Ach weel, could have been even worse, eh?
Lorncal;
Didn’t you know – it’s all part of the “Union Dividend”.
Only one slight problem with that, James: the fall-out, if not the epicentre, would kill everything within many hundreds of miles, so, bye-bye most of England, Wales and NI, too. London would almost certainly be delivered a direct hit, as would all the naval bases and airforce bases, most of which are in England. Not one at a time, but simultaneously. Russia, on the other hand, could probably sustain several hits and still survive in the remoter parts, as could the US.
Well that would get Gerry Hassan out of a tight spot…was it a tenner or £20…I can’t remember…Stu?
Looks a nice little war economy boom might get Labour out of its tight spot.
As Elvish Costello once plaintively honked, “soon we’ll be shipbuilding”.
(Between you and me, the Robert Wyatt version, it I don’t like too much)
TRULY MACABRE REASONING.
unpacking Pollard we get,
Scotland, the territory, not the people, has a critical strategic role.
Independence would give the enemy a boost «a win».
Scots cannot actually be trusted.
But in a «peer» conflict it would be no mischief if they perished.
Actually in a peer conflict you’d have a couple of minutes to neck the champagne, whisky and majoun before the fireworks start.
The negative suspiciously racist perspective on that large country to the east by both Holyrood & Westminster is juvenile.
Starmers boyfriend must be very special indeed.
Defence
Readiness andIndustryI’ve highlighted what this is really about. Anyone who guessed MONEY is right… well, on the money.
Hilarious… just hilarious. Yet more unconcious and unsolicited slapstick comedy gold direct from the doddery and decrepit communal mind of what’s left of the empire.
Who said the Inglis had no sense of humour… well, I did actually in an earlier post (I still think I’m correct… English humour leaves me cold and induces in me the urge to scoff… usually just after I have a fit of the dry boak).
I’m guessing that after the Covid ‘gold rush’ *Boris and the Ingles (I think that was the name of his student band at Eton) are looking for new ways to fleece the four separate and distinct peoples who make up the ununited ‘United’ Kingdom.
*I know this piece isn’t about Boris but I’m recruiting the entire English upper, upper middle, and upper-thair-ain-erse classes for this post.
I don’t think the Scots need fear Mr P just yet… they face a more immediate existential threat frae thair soothern neebour.
For those interested I believe only four of Mr P’s RS-28 ‘Satan 2′ missiles are needed to destroy the US Eastern seaboard (each missile has a range of approx. 11,000 miles and can carry up to 15 nuclear warheads and are reported to be able to evade missile defence systems).
Nuclear subs are sooo “Ipcress FIle”, Harry Palmer and cold war nowadays.
I find myself reminiscing over the the Warsaw Pact and happier times… just like Connie Sachs used to.
I sometimes feel a little sorry for Boris and his like (I don’t really that’s just a bit of rhetoric for effect)… young men raised to play at empire only to discover there isn’t an ’empire’ left for them to play with.
Well then, Northy.
You and about the other dozen or so unproductive regulars who like to believe you have your fingers on Scotland’s pulse should have absolutely no trouble leveraging this latest twist to the advantage of Indy.
6 months until the next democratic event in Scotland. Use the time wisely.
So what if you all picked the wrong side in the Middle East? Now’s your chance to make amends by siding with the imperialist, aggressive coloniser over the would-be independent nation. Set yourself up in opposition to all these other freedom-loving nations in Eastern Europe and the EU that one day you expect to be accepted into.
And hope against hope “your” side triumphs this time.
Ah bless! Just what the world needs. Yet more of the exceptionalist dead end zero-sum mindset.
Would you like us to nominate you for armchair general of the month?
@Dave
Would you like to make a start leveraging this latest twist to the advantage of Indy? Northy has already bottled it, so maybe you should try.
Or do you prefer alert readers to conclude you don’t actually have a scooby?
You and Northy both.
Show me where I’ve mentioned Scottish Independence – which is none of my business (not being Scottish or living there) – in this context, and maybe I’ll oblige you. hatey.
Here’s a thought: Perhaps if you stopped to think about your subjective assumptions before engaging keyboard, you might one day present a coherent evidence based position.
England (“UK”) needs Scotland, again.
This is news?
Scotland to send the elite Das Handbag regiment.
Were human shields for uk war mongering profits.
As long as we don’t have to fight Japan. The last time we took them on we ended up building railways.
Pollard’s background is as a PR man, lobbyist and a travel agent.
What that has to do with qualifying him to be appointed “Minister of Defence Readiness” is anyone’s guess.
Mark Beggan @ 13.08.
I also recall that they finished up rebuilding Hiroshama and Nagasaki.
That was the Americans Sven. Tut tut.
Mark Beggan
I’d prefer to think of it as “The Allies”, myself.
Seeing as “France” is not a war torn Country and yet they still come to britain to gain British citizen Ship an are used to the sea they could be enlisted into the navy or perhaps britains plans were always to create a ready made army of young fighting men.
And if they don’t wish to fight for for the Britain they wish to make their home then return them from whence they came’
There is one thing that is assured, I could not envisage old brits fighting for the new brits to sit at home in luxury while they die.
So it’s true then.
Starmer is a wanker.
As it happens its the SNP who’s peeling his banana.
He can always rely on Swinney’s willingness to bend and lend a hand.
England will always need Scotland again, energy, dumping ground, oil and cannon fodder.
Noticed a lot of military projects being chucked at Scotland by England recently. Seems like they want us to be the factory producing their Cold War arms shite, whilst they make the profits selling them round the world as usual. And they chuck rubbish propaganda like this at us to try and keep us scared.
Obviously it would be much better if the highly skilled and well paid military-related manufacturing jobs went down south. Profits, are made by the companies concerned. Some will be spent locally in plant and buildings and wages to keep the companies in business. There is also potential for component supply at a local level, creating more jobs.
Why would we want that in Scotland?
Because that murderous cock-length crap belongs in the 20th century.
This reminds me of the South Park Movie where Chef leads his battalion of men, as the front line defenders against the Canadians, under the name Operation Human Shield.
The UK will have the SNP full backing. What we are witnessing is the world order changing from the West to the east and its more important than ever to have these Submarine’s removed from Scotland no mater how much the England is prepared to offer in order for Scotland to allow these submarines on our sole. Independence has to mean all land and territorial water return and the removal of the nuclear submarines on day one, if England has know where to put then turf.
I’d rather be shot by refusing to fight for the British than be shot trying to kill a Russian.
Former UK ambassador Craig Murray defects to Your Party. I know what I make to this, he should never have been given the role at the UN for Scotland. Lets be honest Murray all we have, but to think Your Party is anything other than England 1st, 2nd and 3rd you’ve lost feeling in your brain if you believe that will support Scotland’s right to chose.
I’m a bit surprised to hear that, Your Party appear to be very much in favour of Holyrood being able to call referenda on independence and might actually be in favour of independence itself. They are a hugely anti-British party.
Just wait until CM tells them that he has it on excellent authority from Professor Baird no less that Scotland subs the UK to the tune of £150 billion each and every year!
They’ll soon change their tune.
Aidan, Its simpler than how I’ve put it! If Your Party wasn’t a unionist party it would be seeking to separate the nations of the UK into Independent country’s on day one if it wins power in Westminster and its not, ask yourself whats does the right to choose mean because I know what it means it means control and continuing the status quo for these other still under the control of England, to say Your party isn’t a unionist party is bull.
When I hear people say they want Independence and whats the legal right to obtain it and how we need other country’s in the world to recognise Scotland as a Independent Country, WHY?
Scotland was the 1st Country to fly a national flag, its one of the oldest country’s in Europe and we where annexed into the rest of England like Prof Robert Black KC Scotland ceased to exist and England did not, this is a very important statement and it prove a lot.
It proves Scotland is still an Independent Country invaded by a foreign force who have used force to obtain control over Scotland and our people. How can we seek to be Independent when we already are, what we are seeking is for the foreign nation to leave or give up control over Scotland and Your Party isn’t given that and it never will because it a unionist party.
If I was Craig Murray who claims to want Irish Independence, I wouldn’t be asking for Scotland to have the right to choose I’d be asking for England to leave before and before he joined Your Party he should have asked that question to the leadership who I’m will to bet my house on it never crossed there minds and wasn’t even at the bottom of a to do list.
Craig Murray has joined a Unionist party and I don’t believe he should be representing Scotland any more for that reason.
He’s going to ask for Scotland to have the right to choose what about these other nation who wants to leave, what a tosser.
If Your party won a Westminster election the Scots aren’t asking for the right to choose we’re asking for Freedom.
@100% Yes – and so in your view Your Party should do that without asking for the consent of the people of each of the nations in a referendum on the subject, so that even Wales which faces economic ruin if separated from the U.K. and where independence is opposed by 70/80% of the population should nevertheless have it forced upon?
Your Party’s position is to let its Scottish members decide if they want independence and that Westminster should not block it.
The party will be looking to recruit and is in discussion with some who may defect apparently.
It proposes to stand candidates in 2026 Holyrood elections who will stand on a “socialist” platform whatever that means.
Yes, Scotland’s urgent problem is not capitalism per se, it is colonialism.
@Sam – indeed, procedurally that obviously makes sense. It would be very odd to take the position of being in favour of Scottish independence regardless of whether the people of Scotland supported it. But in a referendum campaign would their Scottish MP’s support independence or not?
@Aidan
They may have noticed that in Scotland it’s possible to get 20 years in office just by making noises about being in favour of Indy.
You don’t actually have to do anything about it.
Somewhere in Your Party HQ there will be graphs of the potential inwards Islamic migration that could be achieved over 20 years in office.
They may have noticed it’s possible to get 20 years in office just by making noises about being in favour of restricting immigration.
But you don’t actually have to do anything about that either.
“Former UK ambassador Craig Murray defects to Your Party”
Ah, the move to represent P@lestine in Scotland’s political arena continues apace.
But nobody need do anything to interfere whilst this level of mistake is being played out. At some point, the credibility of one of Salmond’s staunchest defenders will be finally torn to shreds.
At some other point, Scottish voters, female and male, will be shown what was done to the innocent, defenseless lassies on October 7th by Murray’s pals, the ham assholes.
Translation:
1. Nothing happened before 7th October 2023.
2. What Hannibal Directive?
Absolutely astounding but how many read in the press this weekend about Babcock at Rosyth having 300 Filopina welders.
That’s one of our biggest defence contractors and they are using imported labour from the Philipines. All the problem because of Scotland, it government not training enough welders.
But hang about,about it’s a similar shortage of personnel at BAE Systems on the Clyde where it’s not just foreign welders but loads of Romanian painters too. No doubt again because of bad Scotland letting the side.
But how can this be. The government must know this fine well because out of the EU and with our borders secure the government know exactly how many work permits they grant and to who. And it’s not just the defence shipyards that are short of welders and painters. HS2 between London and Birmingham is sucking in huge numbers of foreign workers, as well as workers from Scotland. But again, the government know exactly how many visa and work permits are being issued. And it’s not just critical industries like shipyards and major industries that are struggling for people.
Just look at the offshore renewable wind industry. There much of the work, like the ferries between Britain and Europe utilise foreign labour, often from Asia.
But turning back to the defense industries there is another side, when you employ Romanian workers what kind of security background checks can you do, what kind if background checks can you do on labour from the Philipines. It a question that n3eds to be asked. Many of these foreign personnel are not employed directly by the BAEs or the Babcocks but are rather provided through subcontractor suppliers.
And so out of the EU and ramping up our March to a possible war after years of industrial decline it’s a bit rich to blame Scotland for the shortage of skilled labour.
But at least tge defence industry share prices are shooting through the roof whilst we rely on foreign workers.
Good post, Willie.
I think a big part of this is austerity. From 2010 to 2023 there were huge cuts to funding of colleges in England.
Between 2010 and 2023 the funding to colleges dropped by a third and the number of colleges dropped from 348 to 218.
Scotland’s gov began cutting college funding in 2020 with a 20% cut over the 5 years.
