The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Groundhog days

Posted on November 18, 2016 by

Nobody could ever accuse the Scottish press of underpromoting its grievances – alert readers will still recall, for example, the long procession of articles with near-identical content in the Daily Mail last year about SNP MPs and their “second jobs”. For 2016, though, the media’s obsessive repeating of the exact same story every few weeks has manifested itself over Nat members’ expenses.


So let’s take a quick look.

The vast bulk of the Mail’s front-page lead piece today is on the cost of flights, and is no more than a direct lift of a non-story from the Daily Express in September, which was also picked up by other papers at the time.

It also makes it into today’s Times:


Readers familiar with this site’s regular warning that newspaper headlines are almost always a lie will be less than astonished to discover the truth (which we’d of course also pointed out in September) a little further down the Times’ article:


So the paper is using the lesser-known definition of the word “soar”, where it in fact rather counter-intuitively means “slightly decrease”. We’ve all heard of stuff soaring downwards, right?

(The weasel-word defence will be that the headline refers to certain individual MPs, but the only one listed in the Daily Mail’s top 10 claimers who was an SNP MP in the last parliament is Angus MacNeil, who represents the remote Western Isles and is therefore always likely to be a high expenses claimer.)

The only piece of new information in the Mail’s story is that some MPs had also paid their staff bonuses. But while the claim appears on the front-page strapline and opening paragraph, it’s not until halfway through the text that we find out just how weak an outrage it is:


Any “bonus” paid, in other words, is already included in MPs’ staffing budgets and doesn’t cost the taxpayer an extra penny.

So let’s recap: the SNP’s “expenses gravy train” comprises a reduction in travel expenses compared to the previous cohort of Scottish MPs – which was known about and extensively reported in the press eight weeks ago – and members’ staff being paid out of their normal staffing budget.

(And for that lower cost, SNP MPs are turning up more often, asking more questions and making more legislative impact than Scottish Labour’s benchwarmers ever did, partly because as the third-largest party they get extra Commons profile compared to Labour MPs from Scotland being swallowed up uselessly into the UK party.)

As scandals go, then, it’s right up there with “MP may have bought a bag of chips in 2011 without checking they were made from Fair Trade potatoes first”. Naturally that doesn’t stop the Mail wheeling in Eben Wilson, the only known member of “Taxpayer Scotland”, for a quote so stupendously demented we’re going to print it in full for you to marvel at in its sheer stream-of-an-idiot’s-consciousness majesty:

“The cost of politics is becoming outrageous.

‘Our political elite are creaming off vast quantities of taxpayers’ money for no apparent valuable purpose.

‘We know they have to travel but, as regular travellers acting on our behalf, there is an imperative to act economically, otherwise they are indulging themselves in the playground of the rich that Brexit and Donald Trump have shown offends many of us.

‘The cost for Scots of the secessionist dream is clearly high when Westminster is used as a punchbag for separatist opinion. Is that really fair and equal?’”

As it happens we actually have a shot of an SNP MP conducting a strategy meeting with his staff in his office, yesterday:


But remarkably, the Mail still then manages to up the ante with a hysterical editorial:

Our tax fuels bonfire of Nationalist vanity

Though the SNP maintain they are Stakhanovites, selflessly giving their all in pursuit of the betterment of constituents, it stretches credulity that they are working five times harder and that their staff are also deserving of lavish largesse.

We know Westminster’s subsidised hostelries have done a roaring trade since ‘the 56’ bellied up to the bar – and some have found time to conduct flings and affairs.

In the end, it is the hypocrisy that sticks in the public craw. MPs posing as single-minded, pious monks while filling their boots in the manner of so many money-grubbers before them will be harshly judged.”

We must admit, though, that we’re secretly pleased. Since the departure of its former political editor Alan Roden to oversee an orderly sinking of the Titanic that is Scottish Labour, the Mail seemed to have lost its mojo a bit, abdicating responsibility for truly shrieking-batshit coverage of Scottish politics to the Daily Express and its bona-fide moon-howling chemtrail-sniffing loony Siobhan McFadyen.







It’s still too early to talk of a comeback, of course. But at least by making a front-page lead out of a story that was pathetic two months ago, the Mail has given some sort of indication that it wants to get back in the game.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 18 11 16 13:57

      Groundhog days | speymouth

    278 to “Groundhog days”

    1. If anyone is interested Rev:-

      Annual John MacLean Rally, Sunday November 27. Glasgow.

      Short Oration at MacLean’s graveside, Easwtood Cemetery, Meet at gates afore 1 pm. Short oration till 1.15 pm.
      Then gather across the road at the Corner of Thornliebank RD/Boydston Rd. March 1.30 pm prompt. To John MacLean Cairn at Polloksahws Square for speeches.

      Scoriach straight after in the ‘Granary’, Shawlands Cross, junction of Kilmarnock Rd/Shawlands Rd
      Group: White Rose. Ticket £5. Children free, although children must order a meal (chips will do).

      John MacLean stood for a Scottish Workers Republic.
      Independence First. All welcome.
      Pipers wanted.

    2. bobajock says:

      Fortune favours the brave, and in this case, the little lad who edits the SDM (or is it a lass?) has a back catalogue of Express editions to refer to.

      One can only hope they were not used as toilet paper beforehand.

    3. Christopher Whyte says:

      Here’s a suggestion:

      Is there any point in contacting the universities and/or colleges that educated these “journalists”, and asking whether or not they’d condemn this horrendous standard of product?

      We know the papers don’t care; perhaps the establishments that are indirectly implicated might.

    4. Breeks says:

      In fairness, Westminster is going to look positively frugal with its expenses in a few months after Brexit.

      Scottish MPS will be forever jetting off to exotic locations in Europe while Westminster MPS stay at home waiting for the phone to ring, and perhaps even reading the Express for a few moments escapism from their frightening and colourless reality.

    5. Dr Jim says:

      Do they do cartoons in these publications I used to love the Bash street gang
      Pictures, we need pictures! and noises *SPLAATT* *KERRRBOOM*
      *BIFF* *BANG* *BOSH*

    6. Bob Mack says:

      These SNP guys and gals should be walking to London and back on a daily basis.and paying for the privelege no doubt.

      I would love a comparative pricing for North of England MP’S and also the unelected House of Lords.