The de-industrialisation of the UK economy (along with the rest of the Collective West) and replacing it with a financialised parasitic rentier economy went hand in hand with the deliberate elimination of all skills, knowledge, expertise and experience (SKEE) which was not management – which is implicitly considered to be the only valid and legitimate “skillset”.
Which is why nothing works.
After four decades or so of systematically eliminating those elements out of the economy in favour of dragging people from the bus queue, and giving them a weeks CBT and, at best, a month with someone with no real experience whose only been doing the job six months themselves, you end up in a situation where multi-million pound/dollar/euro investment is either shelved because the local workforce no longer has the SKEE or you employ labour from outside which does have the skill, knowledge, expertise and experience.
And even that does not solve the problem because…..
link to harrowell.org.uk
……the UK and the rest of the West does not do organisation.
link to warwickpowell.substack.com
Because organisation and planning is the opposite of the cult of individualism and atomisation. It’s considered to be “communism” and antithical to our ‘values’.
No forgetting of course the insane and counter productive position that instead of identifying the problem in the way that Willie has started to address it by focusing attention on those at the top who who are responsible to many take the simplistic option of swallowing the divide and rule shite they are fed by a corporately owned media by blaming and often attacking those at the same level as themselves.
Any serious practical analysis needs to properly define what the actual problem is rather than regurgitating what has been internalised from the media propaganda smokescreen of those who have created this unworkable and collapsing paradigm.
It would be interesting to see what the Artists think of the present political situation.
BRITISH POLITICS & THIS HACKNEYED OLD SAW;
«we are very mindful that the future of N is very much down to the people of N »
ALL KINDS OF SCOTLAND’S DESPERATE, who despite historic evidence of the proprietary nature of the system, take the bait.
Latest purveyors, the Corbyn/Sultana party.
The independence can is not just down the road, it’s somewhere on Mars.
I think this is a fantastic statement to make. It would really wonderful above “vote liberate Scotland or this could be your last chance of Independence” .
“this could be your last chance of Independence”
But it’s defo your last chance to save the NHS.
I mean, your final last chance. The long sequence of last chances is about to come to an end. And this is it.
The last last chance. An end to all the last chances for good.
“Alf Baird says:
27 October, 2025 at 4:30 pm
Yes, Scotland’s urgent problem is not capitalism per se, it is colonialism.”
The left used to mean social equality, welfare that redistributed wealth and government intervention in the economy.
Given the current levels of poverty, 23%, food insecurity for 14% of Scots and fuel poverty for 860,000 Scots; wage stagnation and rising inflation since 2008 and a minimum wage that does not allow basic needs to be met, I would say capitalism matters as much as colonialism.
Haven’t you been paying attention, sam?
You’ll get at least £25,000 each and every year, over and above what you currently have, in an Independent Scotland.
If even I know this, WTAF is wrong with you that you don’t?
Do you believe the tellers of this tall tale are full of shit, but lack the cojones to call them out?
On the question of who is “full of shit”, the colonial hoax is always repeated.
Scotland’s colonial GDP-per-capita gap is glaringly obvious when compared with independent neighbour states of similar size/population:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
@Alf – Edinburgh has a GDP per capita roughly equivalent to Oslo or Singapore, I think a lot of people would be crying out for colonialism if it meant being that wealthy!
No arguments from me, Alf.
I’ve long since moved on. These days what I’m struggling to comprehend is why the Indy movement has had twenty years standing in front of an open goal but still has yet to score.
“These days what I’m struggling to comprehend is…”
Wait… don’t tell me, let me guess – is it, no it couldn’t be, no surely not, yes it must be true… I do believe the answer is… wait for it… everything requiring an IQ above 50 to understand.
Am I right, Sir? Am I?
It was a difficult job to learn and I wouldn’t want the effort to go to waste (here I am paraphrasing the last words of Mr Memory in the final moments of ‘The Thirty Nine Steps’, 1939, starring the magnificent Robart Donat as Richard Hannay).
A dying Mr Memory recites the design for a silent aircraft engine. Hannay slips his hand into Pamela’s (his new bird’s haun) and is not rebuffed – it is left to our imaginations as to what happens next.
I have no idea why the 39 steps popped intae ma heid… it just did and I scribbled it doun and that is all there is to know aboot ma reasonin’.
THE END
“Am I right, Sir? Am I?”
Of course, Northy, you’re always right.
That’s why you should find it so easy to answer the following:
Why is it the Indy movement has had twenty years standing in front of an open goal but still has yet to score?
In your own time, Northy. A bonus pat on the heid for every non-mention of colonialism, every omission of the hated English, and every overlooking of the alleged role of tractors. A pan drop for all three.
You never tire telling us of your innate superiority and the obviously irrefutable justifications for Indy. So there stands the open goal.
Why can’t you hoof it in, Northy?
Economic exploitation is the main aim of colonialism, which is also about widening inequality (Memmi). Colonialism also involves ‘hateful racism’ (Cesaire) irrespective of prevailing political ideology – socialism or capitalism. Which is why colonialism must be ended first for an oppressed group.
“Colonialism also involves ‘hateful racism’ (Cesaire) irrespective of prevailing political ideology – socialism or capitalism. Which is why colonialism must be ended first for an oppressed group”
Exactly what our fighting friends in the east have been doggedly doing for the thick end of 4 years now.
Not when your country’s resources and incomes are being illegally leeched by the country next door.
Seems to me that Russia in modern times released most of their colonies- Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, etc etc.
Looks like the chances of Scotland becoming independent are much greater than they are with England controlling us.
Oh which direction to point your pitchfork if a second invasion comes?
Well as was said in the Army in my time. We need the Jocks. But what right minded young man today would volunteer for a Labour led UK Government or an SNP led Scottish Parliament?. Neither are worthy of defending. I see the categorisation of Wingers as Alt Indy. Interesting use of the abbreviation Alt. All the perverts are in Holyrood not on this blog.
“6 months until the next democratic event in Scotland.”
There are no such things as democratic events in Scotland and haven’t been for at least three centuries… only the illusion of such.
“You and about the other dozen or so unproductive regulars…
Guilty as charged.
“… picked the wrong side…
I side with the Picts and none other.
“…the EU that one day you expect to be accepted into.
I don’t believe in the EU… when different groups of peoples are bundled together into a single larger group and forced to act as one under a unitary leadership then greater is the chance of a totalitarian state being conjured into existence by those brutal simple-minded who inevitably come to rule through such political structures.
“…hope “your” side triumphs this time.
Yes. Let us indeed hope the Picts (and I suppose we’ll have to include the Scots – nae Gaelic speakers tho) triumph over that evil, that dark shadow that has been for centuries our Pictish bane, that scourge, that devil, that England – and send it back to the hell from whence it arose with its arrow tipped demonic tail firmly wrapped atween its legs – watch ye dinnae trip ower it oan the wey oot o’
ScotlandPictavia noo, Ingland.“There are no such things as democratic events in Scotland and haven’t been for at least three centuries… only the illusion of such”
Oh yes there are.
“I side with the Picts”
How it must sting that we Scots exterminated them.
Here’s an interesting statistic.
England in building a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point. Its a big plant and the reports are that currently has a workforce of about 14,000.
That number may be generally known but what is not generally known is that around sixty percent of the workforce is foreign. Indeed the quip I got from a manager was that ” there’s about 185 countries in the world and this project has people from around 130 of those countries.
No doubt the UK government will know or should know just how many foreign workers are employed on this critical piece of British power infrastructure. But sixty percent foreign is astounding.
Its a grim reflection of a country that once had an industrial world leading base. Once made steel, once has a world class car industry, once built ships for the world, once built fridges freezers a whole host of domestic consumer goods, even trains and dare I say once upon a time nuclear power plant, but now we don’t. And moreover most of what is left is not owned by us.
And who exactly is Electricite de France or EDF. Is it a state owned British company? If you don’t know there is a clue in the name!
And we’re going to kick Russia’s ass in the not to distant future they say. They’ve even got a minister for resilience.
Aye, the busted flush of a belligerent Britain striding the world stage.
Oh and while we are at Great British disasters, spare a thought for poor old Thames Water. As London’s water and waste utility company they are in an absolute mess. Trading in near bankruptcy whilst delivering horrendous service Thames Water is like so much of Broken Britain.
Many UK water companies have large debts, but Thames Water’s problems are the worst.
When Thames was privatised in 1989, it had no debt. But over the years it borrowed heavily and its total debt – which includes all of its borrowings and liabilities – now stands at £22.8bn, according to latest financial results.
Its debt pile increased sharply when Macquarie, an Australian infrastructure bank, owned Thames Water, with debts reaching more than £10bn by the time the company was sold in 2017.
Macquarie said it invested billions of pounds in upgrading Thames’s water and sewage infrastructure while it owned the company, but critics argue that it took billions of pounds out of the company in loans and dividends.
A small snapshot maybe of England’s capital city’s water and sewerage disgrace and a reflection of what is so wrong with Great Britain as it circles the drain itself.
Or do I misread the situation. Post Brexit are we really moving in to our great golden age with our best years ahead. Kind of makes you wonder why England has such a desire to keep and look after poor old subsidy dependent Scotland where even its oil and gas was a liability rather than a blessing.
But hey ho, some other countries did rather well, and developed rather well with their oil and gas. Its maybe that lockland just had the wromg oil and gas. Eh?
Could be worse – you may be in Jamaica.
The strategy of a “Scottish Decolonisation Claim” at the UN
A Detailed Breakdown
1. The Veto Power is a Real and Insurmountable Block… for the Security Council
* The five permanent members (P5) – China, France, Russia, the UK, & the US – have veto power.
* Any substantive resolution seeking to *enforce* an action, like demanding the UK decolonize Scotland, would be subject to this veto.
* The UK would undoubtedly veto any resolution that challenged its constitutional integrity or accused it of illegal colonization.
This is a non-negotiable point of national sovereignty for any P5 state.
2. The Decolonisation Strategy Isn’t Primarily Aimed at the Security Council
This is the crucial nuance.
The main UN body for decolonization is not the Security Council,
but the *Special Committee on Decolonization*
(officially the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples),
also known as the “C-24”.
* *The C-24’s Role:* This committee, comprised of 29 member states, monitors the implementation of the 1960 Declaration on decolonization
and maintains the UN list of *Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs)*.
* *How a Territory Gets Listed:* A territory is added to the NSGT list primarily through a referral by the state that administers it.
In rare historical cases, the General Assembly has voted to add a territory.
* *No Veto in the General Assembly:* The UK has *no veto* in the General Assembly or its committees.
A campaign to have Scotland listed as an NSGT would be fought in these forums.
3. So, What Would Be the Point if the UK Can Veto Enforcement?
The value of such a campaign would be political and symbolic, not about forcing an immediate, veto-proof outcome.
The goals would be:
1. *International Legitimacy and Platform:* Successfully having Scotland debated as a “colonized territory” at the UN would be a massive propaganda victory for the independence movement.
It would reframe the issue on the world stage from an “internal domestic matter” (the UK’s preferred framing) to one of “inalienable rights to self-determination” under international law.
2. *Political Pressure:* It would create significant diplomatic awkwardness for the UK.
Being formally discussed in the same context as colonial powers and their remaining territories would be deeply damaging to the UK’s international image.
3. *Shifting the Domestic Narrative:* Within Scotland and the rest of the UK, the debate itself would dominate news cycles.
It would energize the pro-independence base and force a conversation on London’s terms of engagement.
1.*A Long-Term Legal Claim:* While unenforceable in the short term, establishing a formal UN record that Scotland is a Non-Self-Governing Territory would create a permanent legal and political claim that future governments, both in London and internationally, would have to contend with.
2.The Precedent: The Chagos Archipelago
This is the most relevant case study.
The UK separated the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius before independence and created the British Indian Ocean Territory, forcibly removing the population to make way for a US military base on Diego Garcia.
* *The Process:* Mauritius took its case to the UN General Assembly.
* *The Outcome:* The General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion.
The ICJ opined that the UK’s administration was unlawful and that the UK is obliged to end its control.
* *The UK’s Response:* The UK has largely ignored this non-binding opinion, but it has suffered a major blow to its international reputation and faces continuous diplomatic pressure.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly voted to condemn the UK’s presence.
*The key takeaway from Chagos:* The entire process bypassed the Security Council and its veto. It was fought and won in the General Assembly and the ICJ.
Summary:
A binding UN Security Council resolution pressuring the UK over Scottish decolonization is potentially “doomed to failure” because of the UK’s veto.
*However, that’s not the full story.* The broader “decolonisation effort” is not necessarily doomed because:
1. *It targets a different forum:* The main battle would be in the UN General Assembly and its committees, where there is no veto.
2. *Its goal is political, not just legal:* The primary objective is to win the argument in the court of world opinion, create diplomatic pressure, and
legitimize the cause of Scottish independence under international law.
3. *There is a precedent:* The Chagos case shows that a sustained campaign can successfully use the UN General Assembly to challenge the UK’s colonial control, even without Security Council action.
So, while there is a potential block to *enforcement*,
the strategy yields significant political and symbolic victories.
*
Alf Baird speaks the truth about Scotland and the Scots and their colonisation by England.
You only need to witness the colonialist hordes swarming ower every comment he makes to know the veracity of Professor Baird’s words.
I for one am grateful for the great effort Alf put into his research on postcolonial theory and how it applies to Scotland.
I knew something was rotten in Scotland… but until I read Alf’s book, Doun-Hauden, and academic papers I didn’t know what.
Now I do – and so, too, do many others who I suspect were, like me, ignorant of Scotland’s predicament before Doun-Hauden enlightened them to their circumstance.
Thanks, Alf.
Yeah absolutely. I love the one about the Post Colonial Bufta Girls.
Publication date ? : ? 11 April 2020
Language ? : ? English
———————–
Why was it published in English – the language you hate?
“Why was it published in English – the language you hate?”
The language of the liar and the coloniser.
Northy’s words, not mine.
Everything England has it stole from others including there language, little video to educate.
youtube.com/watch?v=adUCP1S41GU
Hatey McHateface says:
————————-
Please do not reply to my posts – I do not agree with your racist posts and do not want to be associated with you.
As a Sovereign Scottish self-identifying Rastafarian, x, I find your hostility deeply offensive. I suspect it is fundamentally racist at root. And suspicion is all I need.
Just a wee word in your shell like. There’s just one gets to dictate who can and can’t post on here. It’s nae you.
I wonder what the collective noun for Unionist pricks is?
Doun-Hauden contains numerous Scots wirds and phrases, such as:
“Langage is the verra foonds o cultur, an thegither oor Scots langage an cultur is whit gie’s Scots fowk thair naitional identity”
“Tae be recast, Scots hiv tae cast oot the colonial elite yoke in aw its mankit naitur”
And for the SNP elite and our co-opted colonial institutions, this:
“Fowk cannae ser twa maisters nor twa naitions, thay aye luve ane and laith the ither”
Take a firm grip of yourself and search your stash of gentlemen’s mags for inspiration, James.
Just this once, you could claim it’s business, not pleasure.
@ Alf Baird SHOULD say: 27 October, 2025 at 10:39 pm
“Langage is the verra foonds o cultur, an thegither oor Scots langage an cultur is whit gie’s CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN HALF OF Scots fowk thair naitional identity”
At least that would be an accurate, factual statement.
Scots is a minority language in Scotland. But it doesn’t matter how many times I point this out – the usual suspects just go on to insist this minority language can be forced, literally down the throats, of the majority.
I have to say, there’s a majority part of me that is almost looking forwards to seeing them try.
Could you enlighten us, Alf? Did your plans to force us all to speak and write in Scots perchance come up at the UN?
And if not, why not, eh?
First, I have a love for all language… and yes, even English.
English is a fine language in many ways – not least because it is a mongrel language that borrows, more than most others, from many different lingual sources and therefore appeals to to those of diverse nationality who might recognise some of their own language within it; that and the fact the British Empire forced it upon its many colonized victims.
Shakespeare greatly enhanced English and made it more expressive by adding almost two thousand new words to it.
A lot of rhetoric works well in English and I am a fan of the rhetoric originally developed by the ancients in Greece.
My issue is not with the English language in itself, but that I and many other Scots were forced to elevate it abuf oor ain mither-leid… sometimes by force at the end of a tawse.
Why is a book about the Scots and primarily aimed at the Scots written, mostly, in English?
Obviously because the Scots haed thair ain mither-leid beaten oot thaim by thair oppressor (English speaking England) and barely ken it nou in favour of a foreign language they were forced to use instead and telt wis thair ain.
Hauf o’ Scots dinnae e’en ken thay be speking a langage nae thair ain mither-leid.
The Scots language is superior in expressive power to the English language useful and as widely used around the globe as Inglis is.
English is the ‘one size fits all’ of languages whereas Scots is the made to measure, finely tailored Saville Row of languages.
If languages were suits which would Scotsmen rather have as their favourite garment… a functional but cheap polyester one from Marks or a million dollar one from the Stuart Hughes Diamond Edition?
And which would Scotswomen prefer, deserve even… a run of the mill handbag from Marks as carried by a million others or a unique bag from Hermès Birkin (up to $10 million for a bag, apparently)?
Yes, the Scots leid is the Rolls Royce of languages… English the Mini Cooper – perfectly serviceable, but cheap as chips and common as fuck.
“the Stuart Hughes Diamond Edition”
What a weird post.
Hughes was born and bred in Liverpool, which is still an English city as far as I ken.
As for Hermes, you have to go to France to find them. Jane Birkin was born in London and lived in England before moving to France to pursue her career.
As I’ve said before, it’s not that Northy likes to post this mince that concerns me – it’s not even that he likes to pretend it’s based on truth.
It’s that at some fundamental level he may actually believe it to be true, and that’s scary.
Anyhoo, he’s back onto his favourite subject – planning to force the majority of Scots to use a language only a minority know.
Should be a lot of fun – bring it on, but only if Northy himself is in the vanguard, chapping doors to investigate what language Sovereign Scots are using across their denner tables!
“…at some fundamental level he may actually believe it to be true…”
The truth is the truth and ne’er a lie can betray it… ask Logic, she knows.
As usual the colonialist misses the point preferring instead the literal over the figurative as befits their stunted view of reality.
I would explain, but I fear I would only be wasting the skin on my fingertips.
It is not exactly quantum mechanics, hatey.
One of the key points which Northcode is making here is that the reason English is spoken by the majority of Scots today is because in the past [checks notes] “this minority language” (English at the time) was “forced literally down the throats, of the majority.
Just as it was in the case of other peoples across the globe whose languages were forcibly suppressed by the colonial power which was England.
Now, logically, you are either against the principle of forcing down people’s throats a minority language, or you ain’t. You don’t get to pick and choose where a principle applies and does not apply. That’s why it’s called a principle because it is generically applicable.
So come on, hatey, make your mind up and tell us which it is?
Is your position that of being against such forcing down people’s throats in principle, or is your position that it is okay to do this if the language is English, or any other language imposed for the purpose of colonialism, whilst denying the same right to indigenous languages to be revived?
let’s not forget the sacrifice of the brave men who fought the empire
balls of steel, these guys
link to youtube.com
– the argie bombs had really shit fuses, just getting a hit didn’t mean much if it didn’t explode and a lot of them didn’t
– a few more losses, the task force would have had to sail home; the end of english “force projection”, the end of thatcher, the end of the tories and the neoliberal experiment wound up; no major, no tony blair
Would that not have been “greatest good for the greatest number” and a price worth paying?
history turns on such small things
another example – the yanks used to fly around with live H bombs in their bombers; they dropped one on themselves once, but it didn’t go off – of the 4 safeties, 3 were broken and one held. A 10meg blast, done by itself would have ended america and its militarism, and a great relief for the rest of the world; this is where I think utilitarianism has some merit.
A 10 Mton Hydrogen bomb will flatten everything within a radius of 4 miles. People above ground will feel very unwell or worse up to a radius of 70-80 miles.
“would have ended america and its militarism”
You must think the US is tiny, Confused.
But you’re confused. It’s a huge place. It contains vast areas where the 200 mile diameter affected zone of a 10 Mton Hydrogen bomb would be barely noticed.
You want to do some research. Who knows what you could learn.
As a matter of fact, the Orcs detonated the biggest one ever, over Orcland. 58 Mtons.
There are some who believe that ended Orcland and its militarism, to the great relief of the rest of the world, but they’re just confused.
I doubt not that a 10 mgt blast resulting from one of their own bombs inadvertently dropped on their own land, irrespective of the damage caused, would have focused the minds of the US public dramatically.
Had the incident occurred on a city or populated area it does seem likely that the resultant fatalities, injuries and damage could have caused a wee tad of a rethink to North America’s militaristic tendencies.
As Dickens wrote, “See the hangman when it comes to him.”
The Chernobyl meltdown doesn’t seem to have affected the willingness of the warring parties in Eastern Europe to play chicken with the still highly dangerous site.
The clearly evident and accelerating adverse effects of man-made climate change doesn’t seem to be causing much in the way of a re-think on the usage of fossil fuels.
“North America’s militaristic tendencies”
What is with you Indy boys and your denial of reality?
In 8 years of Vietnam, the US lost under 60,000 dead and that set back their “militaristic tendencies” for a generation.
In less than 4 years of the “Special Military Operation”, the Orcs have taken home around quarter of a million in boxes, and they’re still gung ho for more.
James @ 21.29.
A “Prickery of Pricks ?”; a “Thornery of Pricks ?”
A special needs primary school playground of the “neuro diverse” screaming sweary words whilst guiltily looking over their shoulders for the teacher.
Imagine having reached the ages you boys have and that’s still your best efforts.
If the cap fits, wee man.
One word expletives are all you’re good for with the shite you post day in day out.
One-word expletives are so much easier to type one-handed, eh James?
You won’t have to miss a stroke.
Scotland isn’t in a voluntary union its been annexed by England. Your party isn’t a nationalist party its a unionist party who are going to field candidates in England, Wales and Scotland to obtain power at Westminster which is a English parliament. Scotland shouldn’t have to ask for permission to leave the union and if Your Party wasn’t a unionist party it would have at the core the policy of upon becoming the government at Westminster on day one freedom will be given to every nations in this union, we were never asked to join so why should we ask to leave.
“Scotland shouldn’t have to ask for permission to leave the union”
Scotland doesn’t have to ask permission. Nothing and nobody is stopping the people of Scotland from organising to make every election, WM and HR, a plebiscite on Independence.
There’s one coming up in 6 months. Plenty of time to get it arranged if the political demand is there.
“we were never asked to join so why should we ask to leave”
Unless you’re some kind of freak, “we” were not around to be asked to join. We don’t have to ask to leave – see my first paragraph above.
I’m afraid your huffing and puffing no longer conceals the truth about Indy – there’s no majority support for it in Scotland. Ordinary Scots have other more pressing concerns and they don’t see how Indy would help them – more the opposite in fact.
You, your fellow supporters, and the abysmal and disgraceful HR governments you have saddled Scotland with over the past decade have to take responsibility for that.
As I recall, there was a bit of a stushie yesterday, with at least one poster feeling the need to deploy the ‘r’ word – racist.
By a remarkable coincidence, this morning brings the news that all Scots implacably opposed to racism will soon have a great chance to welcome some new arrivals to Scotland’s latest illegal migrant holding and processing centre – the Cameron Barracks in Inverness.
Other ex-military sites are being considered. After all, given the WM government’s complete lack of interest in getting a handle on the problem, sorry wonderful opportunity, there’s an inexhaustible supply of potential occupants.
This is just a random thought, but I wonder if the WM government is perhaps thinking of putting these facilities to good use. Perhaps train up the inmates in military discipline and basic small arms handling before letting them out.
Could be useful if they need to protect themselves against “racism” once they are in our communities.
Could be useful if the government needs a militia to keep the restless indigenous citizens in check.