      Frankly I do not care how much it costs. ( having travelled to London regularly), I know the outlay. It ain’t cheap. Maybe a better idea is to have our own full time independent parliament where English tax payer money would not be involved.

      I do not think English tax payers subsidise our MP’S anyway. I think we manage that ourselves just fine.


    7. Tartan Tory says:

      In my days as a petroleum forecourt operator and multi-site retailer, I had the joy of locating a news-stand outside my shop-front doors with a display of about a dozen daily titles.

      In my desire to protect my customers from the worst of the British tabloids, I used to disply the ‘Daily Sport’ in an about-face manner, so as to actually show a football picture rather than a salacious pseudo-porn image and unassociated nonsensical headline (anyone remember the London bus on the moon story?)

      Anyway, I imagine that if I was still in that position today (which thankfully I’m not) I would probably fill the bulk of the news-stand with pseudo-porn and then turn the Express back to front, rather than expose my customers to Siobhan’s mad-as-a-mad-thing-on-Prozac ramblings!!!

    8. Tam Jardine says:

      “Our tax fuels bonfire of nationalist vanity” screams the editorial but what does that even mean? Vanities were things that would tempt folk to sin like books, mirrors, cosmetics, art and so forth. So we are fuelling a bonfire of SNP… no you’ve lost me.

      It sounds like a pleasing little bon mot but it is really just sludge. Can anyone enlighten me?

    9. James Christie says:

      I honestly McFadyen’s chemtrail story was a wee spot of satire. Then I googled for it. Oh dear.

    10. Nation Libre says:

      Now, how could we avoid all those travel expenses down to London I wonder

    11. heedtracker says:

      Herald piles on demanding for Humza Yousaf to be sacked here with, hereto fore, instantly, with out notice etc…

      Is UKOK hackdom unique in their endless furious demands for Scots elected representatives to go all the time? Probably not.

    12. woosie says:

      Personally, I love to see this kind of 2nd year journalism from Madyin McFadyen.

      I know we should be trying to coax no-voters round to seeing the true facts, but IMHO anyone who takes this shit at face value isn’t needed in New Scotland!

    13. Liz g says:

      Em… the solution to the shocking waste of money is to not send MP’s down to work in England?
      Keep them in Scotland to govern.
      I’m sure we could find a parliament for them somewhere.

      I don’t think the paper has thought this campaign through!

    14. heraldnomore says:

      Palace refurb, and then Scots and Wales to get Brexit say at Supreme Court…

      Popcorn time.

    15. bjsalba says:

      To be fair to Angus Brendan MacNeil, he is the Scottish National Party Member of Parliament for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

      I would presume that he needs 2 flights, one to Scotland and then one to the islands – or have I missed the announcements for direct flights from London to Stornaway?

    16. Macart says:

      I thought paste up and spray glue were days long gone in pre press.

      Apparently not. 🙄

      Super fabby return to form on the Heil’s part right enough. Utter bollox clearly, but a return to form. 🙂

    17. Marcia says:

      Surely these papers should get an award for recycling.

    18. Glamaig says:

      I dont know how our MPs can sustain that lifestyle for 5 years. Especially the ones from the remoter areas. Ive done my share of long distance commutes in my time and its shit especially if it involves travel to London.

      Its insane to make MPs travel as far as that every week. Think how much better it would be for everybody if they only had to travel to Edinburgh, bet the Express would still whinge about their train fares though.

    19. Hamish100 says:

      Andrew Neil on TELE on brexit talks stating May who said “that they (talks) are not binary.” Do the Borg know?

      The Tory leave Guy Paterson said he didnt know what she meant and was annoyed saying ask May!! Help ma boab. This is a leave guy. Secrecy is essential.

      Does May really think that Germany, France etc have not got plans? that they have not second guess what the tories are doing. Shhhh it’s a secret.

    20. gordoz says:

      The vitriolic hate of the first minister is quite striking from this so called journo.
      Almost ‘stalkeresk’ in its persistent focus. The unhinged commentary is obviously idiotic for the most part.
      Security staff would be well advised to keep this nutjob with a sharp pen at arms length and never let her or her paper anywhere near the FM … Ever!

    21. Willson, LL.B says:

      Check out twitter or media references to Conservative MP, Priti Patel and expenses.

    22. Cactus says:

      *FREE Scottish field for every reader.

      NOW they’re giving our land away!

      Yes the press is in a mess.

    23. Bob Mack says:

      Just heard Trump has appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.

      This guy thought the KKK was all right until– he found out they smoked pot.
      He also famously called a Black leader “Boy” during a meeting.

      The way ahead looks rocky indeed.

    24. manandboy says:

      If these headlines weren’t effective as part of the daily brainwashing propaganda strategy, drawn up by 10 Downing St, they wouldn’t be using them.
      The plan of course is to have the Express/Mail/Sun etc., used on TV, eg. in ‘what the papers say’. It’s war – no question.

    25. Erling says:

      It’s a bit strange to realize that the SNP really is a party who is a bit selfdestructive.
      Working to make the elected MPs out of work.
      Working to create an independent Scotland where their chances of being in power will be diminished.

    26. heedtracker says:

      heedtracker says: duh.

      18 November, 2016 at 1:30 pm
      Every little helps, Graun reportage. Its an interesting idea actually writing to advertisers like Lego directly and asking them all why they DO advertise in Heil and Express open sewers in newsprint.

      Good on you Bob Jones. (Hope he’s a Dr Jones, sticking it to the nazi’s Hollywood style)

      “Lego has said it will no longer run toy giveaways with the Daily Mail in response to a parent complaining of the newspaper’s “unashamed discrimination”.

      Facebook user Bob Jones wrote to the Danish toy company last week and raised concerns about Lego’s tie-ins with the newspaper in light of headlines that he said “create distrust of foreigners, blame immigrants for everything, and as of yesterday are now having a go at top judges in the UK for being gay while making a legal judgment”.

      In a post that was shared on the social media site 22,000 times, he wrote: “Lego, to me has always been an inclusive product,” and asked the company whether it intended to continue brand partnerships with the Daily Mail.

      On Saturday the company responded on both Twitter and Facebook: “We have finished the agreement with the Daily Mail and are not planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper.”

    27. galamcennalath says:

      SNP MPs are turning up more often, asking more questions and making more legislative impact than Scottish Labour’s benchwarmers ever did,

      Exactly. Our new representatives spend their time representing voters and looking after their constituents interests, a novel idea for most Scottish MPs.

      bona-fide moon-howling chemtrail-sniffing loony

      And a liability, even by Express brass necking standards. 🙂

    28. heedtracker says:

      Further down that Graun thing on the Heil sewer, please Lego why do you get involved with it?

      Stop Funding Hate @StopFundingHate
      We love this polite, friendly & heartfelt msg from Bob to @LEGO_Group urging them to #StopFundingHate ! … #keepitcivil

      LEGO ? @LEGO_Group
      @StopFundingHate We have finished the agreement with The Daily Mail and are not planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper
      9:07 AM – 12 Nov 2016

    29. heedtracker says:

      From same Graun thing. Brick by Brick indeed. Guys like Lineker do more for this union than a million copies of the Heil, Express, BBC Scotland news vote NO fury.

      “On Friday, Gary Lineker, the star of Walkers adverts, said he had held talks with the crisp brand about its advertising in the Sun, following a spat between the former footballer and the newspaper over his views on the refugee crisis.

      He said people would have to “wait and see” about the outcome, but Walkers said: “Our advertising approach is not determined by the editorial stances of individual newspapers.”

      Gary Lineker ? @GaryLineker
      Brick by brick…..
      12:01 PM – 12 Nov 2016
      7,342 7,342 Retweets 19,261 19,261 likes

    30. Greannach says:

      Maybe the MPs could donate their pay and expenses to the Queen for the upkeep of her family’s house.

    31. Proud Cybernat says:

      With the yoon corrupt colonial media, it goes something like this:

      ‘The Eck’s Files’

    32. Dan Huil says:

      There’s a noose loose about the hoose. Hing ’em aw!

    33. Robert Peffers says:

      @Christopher Whyte says: 18 November, 2016 at 12:04 pm:

      ” … Is there any point in contacting the universities and/or colleges that educated these “journalists”, and asking whether or not they’d condemn this horrendous standard of product?”

      You are either very naïve or you are having us on. Are you not aware the educational establishments in both the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England have been fully paid up members of the Westminster Establishment since long before the Treaty of Union of 1706/7?

      Why else do you imagine the history taught in our schools, colleges and universities is the biggest load of lying tosh ever taught?

      We have raised generations of Scots with no real concept of their own history and culture. This is directly attributed to the educational establishments throughout the United Kingdom parts of the British Isles.

      For one tiny example I highlighted recently. The history taught about Bruce and the spider is total fiction and was invented by none other than Sir Walter Scott.

      Yet Sir Wattie copied an, also fictitious, tale, (that’s plagiarism BTW), of a, much earlier, similar fictional tale written about The Douglas.

      It’s all downright lies – Think of the teaching of a Union Of The Crowns in 1603. It never happened as is plain from the titles held by Jamie Saxt. He remained, at a time when the laws of the English Kingdom were still Devine Right of Kings, James VI of Scotland and James I of England.

      Truth is he could not, as Scots monarchs had not been legally sovereign in Scotland since 1320. As he was not sovereign in Scotland he had not, under divine right, the legal right under English law to annex the crown of the Kingdom of England.

      This is clearly why the English Government forced a Treaty of Union in 1707. Obviously no such treaty was needed if there was already a Union of the Crowns. So why is it still taught in Scottish educational establishments?

      Then we have the Battle of Culloden in 1745. Nearly 40 years after the Treaty of Union that saw the English army still fighting the Jacobites they claimed were rebels against a King of England.

      The so called Jacobite rebellions began in 1688 after the English Glorious revolution that deposed the monarch of England but Scotland, being still an independent kingdom until the Union of 1707, was not affected legally by a still independent Kingdom of England. How could the Scots Jacobites be rebelling against a monarch not their own?

      Get the picture now, Christopher?

      I went through my entire time in Scottish education being physically punished for speaking my native language in class, (I did so deliberately).

      I was being taught that my native language was English slang. Yet on the first day I entered a Scottish schoolroom for the first time I was still reading one of the short stories of Robert Louis Stevenson.

      It was thus partly written in the tune, (dialect), of my own native leid, (Language). Mind you at that time I did not realise there was really a difference between Scots and English language.

      For then I just naturally adopted my conversation depending upon that of the person I conversed with. Either Lallans Scots, Scots Standard English or Standard English. It is what many tri-lingual Scots refer to as Speaking their telephone language.

      These, “telephone”, voices are used to communicating with yet unknowns or with any form of state authority, (and there’s another clue for you about our educationalists), for these were the prime authority of our early student days.

      I can even tell you the story I was reading – “Thrawn Janet”, – You can read it here yourself for free:-

    34. Arbroath1320 says:

      If anyone wants to check out what their M.P. is costing the taxpayer then this may be of some help.

      As a wee aside I was wondering, as were a few I saw on Twitter last night, about this high level of unionist media gnashing of broken teeth. From a few tweets I read last night there have been a few opinion polls recently but their findings have not been published allegedly. People on Twitter were discussing the possibility that the increase in teeth gnashing was down to the polling results showing an increase in support for Scottish independence.

      This is just me postulating a consideration about various possibilities you understand I have no hard evidence to back up my considerations here … YET! 😀

    35. Robert Peffers says:

      @Dr Jim says: 18 November, 2016 at 12:09 pm:

      “Pictures, we need pictures! and noises *SPLAATT* *KERRRBOOM*
      *BIFF* *BANG* *BOSH*”

      That, Dr Jim, sounds much like a session of FMQs at Holyrood.

      BTW: Anyone else noticed the still prevalent way many of the Yoon, (for lack of a better description), journalists pronounce the name of our parliament like, “Hollywood”.

    36. Clapper57 says:

      If we are talking ‘REAL’ Gravy Train expenses check out Rachael Swindon on Twitter she regularly exposes Tory MP’s who backed cuts to ESA and yet claim for a shit load of expenses.

      You only need to scroll down on her Twitter to see how she exposes the ‘elite establishment’ i.e. Tory MP’s .

      She is extremely informative and relentless in her quest to expose hypocrisy….as is the Rev of course.

      The information she gives , like the Rev, exposes the ‘REAL’ Gravy train as used most vigorously by Tory MP’s .