Anyhoo, just some random thinking on my part. I eagerly anticipate the announcement from ScotGov, which will have to welcome these “Jock Tamson’s bairns” with open arms to burnish its virtue-signalling credentials, whilst simultaneously railing against this latest WM imposition on Scotland’s ancient Sovereignty.
Should be a belter!
They are not Jock Tamsons bairns they are as your friend and fellow progressive yoonionist the franchise fanny has anointed them “NEW SCOTS” which no doubt will suit your fellow Scotland HATERS because independence for indigenous Scots will forever more be further away than ever
But yoonionists don’t celebrate too soon because once these “NEW SCOTS” figure out that engerland is ROBBING Scotland of its resources and finances their desire for a new caliphate will spring to the surface and there will be no more WHITE WHITE WHITE calls needing to be made , these chaps prefer their OWN type of governance and FREEDOM
Hey Rev, since I scroll past certain contributors it has come to my notice there are fewer and fewer comments below the line.
Are you still the most read independence blog?
If you mean fewer commenters, diabloandco, I think you might be right – there is a definite dearth of variety.
I have begun to feel I have been commenting far too frequently of late in this joint. And with the bulk of the feedback (not that many of my comments invite a response) on my posts pretty much limited to being slagged-off by colonialists I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth the effort – not that there’s much in the way of effort involved, really.
Also, there’s not a lot of fun to be had around here these days. There used to be a bit of fun kicking about here.
There’s some fun to be had at least in tormenting unionists… but I’m growing weary of that – they are too easy a target for there to be much in the way of a challenge involved.
The genuine Scots who once gave generously of their wit, intelligence and knowledge in this place seem to have abandoned, for whatever reason, posting their thoughts and views on the plight of the Scots and how their situation might be remedied.
The endless lies, insults and drivel emitted by the unionists (colonialists if preferred… same thing) could be having an impact; though I could quite easily be wrong about that, I often am about stuff.
Anyway, in my view there are only a few guid and genuine Scots posters worth reading in this place – the remainder is just the white noise of colonialism blaring away in the background or the odd spark of a throwaway remark.
I know there were many great Scottish minds who used to post on here – before my time roamin’ aboot this place – and I’m sorry they are no longer about to educate and enlighten us.
Oh well, that be the way of things, I suppose.
@Northcode
Aye, its deffo getting worse. 🙁
The conspiracy of dunces is succeeding in driving away the regulars.
13 June, 2025: link to wingsoverscotland.com
You are right that this place is on its knees, but it’s the usual suspects endlessly babbling on about ToU or other arcane topics regardless of what is being discussed and the spammers who come here to post essentially the same thing day in day out. Then of course there’s the abusive rants which tend to come in overnight. What is there here for any normal person now?
Also for someone apparently suffering from the brutalising effects of colonialism, you seem to be remarkable free to criticise the regime all the time.
“…for someone apparently suffering from the brutalising effects of colonialism…
I don’t want to talk about it… my memories of the clearances (yes, I was there in a previous life) and other such barbarousness at the hands of Scotland’s evil oppressor and coloniser are just too painful to recall.
Good to know that you’re still around, aLurker.
“I was there in a previous life”
Sounds like you had a narrow escape, Northy.
Just imagine if you had been “cleared” to the New World, or the Caribbean, or Africa, or Australia, etc.
The memories of rape, pillage, murder, ethnic cleansing, expropriation, etc. committed by you and your ex-Scottish colonist pals would have been something else, eh?
Of course, not knowing you, I can’t say if you would be regretting or enjoying them.
Defo you would be claiming some big English cants forced you to do it. I know you well enough for that 🙂
“I’m sorry they are no longer about to educate and enlighten us”
Me too, Northy.
Why don’t you try posting entirely in Scots for a month or two? See if that entices them back?
IF ONLY…..
Definition of a CIVIL SOCIETY COUP.
A civil society coup refers to a situation where nonviolent movements or organized groups within a society attempt to overthrow a government or regime. This type of coup is characterized by the use of civil resistance rather than military force. It often involves mass protests, strikes, and other forms of non-cooperation aimed at challenging the authority of the ruling power.
Characteristics of Civil Society Coups
Key Features
* Nonviolent Resistance: Civil society coups rely on peaceful methods to mobilize citizens against the government.
* Broad Participation: These movements typically involve a wide range of societal actors, including labor unions, student groups, and community organizations.
* Public Support: Successful civil society coups often garner significant public support, which can help to legitimize their actions and increase pressure on the government.
Historical Examples
* Serbian Otpor Movement (2000): This movement successfully ousted Slobodan Miloševi? through widespread protests and civil disobedience.
* Ukrainian Orange Revolution (2004): Citizens mobilized against electoral fraud, leading to a change in government through nonviolent means.
Impact and Outcomes
Civil society coups can lead to significant political change, including the establishment of democratic governance. However, they can also face severe repression from the state, which may respond with violence or legal measures to suppress dissent. The effectiveness of these movements often depends on their ability to maintain unity and public support in the face of government opposition.
(AI generated text)
NC says”Obviously because the Scots haed thair ain mither-leid beaten oot thaim by thair oppressor (English speaking England) and barely ken it nou in favour of a foreign language they were forced to use instead and telt wis thair ain.”
Please look at the Establishment of Schools Act, 1616, ratified by further Acts of the Scottish Parliament in 1633, 1646 and 1696, all before the Union and while Scotland had a sovereign parliament and while, as we are often reminded, the Scottish people were sovereign.
The purpose was to establish a school in every parish, with all teaching to be done in Inglis. The clearly stated reason was to eradicate Gaelic language and culture, which was regarded as barbaric (the word used in the Act).
The decision was made by the Pariliament of sovereign Scots.
“… all before the Union…
Aye, but no afore the English.
Interesting point you raise Factchecker but it is I suspect on a more detailed interpretation be more easily understood.
The famous quote from John Knox was that there will be a school in very parish. Knox of course was a staunch Presbyterian. And as we know Presbyterians supported the English Crown as opposed to the Scottish Crown.
This religious divide can be further seen in terms of the Jacobite being Catholics, with the other side Protestant and indeed later on William of Orange supporting.
With the Jacobite support coming from a predominately Highland, Gaelic speaking Catholic communityis it any surprise that the John Knox religiously inspired schools were Inglis facing anti catholic facing in their complexion.
No doubt historians with a detailed analysis of history running from the Reformations to the Union of the Crowns to the Treaty of Union to the Jacobite rebellions could add more.
The key point therefore is that there will have been deep political religious reasons for the let us call them, John Knox schools, having the focus that they did.
Ex-galley-slave John Knox’s plan for universal education (“It is interesting to note that gender issues do not feature in his educational design”) was hampered by greedy nobles and was slow to be implemented by the Scots Parliament. Following is an excerpt from an online article —
JOHN KNOX AND EDUCATION
by Graham A. Duncan (University of Pretoria, 2017)
“John Knox’s Book of Discipline (1560) provided a blueprint for a national education scheme, which included parish primary schools, burgh grammar schools, high schools and the development of the three existing ancient universities of St Andrew’s, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The purpose of such education was ‘the vertue and godlie upbringing of the youth of this Realm’ (MHSE:1) and was envisioned as a partnership between home, school and kirk. The Scottish parliament’s failure to pass it into law is unfortunate but as time passed many of its educational elements were adopted.
“Knox’s national educational system provided for schools to be financed by the accumulated wealth of the church and monasteries, which were being overthrown in Scotland, but the nobles refused to approve this financial scheme because they wanted to divide the spoils among themselves (Burleigh 1960:176; Eby 1971:275). Thus, the poverty of the Scottish nation and a difficult political situation militated against the successful implementation of this project until the Act for Setting Schools was passed in 1696, which required all parishes to provide a school, a schoolhouse and dominie (schoolmaster). The Kirk was instrumental in the provision of this scheme, which was the origin of the high regard in which Scottish education came to be regarded by having the highest standard of literacy in Europe (MHSE:2).
“Knox offered no detailed curriculum, perhaps because he felt the existing trivium and quadrivium would suffice as they had done hitherto; these would include Catechism, grammar, Latin, philosophy, languages and arts – in sum a broad-based liberal education. Apart from the outcomes-based nature of the educational process, Knox’s support of the liberal arts also acknowledged the value of education for its own sake and as a basis for further professional studies, for example, in medicine or law. In larger schools, classical languages, rhetoric and logic would be added. Then, learners might proceed to universities that were to be upgraded.”
Of interest is that the Gaelic translation of the ‘Book of Common Order’ of the Church of Scotland, John Knox’s alternative to the Anglican ‘Book of Common Prayer’, was the first ever book to be printed in Irish or Scottish. The translation was made by John Carswell, Superintendent of Argyll and Bishop of the Isles. It was published in Edinburgh in 1567. Here is the Lord’s Prayer in Carswell’s version (with a bit of concentration still accessible for both Scottish and Irish speakers) —
“AR N-ATHAIR-NE atá ar neamh, go mbeandaighe th’ainm; go dtí do ríghe; go d?nta do thoil a dtalmhuin mar atá ar neamh; tabhair dhúinn aniu ar n-ar?n laitheamhail; agas maith dhúinn ar bfiacha, amhail mhaithmaoid-ne d?r bf?icheamhnuibh; agas n? l?ig a mbuaidhreadh sind, acht saor sind ó olc; óir is leat-sa an ríghe, an neart, agas an ghl?ir, tré bhioth s?or. B?odh amhluidh.”
The irritating question marks in the Carswell Lord’s Prayer above are due to some accents being problematic for Wings’ in-house system. Here is the text again with hopefully compatible accents this time:
« AR N-ATHAIR-NE atá ar neamh, go mbeandaighe th’ainm; go dtí do ríghe; go dénta do thoil a dtalmhuin mar atá ar neamh; tabhair dhúinn aniu ar n-arán laitheamhail; agas maith dhúinn ar bfiacha, amhail mhaithmaoid-ne dár bféicheamhnuibh; agas ná léig a mbuaidhreadh sind, acht saor sind ó olc; óir is leat-sa an ríghe, an neart, agas an ghlóir, tré bhioth síor. Bíodh amhluidh. »
I might just say that I have always regretted that the 1981 ‘Gaelic Orthographic Conventions’ (GOC) bottled out over using, as per Carswell, the spelling “agas” over “agus”.
More info on Carswell’s translation of Knox here (though out of stock):
link to gaelicbooks.org
willie says:
28 October, 2025 at 9:56 am
Knox of course was a staunch Presbyterian….….This religious divide can be further seen in terms of the Jacobite being Catholics, with the other side Protestant and indeed later on William of Orange supporting.
With the Jacobite support coming from a predominately Highland, Gaelic speaking Catholic communityi“
======
Sorry, Willie, but your post is riddled with historical inaccuracies. I address only TWO.
First, the presbyterian system of church government was championed after Knox’s death by his follower Andrew Melville. There is good reason to suppose Knox would have approved. He rejected the offer by Elizabeth of England of the Bishopric of Rochester.
Second, the main religious dimension in Scotland around Jacobitism was between the Presbyterian and Episcopalian parties within the Church of Scotland. The ‘Piskies’ (Highland AND Lowland) largely rejected the Presbyterian settlement from the time of William of Orange for almost a full century.
Only the death of (Jacobitism’s) King Charles III in 1788 allowed them and their non-Juror confrères in the Church of England to swear oaths of loyalty to Hanoverian monarchs. The alternative was impossible for Protestants: to support Charles’ brother who was Henry Cardinal York, a man eligible to become Pope.
It is true that many Highland Catholic chiefs, like Clanranald, were for the Stuarts. But an almost feudal loyalty to the Stuarts and contemporary sense of honour were also strong factors.
This is a very sketchy picture I know but I try to avoid Willie’s over-simplifications which, in other parts are even more a-historical.
It was the initiative of James VI and began in the 16th century.
His purpose, before becoming King of England was to tame the HIghlands and particularly the Western isles. When king of England he sought to tame the Marches. This was to be done by transplantation.The process of which was to move by coercion the lawless clans from the Marches to the North of Ireland.This involved putting thr native Irish off their land so the planters could take their place. It would help to firm up control of the North of Ireland.