      Express & Mail………….Eat your heart out….LOL

    37. CameronB Brodie says:

      Ethics and morality are indispensable girders of sustainable approaches to real-world scenarios.

    38. Michael McCabe says:

      Sorry for going o/t Douglas Fraser is doing a Facebook Live stint about Unequal Scotland at 2pm today if anybody wants to join in. I don’t do Facebook. hopefully some on here would like to Question Douglas. if so feedback would be Appreciated. Cheers.

    39. Robert Peffers says:

      @Bob Mack says: 18 November, 2016 at 12:10 pm:
      ” … I know the outlay. It ain’t cheap. Maybe a better idea is to have our own full time independent parliament where English tax payer money would not be involved.
      I do not think English tax payers subsidise our MP’S anyway. I think we manage that ourselves just fine.”

      How about Westminster lays on one of the ROYAL Air Force giant cargo planes to fly them back and forward to Heathrow?

      They could justify the use of such flights as training mission practicing for when the get Brixit and are transporting all those millions of foreign layabouts back to where they really belong?

    40. Macart says:


      Heh. They may have a bit of problem on that score. There’s a reason that National survey is out there right now.

      And on that note…

    41. HandandShrimp says:

      I am not sure. I think the Mail is consistent in its petty propaganda but it is dull and unimaginative. I don’t gove the Mail a second glance. Siobhan, on the other hand, is totally out there. It is almost like she is using the Sunday Sport “Bus found on the Moon” as a template for serious journalism.

      The Express is not a serious newspaper….it isn’t even a tabloid. The Express is news for credulous nincompoops.

    42. gordoz says:

      Jeeez that naebd monicker in a ding dong with Stu on twitter is a real thicko.

      Completely wrong on pensions and cant admit it.
      Thinks UK can deny pension payments to current contributors.
      Like to see the markets nosedive if they tried !

      Rev had to resort to the Goldie lookin chain song

      Countries’ don’t get pensions; people do !

    43. Robert Peffers says:

      Just to make my last comment clear – those flights back to Scotland were my sly dig at the Westminster concept that all those layabout sweaties Dan Sath are to be returned to Scotland on the RAF transporters after Brexit and independence and that the UK, (sic), would be claiming the RAF as English only, (sic).

    44. Proud Cybernat says:

      Post-truth? Past-truth?

      Nah–it’s just pissed truth.

    45. Arbroath1320 says:

      Apologies for O/T here. I came across this on Twitter and thought those brave souls who managed to survive sitting through the SNP hatefest last night, a.k.a. BBC Question Time, may like a wee update on a certain “participant” from the audience. 😉

    46. HandandShrimp says:

      How long before Siobhan claims Satanic black rites being held in Holyrood and that Nicola is an anagram of Lucifer (in ancient Pictish)?


    47. Phil Robertson says:

      Very selective in your reading of the Times article. The piece IS about individual MPs and your attempt to conflate it with articles elsewhere is simply a smokescreen.

      The main thrust is that the travel expenses of Alex Salmond were three times greater than those of Malcolm Bruce while those of Steve Paterson and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh were more than five times those of their predecessors.

      To some of us, such increases merit an explanation.

      (In the Scottish print edition the headline is “SNP defends higher travel expenses”.)

    48. Bryan Weir says:

      We can laugh at how blatant and shameless these people are. We can be as dismissive as we like about the shite that they publish but the reality is that it cost us #indyref1.

      The further reality is that it will cost us seats in future elections and perhaps the chance of #indyref2 because this will not be called when there are signs of a reducing YES vote.

      They have clearly decided to try to make this shite about the SNP disintegrating stick. By saying it often enough people will start to believe it. It works!

      They must be held accountable.

    49. Desimond says:

      No such thing as a Free Press, rememebr people pay to get hand delivered such garbage as above!

      As for Post Truth, should be Faux-Truth and the fact its now “estabvlished” just means they can all claim “everyone does it” and suddenly no one questions anything ever again.

      Like that Question time stitch up last night, the establishment will happily allow the blinkered plebs to forever argue amongst themselves while they salivate at the big table.

    50. galamcennalath says:

      Re travel expenses.

      Is it not obvious that our representatives are keen to be in Westminster on our behalf? Much keener than many predecessors. The attendance and voting records prove this.

      Also, once the working week has ended they want to get the fck out of London to saner surrounding and who can blame them? Some of the previous Yoon MPs might even have preferred to stay in London, such was their No-so-proud-Scot Cringe.

    51. Proud Cybernat says:

      It’s all relative…

    52. Dorothy Devine says:

      I want those newspapers peddling downright lies sued by the Scottish Government .

      Let’s hear them bleat about ‘free speech’ in court.

      Whoever writes that guff in the Daily Express should be first up – pour encourager les autres.

    53. Robert Peffers says:

      @heedtracker says: 18 November, 2016 at 12:29 pm:

      ” … Is UKOK hackdom unique in their endless furious demands for Scots elected representatives to go all the time? Probably not.”

      What I find particularly hilarious is that all but three of the Scots MPs are down there with the express mandate to NOT journey to London and back again to their place of work.

      Brings to the fore the old sayings, “Blind Hatred”, “Blind Panic”, and, in the case of Westminster Establishment members, “Blind Drunk”.

    54. Dan Huil says:

      Travel expenses will be a lot less after Scotland regains its independence.

    55. heedtracker says:

      The main thrust is that the travel expenses of Alex Salmond were three times greater than those of Malcolm Bruce while those of Steve Paterson and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh were more than five times those of their predecessors.

      To some of us, such increases merit an explanation.

      And you get them in the open sewer that is UKOK hackdom in Scotland Phil.

      What is it with red and blue tory yoonsters out there that do not like any “back chat” Phil?

    56. Cactus says:


      There aren’t many televisual shows that consist of a mathematician, a librarian, a celebrity guest and host.

      REPLACING for nine.

      Rick a tick tock.

    57. Macart says:

      Oh Jings! This’ll leave a mark. 😮


    58. Andrew Mclean says:

      Phil Robertson

      Yes it’s correct to pose the question, off hand I don’t know the answer as neither is my MP. But for my area, The labour girl, was hardly ever there, she missed important votes, preferred jaunts abroad, My MP attended more in his first month that his predecessor in a year. He has spoken more in his first year than she did in her entire parliamentary life. She spoke three times, once got the thred wrong and attacked her own governments policy, thinking it was the conservatives.

      So democracy is not cheap, but it’s a damned lot cheaper than the alternative.

      To finish it is universally acknowledged that the 56 MPs are an asset to Westminster, even when wishing its demise. Unless you read stupid papers for stupid people, then they are an embarrassment of clapping.

    59. Another Union Dividend says:

      Macart says

      Great News. The Supreme Court today threw a further hurdle in the way of Theresa May’s hopes of a smooth Brexit, when it ruled the Scottish and Welsh governments can intervene.

      Edinburgh and Cardiff will be allowed to make their separate cases to the court for the right to have a say over the triggering of the Article 50 notice period.

      On MPs travel expenses, Daily Mail and Express failed to mention that as a former First Minister for Scotland, who has been subjected to numerous threats from mad yoons, the House of Commons Serjeant at Arms had advised Alex Salmond not to use public transport on his own on security grounds, forcing him to travel with a member of staff.

    60. K1 says:

      Anyway Phil ye have tae consider that it is a ‘selective’ use of data that these reports are utilising to ‘make their’ point. So how about we consider that 2013/14 figures as well for a more ‘nuanced’ comparison?

      And as you are keen to focus on the ‘individual’ expenses of Alex Salmond, considering he holds the ‘shadow’ Foreign Affairs portfolio ye’d think the ‘average’ person would unerstaun that he might be travelling a bit farther afield in that capacity?

      If…and I mean ‘if’ you posses a seriously enquiring mind, why don’t you look up his ‘actual’ expenses, which may actually just confirm that a big part of his expenses are taken up wi ‘flying’ aboot…probaly in his capacity as constituent MP and (shadow) Foreign Affars…ah would think.

      Do it for ‘aw’ MP’s Phil, go on…go do some investigative journalism and find out whether this really is a ‘story’ that merits the level of ‘shock horror’ that these newspaper continually ‘insist’ that these non stories merit.

    61. Brian Powell says:

      The interesting thing is the UK establishment is in a much worse state of panic now than in the run-up to 2014.

      They still hope it will all go back to the usual, the problem with that is when I discover somebody is an utter shit I don’t forget that after a while. The establishment of the UK, newspapers, journalists, LabConLib politicians, TV interviewers are the biggest group of utter shittists around.

      There won’t be a time when that is forgotten.

    62. Bob Mack says:

      Please remember that SNP MP’S do not book their own travel. They are booked through an office at Westminster. Whatever the cost it has been approved and booked by the relevant Westminster office. This is the bulk of their expenses outside of accommodation which also has to be approved.
      This is all very pathetic

    63. Jack Murphy says:

      TODAY. A good read for Mr and Mrs Express.
      Buck Hoose to get £369 refurbishment !
      Some pensioners I know are afraid to switch on their heating.

      BBC Archived:

    64. Macart says:

      @Another Union Dividend

      Aye, the pub barristers who pass themselves off as media commentators inexplicably got that one wrong. It appears Scotland does have a case which requires answering after all.

      Who knew? 🙂

    65. Sinky says:

      Phil Robertson says:

      The comparisons made by the Labour Party and reprinted in the right wing press compared 2015/16 with last year 2014/15 which was an election year and Westmister hardly met after their extended Christmas Holidays so that MPs could campaign in their constituencies.

      A proper comparison would be with 2014/15 where you will see that there is not much of a difference.

      btw a great article challenging GERS figures in to-day’s National

      PPS Andy Murray looking very good for a two set win.

    66. potter says:

      Phil Robertson
      You must be fair proud that the reason Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and Alex Salmonds expenses are so high is both have been advised not to travel alone due to threats.

    67. Robert Peffers says:

      @Phil Robertson says: 18 November, 2016 at 2:23 pm:

      “Very selective in your reading of the Times article.”

      Ooooh! What a perfect example of one cooking utensil telling another cooking utensil it has a rather dark coloured base region.

      Quite amazing what some folks can do with the English language is it not Phil?

    68. Another Union Dividend says:

      @ Macart

      The Livingston True Blues Flute Band leader – that is the mad yoon in orange jacket on last night’s Question Time – will be seething at this undermining of democracy.

    69. heedtracker says:

      The National’s really got Dr NO! er, aroused today. Was he on BBC QT routine display of Scotland in union last night?

      National front page, “Looking beyond GERS*

      Scott Arthur ?@DrScottThinks 17h17 hours ago Edinburgh, Scotland
      Tonight is one of those nights I think I’ve been duped by a parody.


      Scott Arthur Retweeted
      Scott Arthur ?@DrScottThinks 17h17 hours ago Edinburgh, Scotland
      A new kind of mathematics has been developed by nationalist boffins to magic away the Scots deficit.

      jolly annoyed

      Scott Arthur ?@DrScottThinks 8h8 hours ago
      Post Truth Politics, Post Maths Politics or just old fashioned lies?


      Silly old Dr NO! If only every single banner headline on every single Scottish newsstand could be vote SLab, SNP bad, every day.

    70. Sinky says:

      heedtracker says at 3:38 pm
      The National’s really got Dr NO! er, aroused today. Was he on BBC QT routine display of Scotland in union last night?

      You mean Merryn Somerset Webb, a Question Time regular when in Scotland, but BBC won’t mention that she is a board member of Scotland in Union.

    71. Cactus says:

      Replacing, that’s what’s happening. Lot’s have happened already, more will come. Among others, the city of Glasgow being next May.

      Online political media is replacing the printed press.
      Home entertainment systems are replacing broadcast television.
      Talk is replacing silence.
      Our neighbour EU flag will be replacing the UK flag.

      X flag is always home.

      Whaddya think @Bill Murray.. snow this fall? Ask the groundhog, what’s his name again? 😉

    72. @Robert Peffers

      sorry to be a pedant,

      but as I am sure you well know Culloden was`46`

    73. heedtracker says:

      Sinky says:
      18 November, 2016 at 3:49 pm
      heedtracker says at 3:38 pm

      Didnt watch it Sinky. Life’s too short. Its BBC attack propaganda at its worst really. Harder the BBC weewee’s all over our fledgling democracy, the more the yoons like it though, as Euan MacSpanner displays. Only a toryboy in Scotland can cringe like this to be fair.

      euan mccolm ?@euanmccolm 17h17 hours ago
      friends in england! this is what scotland’s like now. send help. #questiontime

    74. heedtracker says:

      Political discourse, on planet toryboy. And they wonder why they’re on the down escalator, British down escalator!

      euan mccolm Retweeted
      Paul Whitelaw ?@paulwhitelaw 16h16 hours ago
      @euanmccolm John Nicolson looks like Swiss Toni on a ghost train.
      0 replies

      euan mccolm ?@euanmccolm 17h17 hours ago
      see what i mean?