The reivers, Armstrongs, Kerrs and Elliots had the choice of being hanged or transplanted. Their names are common in Fermanagh.
Widely regarded by their own ministers as “the scum of the earth” these Ulster Scots served as a buffer fior the Englisg against the native Irish. the strategy was to diminish Gaelic influence and establish a loyal Protestant population
Plans were afoot for the plantation of the Highlands.
“By the late 1590s with the civilizing of the Highland Gaels under way, James was fluctuating between various policies, including plantation. In his advice to his son Henry, Basilicon Doron, published in 1598, James discussed the Highland problem and the best way to deal with the situation. Here James asserted that his plan for the Highlanders was to plant “Colonies among them of answerable Inlands subiects that within short time may reforme and ciuilize the best inclined among them; rooting out or transporting the barbarous and stubborne sort, and planting ciuilitie in their rooms.”
link to pure.strath.ac.uk
Northcode is right about efforts to eradicate Scots. The passage of many educational Acts after the Union promoting the use of English served to establish a cultural stigma against the use of Scots
I think the 1872 Act of Education was the main trigger of native language demise in Scotland. But the Scottish Parliament had it in for Gaelic well before that.
Historically, Gaelic was “othered” by calling it “Irische”. Northcode in effect continues this practice by referring to it as “Erse” (which of course invites tediously perennial jokes such as “How’s yer Erse?”). In Latin, Gaelic was known as “Lingua Scottorum” ie “Language of the Scots”.
Since the 16th Century the term “Scots” began being applied (Gavin Douglas is usually referenced) to English as it was spoken in Scotland, in order to differentiate it from the English spoken in Southern England. William Dunbar however had no doubt which language he was writing in:
“O reuerend Chaucere, rose of rethoris all
(As in oure tong ane flour imperiall)
Was thou noucht of oure Inglisch all the lycht”
It would seem to me that the 17th century Scottish Parliament still saw things Dunbar’s way:
“Forasmekle as the kingis Majestie having a speciall care and regaird that the trew religioun be advanced and establisheit in all the pairtis of this kingdome, and that all his Majesties subjectis, especiallie the youth, be exercised and trained up in civilitie, godliness, knowledge and learning, that the vulgar Inglishe toung be universallie plantit, and the Irishe language, which is one of the chief and principall causis of the continwance of barbarities and incivilite amongis the inhabitantis of the Iles and Heylandis, may be abolisheit and removit…” (Act of Privy Council of Scotland 1616)
“Thairfor that they shall send thair bairnis being past the age of nyne yeiris to the Scollis in the Lawlandis, to the effect thay may be instructit and trayned to wryte and reid and to speake Inglische; and that nane of thair bairnis sall be served air [heir] unto thame, nor acknawlegeit nor reid as tennentis to his Majestie unles thay can wryte, reid, and speik Inglische.” (Act of Privy Council of Scotland 1616)(Collectanea de Rebus Albanicus p 121)
sam says “Northcode is right about efforts to eradicate Scots. The passage of many educational Acts after the Union promoting the use of English served to establish a cultural stigma against the use of Scots”.
Please read my earlier post about Acts of the Scottish parliament 1616-1707.
Ever since the Act of Union, Scottish education has been completely run by Scots. There has never been a time when Scottish schools had the same administration as English schools, the same curriculum as English schools, or the same examination system as English schools.
Of course, the factual benefit of learning Inglis/English was that Scots could the full advantage, then as now, of efficient communication with the rest of the English-speaking world.
“Ever since the Act of Union, Scottish education has been completely run by Scots.
You are too much, Factchecker – pretending not to know how colonialism works just to get a laugh, whit are ye like?
« Of course, the factual benefit of learning Inglis/English was that Scots could the full advantage, then as now, of efficient communication with the rest of the English-speaking world. »
One glimpses here yet again the default monolingualist mindset of the typical native English-speaker. Bilingualism does not readily occur to them as an option. And let it be noted that the reductionist “English-speaking World”, gradually annihilating as it does every other language on the planet, is catastrophic for the potential expansion of human consciousness which multilingualism favours.
“One glimpses here yet again the default monolingualist mindset of the typical native English-speaker”
Hmmm.
What is it one glimpses when reading the frequently posted assertions favoured by Northy and Professor Baird that in an Independent Scotland, all jobs will be reserved for those fluent and literate in Scots?
Maybe, to help us all out, Northy could provide the Scots for “the default monolingualist mindset of the typical native Scots-speaker”.
I bet he won’t, though.
Its a easy answer to a easy question,
Why are unionist on a site that supports Scottish independence?
Fear,
control of the narrative,
continuation of the union,
advert Scotland and Scottish people growing any confidence in them selfs,
to deter rebellion,
to maintain control of Scottish resources.
Continue colonising the Country and people.
Fear of loss of ego if Scotland should achieve independence.
And worry that after independence should Scotland start after finding its feet, begin to thrive.
That the economy down south would alter.
That old treaties would be voided.
To keep Scots thinking under the thumb.
That it would lose status and become England, not great Britain.
Unionist are here to try prevent any of that happening.
Otherwise they would minding their own business and going about their daily lives,
But the worry of becoming half of Britain with less clout, with less resources drives then on daily to put the people of Scotland back under the thumb before it is to late and consistantly refuse the right to self determination,
They forget that the union is a treaty between two Countries, and only two Countries, Scotland and England.
And the “Great Britain State” is created from that, they do not own it.
But they do what As all Colonists do.
“Defer rebellion” – that’s it mate, it’s to defer a rebellion.
Why are sane, rational Scots posting on a site that hosts more than its fair share of drunks greetin intae their drams and calling for revenge aboot stuff that happened hundreds of years ago, over educated zealots calling for the imposition of the minority Scots language in Scotland now, rank antisemites cheering on the hideous mutilation, rape and murder of innocent lassies, and supporters of the imperial, colonial adventures of the sinister tyrant in the east as he destabilises and moves in on small countries that Scotland should be standing shoulder to shoulder with?
It’s an easy answer to an easy question, James, but by all means, ask for help if you’re stumped.
You have a fair point about the fear though. Sane, rational Scots would obviously fear the above headcases getting anywhere near power in Scotland.
Or anywhere else.
The created State of Great Britain exist for as long as Scotland agrees with England that as the other half of that treaty and it is happy to continue,
It does not remain the decision of only one unratified state,, and that Country cannot colonise the very treaty to it self,
The ratifications were done under,
English domestic law in their kingdom of England.
And under.
Scottish domestic law in their kingdom of Scotland.
Prior to the treaty even existing voluntary by Scotland the monarch was agreed that they would be monarch of England by sucession and had no authority in Scotland as a shared monarch regards the treaty,
As it is today.
Two separate Crowns, one vacant,
“Two separate Crowns, one vacant”
To be more accurate, James, it is two separate Crowns, one of which is sovereign, the other not. The Scottish throne is vacant, but its Crown is not.
The Scottish Crown refers, not to the Scottish monarch, but to the Community of the Realm of Scotland, ie, the Scots people, who still own Scotland’s sovereignty under their own constitution, and who directly elect their own formal representatives to the Union parliament.
The English Crown lost its sovereignty to the English parliament in 1689, and that sovereignty isn’t represented at all because that English parliament died intestate in 1707, never having got around to formally transferring its sovereignty to the new British parliament.
The Westminster establishment likes to extoll the ‘unlimited sovereignty’ of the ‘Crown in Parliament’, but the only Crown that is formally incorporated in the UK parliament as of 1707 is the one represented by Scotland’s MPs alone.
Scotland is a republic territory.
England has a monarchy kingdom.
Thats what happens when you give your monarch to England as the monarch of England.
Regarding the old Scots parliament, it was not by modern standards a democratic institution. It may have represented at most 5% of the population excluding Gaelic speakers, Catholics, and the geographically distant regions.
Popular sovereignty is essentially a modern concept and few current self styled democratic states actually in practice subscribe to the idea. Parliament is sovereign in the UK.
You would require a written constitution enshrining the precept. Such a precept would effectively place the people, however defined, above any elected body. To make it workable would need a highly sophisticated and well informed electorate.
I understand what your saying, and as far as monarchy of Scotland is concerned though we decided we did not have a monarch of Scotland at the time, that made us a republic territory,
We then offered the Scottish monarch to become monarch of England by Succession,
That is not a Shared monarch.
The voluntary union that Scotland made with England was as a republic territory under the sovereignty of the people,
No longer as a kingdom with King James gone.
The treaty itself could not be authorised as a created united kingdom as one of the Countries was now a republic country with a vacant crown and throne.
The monarch of England was no longer a shared monarch with Scotland at the time of the treaty.
And England choose a different monarch.
The offer of the territory of a republic Scotland is not in any article, or the terms and conditions to the treaty of union once Scotland was no longer held under a monarch as a kingdom.
The old parliament of Scotland was not democratic nor intelligent in offering a kingdom of Scotland to unite with the kingdom of England , when Scotland was no longer a kingdom with a king or Queen in place as a monarchy kingdom.
It may be nit picking as the awful saying goes, but there it is, Scotland had become a republic of Scotland automatically and politically with the monarch becoming the monarch of England.
And the monarch of England could not provide royal assent nor commissioners to a republic Scotland to start the treaty negotiations or end them as a shared monarchy with Scotland.
The treaty of union should state a union between the kingdom of England and the republic of Scotland.
It does not.
Northcode is right. The tawse was used both as an instrument of discipline but also to discourage the use of native languages as was the Welsh Not.
Absolutely right Sam. My late mother in law used to tell of schoolchildren being belted if they were heard speaking Gaidhlig in the playground.
Aye Willie.
And it wis no just here either.
My North Walean partner used to tell of her primary school experience of the children being thrashed on the hands with a wooden ruler if they spoke a single word of Welsh not english.
Linguistic Imperialism is the Imperialists way.
SPEAKING A «MINORITY LANGUAGE*» is an act of defiance and must be punished…whether Gaelic, Scots, Welsh, Syriac, Berber, Kurdish, Maori, Hawaiian….
*minority languages were initially not so in the areas in which they were spoken.
First time reading the ‘comments’ for a few weeks.
The usual ‘intelligentsia’ saying the same things over and over again. Maybe they all have dementia and simply forget that they have posted the same mince previously ad nauseam.
A genuine question-why do they majority of Wings posters prefer to look backwards to the past rather than to the future?
Colonialism is the new buzzword for the regulars. Ably assisted by the esteemed Professor and his library of quotes from people nobody has any interest in. All backed up by a link to more drivel by someone called Alf Baird!
Have the UN decreed that Scotland should be independent yet? It seems to be taking a while!
“Have the UN decreed that Scotland should be independent yet?”
Not yet, Chas. Prime mover and international kilt wearer CM has moved onto a new and presumably better wheeze.
Supporters will claim it’s necessary to pursue as many options as possible, given the lack of a pro-Indy democratic mandate in Scotland.
Detractors will suspect there’s more money to be made from fomenting jihad, given that it will be bankrolled by deep pockets in Pakkistan, Irran, etc.
Take your pick.
“Take your prick”? Oh, misread that.
Just written by one.
Give yourself (and us all) a break then, big mouth and GTF premanently?
“premanently” James?
If you’re gonna type one-handed on here, while distracted by what your other hand is doing, stick tae the wee words in future.
That the best you’ve got, ju ju man?
Once a prick, always a prick eh?
Feeling cranky, James?
G’oan, treat yersel – fill yer sock!
It was an error of the un democratic parliament in Scotland not to realise that politically once it had extinguished the monarchy in Scotland it was a republic politially.
The old parliament of Scotland should have negotiated the 1707 treaty of union as a republic country of Scotland ,not as a kingdom that cannot unite two kingdoms.one of which no longer held that title.
England did not negotiate with a kingdom of Scotland but a republic of Scotland under the Sovereignty community realm of the people.