    75. Cactus says:

      Gaun.. cast your shadow and be gone ya wee beastie!

    76. Macart says:

      @ Another Union Dividend

      Not up on last night’s QT or this chap, but I’m sure in the fella’s own mind he’ll square that circle. How and ever, this was the UKs top court, not Scotland’s. 🙂

      Here’s the thing though, the law isn’t a serving suggestion and we live by them for a reason. Scotland is party to a Treaty of Union which carries legal responsibilities in both directions. It is also party to a devolution settlement (ditto), and the outcome of two referendums (again ditto), with results which come to a constitutional variance and only one of which was not merely advisory, but legally binding.

      The first referendum had the legally binding outcomes in case that fella was wondering and it wasn’t the Scottish government who ran a bus through the pledges that formed said legally binding outcome. So to recap… the legality of our union runs in both directions.

      The Scottish Government and more importantly the Scottish population do indeed quite clearly have somewhere to go here and do have questions which the UK government should be called upon answer.

      Over to them then and in their own time.

    77. Macart says:

      @ Heed

      Mr Arthur is aware that Scotland doesn’t and indeed is not allowed to have a deficit right? 😉

    78. Gary45% says:

      Is Soggy Fagend actually human?
      This has to be a fictional person, surely a news?paper of any form, even the lowest of the gutter garbage would not print the ramblings of an ignoramus, but hey ho we are referring to Yoon garbage here.

    79. CameronB Brodie says:

      Re. post-truth politics. Why not put down that tiered old perspective of yours. The one bound up in the modernist Victorian age. Why not step in to the quantum reality of post-modernity, it’s a liberating experience? Especially for those who have been colonised.

      P.S. What about my human rights fanny-bawz, seeing as you are so concerned with social justice.

      “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

      “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

    80. Thepnr says:

      Here’s another from the Express this week which typically believes it is demeaning to the FM. For me though the opposite is true and shows THEIR ignorance. It just shows how smart she is in relation to them on a topic discussed here on Wings in the last 24 hours.

      That is, are the SNP shrinking back from their commitment to remain in Europe? I don’t believe they are and this “attack” explains nicely why they are not.

      Even Nicola Sturgeon’s own advisors have told her Brexit demands are MEANINGLESS

      NICOLA STURGEON is facing fresh embarrassment after her own handpicked advisers blasted her single market Brexit demands as MEANINGLESS.

      By: REBECCA PERRINGPublished: Tue, November 15, 2016

      Nicola Sturgeon has been warned the UK is more important for Scotland than the EU
      Deluded Ms Sturgeon is desperate to see Scotland remain in the European Union (EU) single market, even when the UK comes out of the Brussels club.

      But the First Minister’s Standing Council on Europe, Dr Fabian Zuleeg of the European Policy Centre said this was “highly unlikely”.

      And Ms Sturgeon’s panel member, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the Scottish cross-bench peer who wrote the Article 50 process for a member state to leave, recently told the BBC it would be impossible.

      Tory finance spokesman Murdo Fraser is set to challenge SNP ministers to spell out what they want from Brexit and to achieve “absolute clarity” from the UK Government.

      Even Murdo Fraser might have got close to being right with this statement:

      He said: “This is the eleventh debate the Scottish Government has held on the consequences of Brexit, with increasingly little new to say on the subject.

      “It talks about membership of the single market, but that concept simply does not exist separately from membership of the EU, as I’m sure its committee of expert advisers has told it.”

      Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish government do not have to scream about EU membership, simply to talk of access to the single market is enough as that access is dependent upon EEA or EFTA membership as a minimum. The two are inexplicably linked.

      Single market access will require free movement of people and that isn’t going to happen unless the whole UK goes for an EEA deal and that’s not going to happen either.

      The SG has Westminster over a barrel on this, I’m sure the 17 special European advisers to the SG on Brexit talks know exactly what they are doing.

      We should trust them to get on with it. There will be a second Independence referendum. The question should be when.

    81. heedtracker says:

      Macart says:
      18 November, 2016 at 4:02 pm
      @ Heed

      Mr Arthur is aware that Scotland doesn’t and indeed is not allowed to have a deficit right?

      Urgh. Don’t know why I check out yoon culture online as its a very mad place, oor Dunc’s currently raging away for latest Buck Palace several hundred million quid splash of cash, its good for the UK says Dunc and co. That’s just SLab toryness.

      Blue tory fury’s all over the place as Leave UK must stay in the EU but only the single market, nothing else, or else, or else what? no one knows. What did Leave vote for, if Brexit means not Brexit.

      Brexit’s just another toryboy hokey cokey catastrophe, sponsored by the BBC.

      From the Murdoch chump what said Brexit will mean lashings more Scottish devo, if we’re nice and vote Brexit.

      Kenny Farquharson ?@KennyFarq 7h7 hours ago
      Scotland can be Theresa May’s secret weapon in push for soft Brexit. My column in @thetimes today.

      Dr NO! still means Dr NO!

    82. katherine hamilton says:

      Mr Phil Robertson
      The variation of expense claims is interesting, though like you I don’t know why this is the case.
      The insidious nature of your post is the SNP people claim more so something must be up.
      However I can do conjecture too. Maybe the SNP people go every week, and the others didn’t. That’s obviously rubbish,too, cause I just don’t know.
      If you’ve come back here after a while, welcome. You might learn something.

    83. Imagine getting up every morning and realising that peddling this shit is your job. What must their self esteem be like?
      They have gone faux insane at last!
      Anything to sell ‘papers.
      They really are rattled now. The ‘secret’ polls must indicate YES winning at a canter.
      Who actually buys these rags? Professional people? Lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers? Intelligeny folk who went tae Yoonie?
      More worryingly, who believes this utter tossery?
      Certainly the Neanderthal in Orange on last night’s QT farce from Stirling would be ‘outraged’.