@James Cheyne;
“It was an error of the undemocratic parliament in Scotland not to realise that politically once it had extinguished the monarchy in Scotland it was a republic politically.”
Sorry, not so, James; the error arises from your misinterpretation of what happened in 1701.
Scotland was never a republic. England had every right to declare its own choice of succession to the English throne in 1701. Scotland always had the right to choose a different successor to its own throne if it wanted, it was just that Sophia was the only good candidate both kingdoms could accept, separately or together, as I pointed out long ago in a previous conversation. It would simply have been a continuation of the ‘union of the crowns’ following a different but relevant line of inheritance. And there were and still are two separate thrones based on two very different extant constitutions, whether they are sat in or not.
“The old parliament of Scotland should have negotiated the 1707 treaty of union as a republic country of Scotland, not as a kingdom that cannot unite two kingdoms, one of which no longer held that title.
England did not negotiate with a kingdom of Scotland but a republic of Scotland under the Sovereignty community realm of the people.”
Sorry, James; these statements are in error, too, because they both come from the same misinterpretation the first statement rests on. In 1707, the Scottish parliament agreed with the choice of Sophia as part of the Treaty. Both thrones still exist, and they are still separate, but the Scottish one is never sat on. That could be changed, but in modern times, would we really want to fill it anyway?
“Reality often differs from what we are taught.”
You sure got that right!
Reality often differs from what we are taught.
okay this looks kinda dry, but press on, down a bit
link to archive.ph
para 10 and onwards –
Similarly, Thatcher’s APPARENT REVIVAL owed much to the NORTH SEA OIL BOOM and financialisation of the British economy, which in the long-run would become A DRAIN on Britain’s productive economy. The North Sea oil find was generating 3% of national income in the Thatcher years, a figure which would “conservatively” be valued at £450bn by 2008 if invested in safe assets as more prudent socialist countries like Norway did with their resource wealth. Elsewhere, I have written in detail about the myriad of ways Britain’s turn to FINANCIALISATION UNDER THATCHER HAS MADE IT WORSE OFF, to the point where the British middle-class now has a lower living standard than Slovenia and is on course to be overtaken by Poland.
– this is truth you just don’t get in the english press. NB 3% of the national income does not sound “that much”, but it is “hard currency” and effectively acts as collateral for all the funny money paper printing the city does. “financialisation” meant they “got out of capitalism” (too risky) – it meant the south east was to be bloated with all the wealth, while the rest of the country went into necrosis and FUCK YOU SCOTLAND, for we get soaked 4 times – once for the theft, one for the loss of native industry, again for the property bubble and finally when the little englanders sell up down there, bag their unearned wealth then come to Scotland to bid up property and price the locals out … you can also count as number 5, the loss of a national piggy bank (wealth fund) which would have seen the next generation nicely and allowed the rebuilding of infrastructure without borrowing from the bankers.
Now we have cunty macfuck who is going to “make britain (england) great again (it never was)” by DOING A THATCHER – how much more “financialisation” can britain do? Will every pizza delivery dude start his own hedge fund? Shall we stop eating and start trading in “pizza futures”.
– when you are shackled to a lunatic, your only concern should be UNSHACKLING, all other considerations pale to nothing.
£150 billion every year (figure kindly provided by Professor Baird).
Upwards of £25,000 every year for every adult Scot (figure calculated by myself – 150 billion divided by Scotland’s population).
There’s your open goal. Isn’t it time to stop dicking about in the box and punt it in?
there was a period when you were all “show me the money” and then when folks did, you didn’t want to talk about it no more
– you also like oil drilling, as long as the revenue goes to england
in the discussion of the “troubles” I should have mentioned
THE REAL BOTTOM LINE : the state pension in the UK/NI is about 12K GBP, in Ireland its about 18K GBP – “fuck you and your protestant traditions and better together with the pooling and sharing”.
If Edward Carson was around today he’d probably say : fuck this, … I think I would like to TURN THE HEATING ON …
Confused;
“….back of the net!”
They don’t like it up ’em.
Keep ’em coming.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
It’s so much worse than that Confused…
Two words spring to mind ind….Canon fodder!!!
The only relevant benchmark for Scotland’s ECONOMIC POTENTIAL is with our small nation peers, most of whom are in EFTA.
Ireland (no oil), Norway (oil), Switzerland (banking) have GDPs in the range of 600-800B USD. Ours is 200B USD. Liechtenstein and Iceland are much smaller than us but have incredible GDP per capita.
Last years profit (the annual profit, not the worth) on the Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund was larger than our GDP and over 3 times our annual budget.
This is not “better together” it is – seriously fucked. Either way you look at it :
– either Scotland and its people are being looted massively
or
– our economy is chronically underdeveloped due to the UK’s London/South East/Golden Triangle obsession.
i.e. we are dealing with Grand Theft Scotland or utter incompetence. Pick one, but there is no argument for the union in each.
Most foreigners think we are insane to be a “member” of this union, this r4pe pretending to be a love affair.
as for England, well …
England doesn’t make anything anymore (Thatcher, remember?) – it imports things.
Because they are cheap.
This includes 44% of its food. Not just cheap shit from amazon, made in china.
Things are “cheap” because the currency, the pound, is “strong”.
Far stronger than it should be, for some reason. Many reasons will be given for this, all except the right reason.
– it is a de-facto “oil backed” currency. Like the dollar. But there is no comparison between the US and UK in global power.
UK – Scotland = England without a pot to piss in, no seat on the security council and a currency which should more rightly be about 80 cents to the dollar. Such a vicious devaluation of the pound (if we have our own currency) would likely lead to massive social unrest in England, boo fucking hoo. It is not enough that we succeed, others must fail. Indy is great, but England needs to go down in the process.
All paper needs collateral; only “real wealth” matters, not “claims on wealth” = paper we can print at will. Consider the americans – what do they do when they smash up a country? Do they grab the regime’s old banknotes? No, they seize the oil fields and the gold bullion in the central bank. That has value.
Gordon Brown sold the gold, so what is left?
“Confused” says “Gordon Brown sold the gold, so what is left?”
Confused…. you have been told MULTIPLE times by “Alf Baird” that there is £150 BILLION a year, year after year, just waiting for us Scots after Independence !
That’s what’s left !
Think about it !
The ironic thing being of course that if Scotland did become independent to bridge the fiscal deficit people like Confused would have to go to work rather than spend all day spewing nonsense out on the internet.
The defecit created by the English parliament?
Scotland has no defecit. But you know that already, don’t you?
And fatso….. so used to thinking about the word “defecate”,
cannot spell “deficit” !!!
But I was thinking of you at the time, petal.
Wind your neck in.
The deficit being the difference between the amount of tax raised in Scotland and total value of public spending taking place either directly in Scotland or elsewhere in the U.K. providing services to people living in Scotland. The Scottish government could negotiate £0 of national debt going forward and that would still be a problem.
“…providing services to people living in Scotland…” Like…..umm….HS2 maybe? London’s sewer system renewal? I know, new trains for the London underground, right?
Scotland’s Imaginary Debt;
In 2022-23 Scotland raised £87.5bn in tax which goes directly to Westminster. However, the Scottish Government only received a budget back of £59.7bn, a difference of £27.8bn staying in London.
It was reported for 2022/23 Scotland had a deficit of £19.1bn. The media and unionist politicians mistakenly or deliberately report this as Scot Gov overspending. However, it is a lie. There are some very interesting figures within Scotland’s ‘deficit’, for example: the figure of £9.1bn under the name of ‘Reserved public sector debt interest’ is Westminster debt being allocated to Scotland; debt Scotland had no part in creating or spending. That is 47.6% of Scotlands ‘deficit’, almost half is being created by debt loading from Westminster. If this debt was not being allocated to Scotland, the nation’s deficit would go down from 9% of GDP to 4.7%.
“…public spending taking place either directly in Scotland or elsewhere in the U.K. providing services to people living in Scotland…”
You mean like….umm…the Northern Line extension in london? New trains for the Piccadilly line, right? The london sewer system renewal? No? Oh I know must be the multi billion renovation of the English parliament building yes? HS2!?
Neither HS2 or new trains for the London Underground are apportioned to Scotland, and London’s sewer system isn’t public expenditure at all.
Given that Scotland has a higher portion of public sector workers as a whole and public spending per head is higher in Scotland, GERS almost certainly underestimates the scale of the deficit. And in any event the chance of Scotland negotiating £0 debt (still leaving a 4.7% deficit) is 0% given that that debt has been disproportionately accrued through the massive deficits caused by the gap between income and expenditure in Scotland over the last 10-years. I would expect HMT to demand that Indy Scotland takes debt in proportion to that deficit, not a per-capita figure.
Look at this, everyone – this charlatan “Aidan” is seriously (ha) trying to suggest that Scotland would be worse off independent.
let’s look at the statement from a couple of years ago: Andrew Bowie, Tory MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine admitted in an interview for the BBC “We now tax oil and gas companies 75% on their profits that they make, that 75% tax has gone towards paying for half of everybody in this country’s energy bills over the past winter. Oil and gas is important and it will be with us for the next 25-30 years.”
How can a nation of 5.5 million that has 90% of the UK’s oil reserves and roughly 60-65% of the gas reserves subsidise 34 million people’s energy bills for a whole winter but run a deficit and apparently be subsidised by its southern neighbour? The answer is; it’s bollocks. Just like “Aidan”‘s posts.
“James” I realise for a person like yourself the subject is incomprehensible and you have to try and work it out as best you can through vague vibes and feelings. For those of us who do understand macroeconomics it’s incredibly straightforward. The total tax take from North Sea oil and gas (both Scottish and English sectors) was £4.5bn in 2024, with a total government expenditure that year of around £1.2trn. So about 0.375% of public spending was funded through North Sea oil and gas revenues, with perhaps 0.2 to 0.25% of that being from the Scottish sector. That oil and gas revenue is also already accounted for in the £26.2bn deficit between tax raised and expenditure in Scotland.
What does pay the bills in the U.K. is the professional services sector, with an estimated value of £550bn, which on its own is bigger than all but 30 of the national economies in the world (including the Norwegian economy). That’s what allows Scotland to maintain an NHS etc.
Good grief, Fatso sticking his greasy head above the parapet and getting it blown clean off, I see. An intellectually challenged man whose entire politics and world view (such as they are) formed by idiotic anecdotes – as garnered over many years from worthless sources (e.g. some shitty pub stuffed with fellow embittered morons in various states of intoxication) – now predictably getting publicly eviscerated by an eloquent, educated but ruthless opponent.
Deliciously cruel? Certainly – but so, so well deserved.
Fatso, stick to randomly muttering “Prick” in response to posts (c.2-3 weeks after their publication), because that’s your gutter level. Otherwise pipe down and have at least one iota of self awareness.
“I realise for a person like yourself the subject is incomprehensible and you have to try and work it out as best you can through vague vibes and feelings.
Says AI Dan, the American artificially
intelligentstupid bloated botware bot whose fat-ersed lazy Yankee programmers evidently neglected to activate its “Polite Human Conversation” and “How To Avoid Being Perceived As a nasty Mean-Spirited Up Itself Pompous Program by Humans” modules.Judging by AI Dan’s petulant response to James’ comments I suspect James is right and Bloatbot Dan is barking up the wrong microchip.
Oh, and at least James is capable of having feelings… him being a real-live human and not a cobbled-thegither bunch o’ malfunctioning bytes.
I can’t recall if I’ve mentioned this before on here…but just in case I haven’t here it is:
How rude they are to the Scots, those colonialists (both AI and human) who wriggle aboot this place.
Ther scarce be a wird pit doun here fae colonialists that’s onythin’ ither than abuise, threit, lie, errure, afftak, diveesion, diversioun, distractioun, logicale fallace, or hatesome antiScot rethorik.
And again… in Ingle tongue:
There’s barely a comment posted here by colonialists that is anything other than insult, threat, lies, error, mockery, division, diversion, distraction, logical fallacy, or hateful anti-Scots rhetoric.
What does pay the bills in the U.K. is the professional services sector…
The first half of that sentence is nonsense and the second refers to England’s “City of London Square Mile”.
The City of London is the world’s money laundering capital (narrowly beating New York, I think) where the stolen cash – and other nicked valuables – of despots, tyrants, madmen, criminals and crooks is given a wee wash for a wee fee; it’s the only ‘wealth’ England ‘generates’ nowadays (it makes up for its own lack of riches by stealing Scotland’s).
Oh how once mighty empires inevitably end up on their erses scrabblin’ aboot stealing what they can and offering to provide dubious services for a fast buck or twa.
The Sun has finally set on that empire where once the Sun never set.
Otherwise pipe down and have at least one iota of self awareness.
What a coincidence… I was just thinking the exact same thing about you.
Oh no who could say anything rude to James, such a kind and pleasant man.
@Northcode – another tirade of incoherent babble to add to the pile, it’s not possible for any thinking person to engage with the kind of things you post which don’t make any discernible point, rely on any facts or evidence or bear any relation to any established fact/evidence/methods etc. or reality as a whole.
“… it’s not possible for any thinking person to engage with the kind of things you post…
Does that mean it IS possible for non-thinking persons to engage with my posts… like you just did?
It would be nice if some thinking colonialist (unionist if preferred… same thing) would show up here and offer up a REAL and genuine argument (logical or rhetorical) in favour of the union we anti-union independence supporting liberty questing Scots might engage with and demolish rather than just be treated as objects of derision for unionist entertainment.
Why would anyone spend any time trying to present an argument to someone who thinks that “Englands only form of wealth is money laundering”.
Ah Northie, “greetin” into your Earl Grey again about nasty “Inglis colonialists” calling you and other trolls here to account. What’s that rather modern expression that comes to mind? “Fuck around and find out” I believe? (I must confess that although I’m nowhere near your advancing years, obviously, I’m not exactly “down with the kids” as it were, so maybe I’ve got that wrong 🙂 ).
From my personal viewpoint, I don’t actually mind your dribbling on with the same old impotent guff and nonsense – I find you mildly amusing in the same way I might find a friend’s ancient 3-legged (rather infirm) King Charles spaniel that barks irrationally at shadows and farts a lot etc quite funny as well, making comedically awful smells despite its diminutive size. (Small doses, mind, old boy 😉 ).
I guess what I’m say is that, if you’re going to goad this way, however ineffectively and repetitively, you can’t really be too surprised when much bigger, badder dogs take the bait as it where, in keeping with the infirm spaniel metaphor. Maybe take up another hobby to pass the time?
Hope you’re having a good day, Cavecreature. Thanks for the Smiley faces…they made me smile.
Your paragraph etiquette and use of big words is improving btw.
No problem Northie, albeit please refrain from humping my leg. There’s a good little fella, have a soft biscuit. 🙂
thatcher is the reason why the english can’t afford a house – and they still vote tory/reform
link to youtube.com
don’t expect zero percent loans from nige
HOW TO DIVIDE A PEOPLE, begin laying down the law as to what is «correct» in thought, word and deed.
Hasn’t Scotland had its fill of preachers?
Sustained wind speeds of 185mph. God help them all.
Are we talking about James’ couch here?
“A peer competitior”? MegaLolz!!…The British Army wouldn’t last a month against the Russians…The entirety of Nato has flung hundreds of billions in cash and weapons at their proxy war with the Russians and are losing.
The news stated yesterday that there are plans to use a former army barracks in Inverness for asylum seekers.
That will be the possibly only time the fighting age men (shitebags) who ran away and can only scare or frighten girls and women and work delivering takeaways will be any where near a military facility.
Why does this despicable government abandon former forces personnel who fought for their country and favour refugees.
And even when spending on the forces and equipment are publicised why are governments reducing numbers,facilities and personnel and are willing to sell off property and assets quickly and easily.
Hatey McHateface says:
29 October, 2025 at 8:04 am
“A 49 YO binman hacked to death on the street walking his dog on Monday, by a knife-wielding illegal nutter putting into practice his interpretation of the Religion of Peace. “
======
Had he been hacked to death in Belfast by a member of the Shankill Butchers, would that knife-wielder be putting into practice his interpretation of St Paul’s Religion of Love?
Apologies, Peter. I must’ve used your reply button by mistake.
Perhaps our host will take a leaf out of Craig Murray‘s book and incorporate an edit function on the site?
A 49 YO binman hacked to death on the street outside his home while walking his dog on Monday, by a knife-wielding illegal nutter putting into practice his interpretation of the Religion of Peace.
Just another statistic in the almost daily litany of stories that make is just so hard to celebrate diversity these days.
Coming to the good people of Inverness soon. They’ll learn not to go out late. Women and girls will learn not to go out at all unless accompanied by fit, active male protection.
Everybody will soon learn when to cross the street, when to avoid making eye contact in public places, and how to vote Reform.
In other news, the world’s greatest living half-Scotsman, President Donald Trump, is upping the ante on the illegal drug-running boats, extending the “shoot to kill” policy from the Caribbean into the Pacific as well.
He’s giving the crims a choice; stop harming Americans, or get harmed yourself. I wonder if that kind of thinking could ever catch on here? Maybe make it safe once more for ordinary working folk to walk their dogs?
Fingers crossed.
Hatey McHateface says:
29 October, 2025 at 8:04 am
“A 49 YO binman hacked to death on the street walking his dog on Monday, by a knife-wielding illegal nutter putting into practice his interpretation of the Religion of Peace. “
======
Had he been hacked to death in Belfast by a member of the Shankill Butchers, would that knife-wielder be putting into practice his interpretation of St Paul’s Religion of Love?
Dunno, Cynicus.
Do the “Shankhill Butchers” have a right to reside in Belfast?
The binman murderer had no right to be where he was.
No matter how much you try to twist things, it’s never gonna be rocket science.
But I take your point. You may be one of those who is going to insist correlation does not mean causation, no matter what the body count, whether it’s street knifings, pop concert bombings, or “just” episodes where somebody’s innocent error results in them having to go into hiding with a fatwa declared on them.
One day, people who are old enough to remember a time before mass immigration WHEN NONE OF THESE THINGS EVER HAPPENED will have passed. And everybody will be unaware that bringing all these problems into the country was a deliberate, unforced, choice.
I think that it is an absolute disgrace that individuals criticise James. Don’t they realise that he is Scotland’s greatest ever fisherman and as such, should be afforded more respect.
Some people think that the reason for his success are that his skills have been honed over decades, fishing in all kinds of weather in rivers, lochs and seas but the truth is James is simply a Master Baiter. Well done James.
Ach Hatey, that’s just your white privilege causing you to “fixate on a couple bad apples” or something. No, the reality is that “Immigration is absolutely brilliant” as described here:
wingsoverscotland.com/your-enemys-mistakes/#comment-3092442
After all, we got some fancy food out of it so…err…it’s all totally worth it, right? 🙄
Independence for Scotland would mean Scotland taking an enormous financial hit, but for those who really want it, freedom is worth more than money. We should be brutally honest about it and admit that Indy would not mean a financial bonanza, but rather the opposite.
yet more bollocks. Three in a row *yawn*
How is your wrist James?
It would be naive to think that Scotland would be immensely rich from the get go, it will take years to set up a modern state that’s not a carbon copy Westminster.
However Scotland will emerge with a more efficient transport, health services, etc based on best practices borrowed from Scandinavian States.
Scottish Independence has always been about giving the future generations a real, meaningful and prosperous future, something that the current and future UK State will never ever deliver.
TRUMP IN JAPAN….
wearing cap with USA on it, lest ye forget.
signage PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, akin to «strength through joy», «arbreit macht frei»…..
His Teutonic side coming out i think.
Kaiser Donald?
His Gaelic speaking mother came from the land disposessed peasantry who lived in abject poverty in the UK’s still neglected peripheries, he looks nothing like her.
I could be wrong but I interpret “Peace through strength” as a warning that one has both the military capacity and the will to crush anyone who tries to mess around with them. So, it’s kind of like doing some serious weight-lifting and then going around in a really tight t-shirt 🙂
THEY MAKE A WASTELAND, and call it peace.
Exactly what the Americans did with Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Somalia, Iraq….& Native America.
An example to us all…be a bully, make a mess, teach ’em English.
isn’t it interesting how without any consultation the UK government have unilaterally announced that they are considering locating some 300 migrants in Inverness.
Quite why that immigrant who enter predominately from the ports and shores of southern England need to be transported some 6o plus miles to Inverness is a big question.
Very much seems that what’s happening is that England is saying lets stand in Scotland’s basket and dump our human detritus, as they consider these people, up in Scotland, No places in England.
Now unlike many I do not consider un certificated entry igrants as human detritus. They are people coming from all over the world, from places where war, oppression, terror, famine or lack of opportunity causes them to try and seek a better life elsewhere.
Pejoratively, as I have heard some of our southern British cousins describe, the porridge wogs, along with the bog Irish did a fair bit of emigration a century or so ago, Clearances, potato famine etc being the drivers.
But aside of the foregoing comments, and the recognition that immigration is an issue that needs to be managed, isn’t it just so strange how the announcement by HM government is that they are going to locate unapproved migrants up to the northern Highland of Scotland.
@Aidan
There are views about GERS that do not coincide with yours; views about Scotland’s debt that certainly do not coincide with yours.
Jim Cuthbert, former Chief Statistician of Scotland and his statistician wife Margaret have both written about GERS
He suggests they represent a colonial mindset. Scotland’s financial data being controlled and interpreted by a central authority.
It’s the reserved matters that may not accurately represent Scotland’s financial position.
Is not PFI and civil service pay included in the researved portion of GERS expenditure?
Jim Cuthbert has an online site which under Theme1 comments on Scotland’s financial situation, barnett, GERS, Smith settlement and more.
The economist James Ferguson says this about GERS. “It is a pretty blatant case of starting with the answer and working out the more granular line by line “estimates” backwards”.
It has been covered by Wings already.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
On debt
“One key insight is that the fiscal cost Scotland would bear is highly sensitive to policy choices. The UK’s decision to remunerate all QE-created reserves at Bank Rate effectively
inflated the size of the debt-like liabilities. If instead the UK (or Scotland in the future) chooses not to fully remunerate reserves or uses other tools, the effective burden can be reduced. In short, independence doesn’t lock Scotland into the UK’s current policy framework – Scotland could design its monetary-fiscal coordination in a way that suits its needs (for example, a smaller central bank balance sheet relative to GDP, different operating procedures, etc.). This underscores that the oft-cited headline figures of debt are not immutable; they depend on how monetary policy is carried out. An independent
Scotland could, for instance, decide that its central bank will not pay interest on a portion of reserves, thereby sparing Scottish taxpayers some of the costs that UK taxpayers are
now incurring.”
link to pure.strath.ac.uk
There is always room to criticise GERS, it’s a difficult methodology to create given the need to make judgements on the allocation particularly of revenue which is aggregated at a U.K. level and is difficult to apportion to any of the four nations. However, it is an independently assured statistical product produced by the Scottish Government and therefore is head and shoulders above anything else that anyone else is producing. Nor is there any suggestion that I’ve seen that Scottish tax revenue is structurally underreported or spending is over reported. The picture is very clear that Scotland as a whole receives more spending per head than is raised in tax, and those who quibble with the methodology as an excuse to deny that fact are only kidding themselves. Of course we also have to consider whether on independence jobs and companies would as a net move north or south, I think any reasonable analysis would conclude the movement would be south of the border given the number of firms based in Scotland who have to be in the U.K. for legal and regulatory compliance.
And of course an independent Scotland could make different choices on taxation and spending, but those choices come with consequences for public services and the economy, and the point is in the short term at least those choices have to include very significant either tax rates and/or spending cuts just to stand still in fiscal terms.
“[GERS]…it’s a difficult methodology to create given the need to make judgements on the allocation particularly of revenue which is aggregated at a U.K. level …”
Er, no; it’s total bollocks. So you are either an idiot or a liar and only you can tell us which it is….
Oh it’s “total bollocks” – what a compelling argument James, well done. There’s a Nobel prize in your future.