    84. Scott says:

      Scots and Welsh can have say in Brexit court case
      1 hour ago
      From the section UK Politics

      Humza Yousaf rejects calls to quit as transport minister

      Both these stories on BBC note comments allowed on the top one.
      As has been mentioned in other places it reminds me of what happened to Stuart Stevenson and the BBC were well to the fore in getting him removed from his post.

    85. Lorraine says:

      ‘moon-howling chemtrail-sniffing loony Siobhan McFadyen.’


    86. gus1940 says:

      It was v. interesting to see how the media put a positive spin on yesterday’s retail figures.

      Of course people are spending big before the prices go up on all our imports due to the crash of the pound.

      Just wait a couple of months and there will hardly be a thing in the likes of Currys and PC World that hasn’t shot up in price.

      I wonder how they will spin their way out of that one.

    87. Thepnr says:

      @katherine hamilton

      Phils question has been answered by potter at 3:30 in the case of Alex Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh. Both have been advised by Westminster that they must travel with personal protection due to personal threats and their protection travel costs are included in the total claim for expenses.

      3 persons cost three times more than I would assume.

      Links from potter. Thanks potter by the way.

      Hope that helps clear things up Phil.

    88. heedtracker says:

      Jack Collatin says:
      18 November, 2016 at 4:20 pm
      Imagine getting up every morning and realising that peddling this shit is your job. What must their self esteem be like?

      It all relative. What would you’re average ligger do, without Scottish democracy to monster, toll the Welsh, johnny Foreigner?

      eg, Caught ten seconds of Andrew the Ligger’s Daily Politics BBC lunchtime broadcast on behalf of the tory party today and a tory ligger explained to the Ligger how amazing the Indian market is, for Scotch whisky.

      Just caught end of Andy Murray O2 match, spanked the Swiss guy, BBC liggers show the edited highlights of a match, not the Murray match just finished but Murray winning the Davis Cup, for teamGB.

      Scotland is a region of greater England and dont you forget it young chappy m’laddy.

    89. CameronB Brodie says:

      Would you not like to have access to the INALIENABLE human right enjoyed by the majority of humanity? I would, so I’m wondering why you wish to de-legitimise my humanity? Are you a bit of a neo-fascist?

      “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

      “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

    90. Jamie Arriere says:

      Any mention of this in their calculations?

      Provided they went through with it, any idea that they’re lining their pockets is complete hokum. They’re donating about half the cost of the air expenses (£7k x 54/6) to local charities all over Scotland.

      Hell bloody mend ’em

    91. Proud Cybernat says:

      “Great News. The Supreme Court today threw a further hurdle in the way of Theresa May’s hopes of a smooth Brexit, when it ruled the Scottish and Welsh governments can intervene.”

      It’s all falling into place for Theresea May. She’s probably had this ‘planned’ all along. Now all she needs is for the Supreme Court to uphold Scotland’s ‘say’ on Brexit and it’s all the fault of the damned smelly socks that England can’t have its Brexit.

      “I tried everything in my power. I really, really, really did,” May protests. “But it’s those Scots–and the bloody courts. Sorry but we can’t do Brexit.”

      Can yae just imagine…

    92. CameronB Brodie says:

      You can’t ouch me but I can sit hear and pick you to bits like FAN-BOY, through applied principles of contemporary social science. Shall we go there?

      I don’t fancy your chances much, what do you reckon?

    93. Thepnr says:

      @Proud Cybernat

      If May bottles out of Brexit now then she must surely face a general election. One in which UKIP would do quite well I fancy at the expense of the Tories.

      Is that a risk worth taking for her? I don’t know and you could be right. It would be a shambles either way and would likely delay a second Independence referendum but not stop one.

      A second referendum is unstoppable, it will happen because the people in Scotland will demand it at some point.

    94. Tinto Chiel says:

      Robert Peffers @1.47.

      Glad you mentioned “Thrawn Janet”. I think it’s one of the most chilling short stories ever written. The bit where the Meenister looks down through the bannisters gets me every time……

      I’m glad Robert Louis’ nurse told him those old Scots folk tales, though.

      In other news, Theresa May’s totally Carmichaelled, and by her own Supreme Court.

      Merde dure, as the French don’t really say.

      Macart: “The law isn’t a serving suggestion.”

      Classic: 😛

    95. Thepnr says:

      In fact the SNP would likely include a commitment to a second Referendum in their manifesto for any drop of a hat general election.

      Just my view.

    96. CameronB Brodie says:

      There’s me trying to be all tough and macho. Pfff.

      You can’t touch me but I can sit here and pick you to bits like FAN-BOY, through applied principles of contemporary social science. Shall we go there?

      I don’t fancy your chances much, what do you reckon? What’s your background, what’s your knowledge base? Mine is rather diverse, is yours?

    97. heedtracker says:

      Let them eat cake and Scots and Welsh can have say in Brexit court case.
      39 minutes ago
      From the section UK Politics

      39 minutes and 17.5 million comments, all very nice ones too:D

    98. galamcennalath says:

      Thepnr says:

      In fact the SNP would likely include a commitment to a second Referendum in their manifesto for any drop of a hat general election.

      I agree.

      Firstly, there would have been a reason for a GE, probably Brexit chaos and a compromised Tory government looking for a mandate to press ahead ‘unhampered by democracy’ (paradoxically) with Brexit. A counter response of the right to hold IndyRef2 when needed, would be essential.

      Secondly, it’s FPTP and a mandate is easier to achieve, for either side. So the SNP would wish a strong mandate from Scotland and that is highly likely.

      Given that Scotland now has a say in the case ‘for democracy’ at the Supreme Court, the outcome may not to be Brexiteers liking. They know if A50 conditions goes to parliament it will be delayed, or watered to soft, or actually Brexit tied further to parliamentary input. May et al my chose a GE as a way to seek a mandate from England.

      Get ready, guys! 🙂

    99. Proud Cybernat says:

      “May et al my chose a GE as a way to seek a mandate from England.”

      I think so too – but for a soft Brexit. People who voted No now have a whiff of what hard Nrexit will actually mean and I think a considerable amount would prefer now to have a soft Brexit (whatever that means in practice).

      So aye–May likely to go to polls if she doesn’t get her way in court and will have an election Soft Brexit pledge in the Tory manifesto. They’ll clean up in England with that–and she knows it.