The Scottish parliament agreed to Sophia as part of the treaty.
But she was in position officially to send commissioners or negotiate on behalf of Scotland or participate as monarch of Scots until after the treaty was Signed, she was naturlized afterwards.
None of this detracts from the fact that Scotland having made claims they had rid themselves of their monarch king James, the gap in between left Scotland a country without monarchy until after the treaty was signed.
That prevailing gap was what made Scotland a republic country, a country without a monarchy, even if only briefly but as a community realm of the people.
And it was with this country Status that Scotland entered the treaty of union, not as a Country with a monarch,
The claim by Scotland also states that King James was a self declared dispotik king, the pretender,
As he had not taken the Scottish oath among other disgraces,
So again a period of time in Scotland, a country that had no official king or monarch prior to the treaty, being signed, not being run as a official kingdom, but a republic self governing.
These things are overlooked,
That England choose a relative ‘Sophia’ , from a broken line of monarchy and disposed pretender king in England and later likewise in Scotland (after the treaty )that then had to be naturlised as English to be Queen of England from the line of Hanover, alters very little in what I said,
Scotland had no monarchy to run a kingdom in The approach to the treaty of union and was being governed as a republic,
Unlike England since the bill of rights was passed in the English parliament, the Crown in Scotland does not sit or rest in the old Scottish parliament,
It rests with the people. And the Scottish CRown has sat vacant since the last self declared pretender king James in Scotland.
The two issues are as follows.
1,
Scotland was being run as a republic without monarchy in King James life time as he was a self declared king in Scotland , so could not have shared monarchy with England either.
2.
If Scotland Stated, which the Scottish parliament did, they have no monarch as head of their Country, they are officially and politically by obvious default a automatic republic of Scotland with a community realm of the people in 1706/ 1707.
Because up until the time treaty of union was actually signed the monarch of England was not monarch of Scots.
Therefore had no right to provide commissioners to the (independent Country of Scotland) without a shared monarch to negotiate the treaty of union, pre-treaty of union,
James Cheyne said;
“The Scottish parliament agreed to Sophia as part of the treaty.”
Yes.
“But she was in position officially to send commissioners or negotiate on behalf of Scotland or participate as monarch of Scots until after the treaty was Signed, she was naturalised afterwards.”
That was Queen Anne, not Sophia, and she really was in position to appoint both sets of commissioners. Sophia never got to be monarch of either kingdom, because she died before Anne did.
“None of this detracts from the fact that Scotland having made claims they had rid themselves of their monarch King James VII, the gap in between left Scotland a country without monarchy until after the treaty was signed.”
Not so, James, Scotland deposed James VII, and offered the throne to William and Mary in 1689, as part of the Claim of Right.
“That prevailing gap was what made Scotland a republic country, a country without a monarchy, even if only briefly but as a community realm of the people.”
There was no gap, James. The Claim of Right deposed James VII for egregiously breaching Scotland’s constitution, and then offered the Scottish throne to William and Mary in the very same document, and both decisions took effect at the instant it was enacted. The only delay was getting an acceptance response from William. Scotland’s throne never ceased to exist, and neither did its monarchy, and its Crown, throne, and constitution carried on without a break.
“And it was with this country Status that Scotland entered the treaty of union, not as a Country with a monarch,”
But James, Scotland’s monarch at the time of the signing of the Treaty was Anne Queen of Scots, and she had been so since 1702. She was the one who actively pushed it through. Further, the titles of both the English and Scottish Acts of Ratification of the Treaty was “ACT Ratifying and Approving Treaty of the Two Kingdoms of SCOTLAND and ENGLAND.”
“The claim by Scotland also states that King James was a self declared dispotik king, the pretender, As he had not taken the Scottish oath among other disgraces,
So again a period of time in Scotland, a country that had no official king or monarch prior to the treaty, being signed, not being run as a official kingdom, but a republic self governing.”
He was still the monarch of Scotland, just not a legitimate one. That didn’t mean Scotland was a republic for the time being. Nor did it become a republic when he was booted off the throne in 1689.
“These things are overlooked,
That England choose a relative ‘Sophia’, from a broken line of monarchy and disposed pretender king in England and later likewise in Scotland (after the treaty) that then had to be naturalised as English to be Queen of England from the line of Hanover, alters very little in what I said,
Scotland had no monarchy to run a kingdom in The approach to the treaty of union and was being governed as a republic,
Unlike England since the bill of rights was passed in the English parliament, the Crown in Scotland does not sit or rest in the old Scottish parliament,
It rests with the people. And the Scottish Crown has sat vacant since the last self declared pretender king James in Scotland.
The two issues are as follows.
1,
Scotland was being run as a republic without monarchy in King James life time as he was a self declared king in Scotland, so could not have shared monarchy with England either.”
He was not self-declared, James, he inherited the monarchy because he was the next in line. Every monarch since 1603 shared Scotland’s monarchy with England’s.
“2.
If Scotland stated, which the Scottish parliament did, they have no monarch as head of their Country, they are officially and politically by obvious default a automatic republic of Scotland with a community realm of the people in 1706/ 1707.”
Scotland stated no such thing, it merely stated James was deposed, and immediately offered Scotland’s throne to William of Orange in the same document. And there is nothing remotely automatic about becoming a republic, James!
“Because up until the time treaty of union was actually signed the monarch of England was not monarch of Scots.”
No. The monarchies were separate institutions, but had the same person embodying them, so the same person was both monarchs at once. This has been so since 1603.
“Therefore had no right to provide commissioners to the (independent Country of Scotland) without a shared monarch to negotiate the treaty of union, pre-treaty of union.”
Not so, James, Queen Anne appointed both sets of commissioners, because she was monarch of both kingdoms. Who else had the authority to appoint them? She was a binary monarch, not a unitary monarch. All the monarchs in Britain since 1603 were binary monarchs.
And on another tack I wonder how happy our indigenous porridge wogs as they have been described, will be to be called up and conscripted to fight our peer competitor by whom I understrand is Russia.
Scotland has been a fabulous source of military men in both world wars who went and died in proportionally more numbers than down south.
War is a tragedy. But for who is war fought. People do ask that question. Send in the Jocks but for whose benefit. And will they have the opportunity to do so again if we decide to go into Russia. We’ve active military over there already.
Just think of the pride in the Scottish breastie doing or dying, heroes to be ever commemorated.
It is therefore a concern to read over the weekend about a senior UK government source complaining that Scotland was a disgrace not having trained enough welders to support the war effort of warship building. The policy of deindustrialization over the last forty or so years was not a consideration. Rather it was the fault of Scotland to provide enough colleges.
And the Filipino welders who have been procured to weld our warships, one has to ask, if Scotland is so bad, why cant Luke Pollard just not important more foreign folks to not just weld but maybe fight too.
I mean, thinking about Hinckley C, the huge nuclear plant being built in England, reports are that of the circa 12,000 workers on site over half of them are from countries all over the world.
Now if we can employ foreign labour to build warships, uses steel made by Chinese companies and have England’s largest new nuclear power station built by thousands and thousands of foreign works, for a plant being built by a French state owned company, why on earth do we blame Scotland for not doing enough.
Or am I missing something? Maybe I am?
link to taxresearch.org.uk
GERS is CRAP
Jim Cuthbert’s letter to the BBC in 2014 disputing the claimof Robert Peston that the UK subsidised Scotland
“The acid test of whether an area is being subsidised or not is: suppose that area had not been part of the overall country, then would the rest of the country now be better or worse off? If the rest of the country would be better off, then it has indeed been subsidising the area in question.
On this test, and taking a starting point of 1980, round about when the Barnett formula was introduced, the position is very clear as regards whether the rest of the UK has subsidised Scotland or vice versa. If Scotland had become independent in 1980, and if it had at that point taken over a population share of UK debt, had enjoyed the same level of public expenditure on services now devolved as was funded by Barnett, had experienced the same levels of public expenditure on non-devolved services, (including a population share of services like defence, foreign affairs etc.), then Scotland today would have been at least £150 billion better off: and the rest of the UK would have been worse off by the same amount. In other words, under the Barnett formula, Scotland has subsidised the rest of the UK by at least £150 billion.”
When England declared king james as absent in England, Scotland went further and declared he was not the king of Scots at all. As he never had took the Scottish oath.
That statement by the Three estates, ended a shared monarchy between Scotland and England from the beginning of king James pretend reign.
After agreeing with Scotland three estates that had no monarch or shared monarch through king James,
England went on to presume that its monarch had an automatic right to take on and inherit cancelled kings shared monarchy to negotiate the treaty of union,
The fact that one person whom was in favour of a union wrote it had been witnnessed in England that the Scottish oath had been taken in England by the monarch of England holds as much evidence for being little more than propaganda as king James taken the the Scottish oath to become king of Scots,
The reality is that it was not wittnessed by the sovereign people of Scotland in Scotland, whom are Sovereign over their king,
This still does deflect from the fact Scotland having declared there was no king or monarch of Scotland, it could be recognised as a kingdom,
It was a territorial Realm and community of the Sovereign people of Scots governed by the Three estates as a republic,
England under Cromwell had no direct monarchy and was run by Cromwell as protectorist, until they reinstated the Scottish charles as their king,
Scotland without a king, likewise could not called a kingdom as there was no monarch as head ruling.
But was being governed as a republic in the 1700s without a monarch.
According to GERS methodology, Celtic beat Hearts 5-0 at the weekend. I am good with that.
– more seriously IF England was REALLY SUBSIDISING Scotland to the tune fo 26B GBP a year – that’s a quarter trillion a decade – it would be gone in a puff of smoke, treaty unilaterally torn up (they wouldn’t be asking us for a section 30). They would be gone – like the footballers wife when he moves to the lower leagues – “I’m just not feeling it anymore, babes …”
This tells you an infallible strategy for getting rid of these parasites; if it cost them a lot to be here, they would leave voluntarily.
and in other news :
even the business press will tell you thatcher fucked up housing
link to archive.ph
– she created a new class of parasites : the private landlord
so, not only in this economy can you not afford to buy a house, but you will be shafted by the landlords, nor will you be able to get a council house, because there aren’t any … all the exits are blocked off. But the english will still vote tory or now for the super tories – “reform” (DESTROY). This masochistic stupidity is yet another reason why I hate the english – it’s like being chained to a massive r3t4rd who makes all the decisions.
People might eventually work out their own solutions –
link to archive.ph
ages ago, and maybe several times I have posted lists which indicate vote rigging : #1 is “no exit polls” but there are many more.
Another is – “a break in the counting process”
link to archive.ph
– this is bullshit; apparently the counters aren’t doing a good job because staying up late makes them tired.
One particular thing that bugs me is these opaque ballot boxes; if they were transparent you could see how many have been posted. So, e.g. bad actors couldn’t provide boxes – “pre filled”. Holographic seals would also be a good thing. Might not see any more “late surge from the silent majority”.
tory tells the truth
link to youtube.com
american investor brazenly bursts the anglo reality distortion field; you’ve got nothing, you make nothing – enjoy this dumb cow’s desperate squirming and frantic “cope”
link to youtube.com
john jappy did the numbers for the govt; then he found out things were disappearing or being altered
link to youtube.com
– oldskool civil servants take a lot of pride in their work, that their numbers and consequent conclusions are reliable; the deceit was a shock to him
Therefore Scotland should have entered the treaty of union as a Sovereign community realm of the Scots and not as a kingdom,
Because the monarchy was only agreed too after the treaty of union was signed and put into each countries domestic law after being ratified.
Scotland however never entered the ratified treaty laws into their domestic laws of Scotland before the Scottish parliament was dissolved.
HMMMM…..when the English disposed of monarchy under Cromwell it was Scots who sought to restore it. May one presume that was the action of a sovereign people or just a few guys with an ax to grind?
Sovereign people only works with a constituency that is mature, politically sophisticated, well informed and with a nose for merchants of chicanery.
The act ratifying the Treaty of Union was passed by the Parliament of Scotland by 110 votes to 69 on 16 January 1707.