    100. Macart says:

      Oh you can feel the love out there. The Rev has archived a link to some window licking frothfest in the Express over on twatter. Aye, it appears some folks aren’t too happy with the Supreme court ruling.

      I’m sad on the inside. 🙁

      No, really. 😉

    101. Thepnr says:


      I would like fairly soon though, in what could be a good tactic for the SNP is to come out with a statement as to what the Scottish Government has been doing since June and the Brexit vote in order to secure Scotland’s place in the EU.

      I’m sure this would put May and her three Brexiteers, Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox right on the back foot and have them spluttering and blustering.

      May is telling us nothing and if Nicola Sturgeon was to do the opposite by telling us clearly what is happening at our end then I believe that would go done well here in Scotland. We don’t need specifics, just Scottish Ministers continue to meet with our colleagues in Europe…

      We continue to put the case for EU citizens in Scotland remaining in Scotland…

      Remain means Remain…

      Yes a clear statement on progress/intent would be good. A comparison between good open government and secretive Westminster don’t have a clue what the’re doing government.

      C’mon Nicola, give them a showing up by treating us like grown ups.

    102. Gary45% says:

      Proud Cybernat@5.57,
      Agree with you on “Maggie” May but I think Nigel Wukfits Yootit party will sweep up in Engerland.
      Its guaranteed whatever the outcome, Scotland will get the blame for one of the biggest Fu*kups in the colonies history, after all the sweaties have no say in the running of the Yookay.

    103. Gary45% says:

      A wee bit O/T
      The Yookay IS bankrupt, we have food banks increasing daily, there is anger and derision all over the country, but hey, lets sponsor a new bog brush for Brenda’s new tax payer funded lavvy.

    104. DandyPandy says:

      I work for one of these “scrounging” MPs and another cause is a high level of staff training in the first year.

      We all want to do the best for our constituents and there is a lot of training we undertook as the majority of staffers after the GE were brand spanky new! We needed that training to be effective. All training required some travel and often to London. The cost of a few staff doing a few courses soon adds up!

    105. sinky says:

      Re Buck House will Scotland get £30 million for our historic buildings

    106. Liz g says:

      After having a look at the BTL comments on the BBC aritical about the Scottish Government having a voice in the Supreme Court.
      I genuinely fear for their health if it has to go to the European Court for a final ruling
      Especially if Scotland is the cause of it.

      Like Macart.. I am sad on the inside in exactly the same way.
      Ho Hum.

    107. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Hopefully, Robert Peffers or another of our “legal eagles” amongst the regular Wingers will keep me right on this, but:

      My reading of the decision to allow the Scottish Government to be represented at the Supreme Court hearing of the Brexit Case is – the Act of Union just might come into play, and deliver a huge shock to the UK Government.

      All 11 Supreme Court Justices will hear the case, these include Lord Reed and Lord Hodge, the two Scottish judges. They are surely aware of the 1953 (?) judgement, (by wait Lord Cooper?), which I have seen mentioned on Wings, which ruled on sovereignty in Scotland residing with the Scottish people.

      Therefore, it seems reasonable to suggest the UK Government’s efforts to by-pass House of Commons scrutiny and “Parliamentary Sovereignty” by invoking the “Royal Prerogative” is an effort to by-pass the sovereignty of the Scottish People – who, as sovereign, cannot be tied to any English Royal Prerogative.

      Since court decisions are, so often, tied to legal precedence, and the UK Supreme Court does not appear to have the authority to over-rule the 1953 judgement – Mother Theresa’s tea might well be oot.

      We live in interesting times.

      Speaking of which, amazing how far down the BBC National News at 6pm this story was.

    108. galamcennalath says:

      sinky says:

      Re Buck House will Scotland get £30 million for our historic buildings

      Damn good question. I hope the SNP ask at WM if there will be Barnet Consquentials where we get to spend and adjusted proportion on OUR buildings.

      Of course the answer will be no, Buck Pal is the UK residence, they will say. But I would beg to differ, Holyrood Palace is OUR equivalent.

      Come on Angus, ask the question at PMQ, get the answer on records, and show again how we get ripped off.

    109. Bob Mack says:

      @Socrates Mc sporran,

      yes I have been saying this all along. There is no Royal Prerogative in Scotland, and they would have real problems as the Scottish people have voted to remain in the EU.

      People like Rock say sovereignty is all a myth,but it is very very real. I have several lawyer friends who agree that there is no legal finding or fact or indeed act of Parliament that removes that sovereign will of the Scottish people.

      This is why not long ago they were proposing a new Act of Union.

      It is possible that pressure from the English populace rather than our own ,may incredibly be the route to liberation.

    110. Fireproofjim says:

      Re a second referendum and recent polling.
      I have done a bit of rough calculation based only on Scotland’s demographics and it seems that Independence is inevitable unless something unforeseen happens.
      I see it like this :- at the Referendum the over sixties voted roughly 70% No and 30% Yes.
      On the other hand the sixteen year olds voting for the first time voted almost the opposite, with 70% voting Yes and 30% voting No.
      Scottish death rate is 10.1 per 1,000, (birth rate is about the same) so about 53,000 Scots die each year, of whom the great majority are over sixty. 70% of 53,000 is about 37,500, which is therefore the number of No voters lost naturally each year.
      At the other end of the age spectrum, every year finds a net gain of 37,000 young, Yes voters.
      So each year the potential Yes voters increase by 74,000.
      However, only about 80% are likely to vote, say about 60,000. That means that it would take about five years or so for the demographic change to wipe out the NO majority., and two years have already passed.
      Please comment and correct my assumptions, which are pretty broad brush.

    111. Luigi says:

      Thepnr says:

      18 November, 2016 at 5:31 pm

      A second referendum is unstoppable, it will happen because the people in Scotland will demand it at some point.

      Revenge is a dish best served cold. Many soft NOs/ Remainers are holding their fire for now IMO. However, when BREXIT bites, Scotland looks like it will be dragged out of the EU against the will of the people, and the opportunity to kick the Brexiteers in the balls finally arrives; there will be no holding back. Be afraid, Yoons be very afraid. The media, the dirty tricks department, the career politicians, the experts, will all be swept aside by the coming tsunami. It’s coming down the line and it’s power supercedes all else (ask Hillary Clinton). It’s called REVENGE. 🙂

    112. ian murray says:

      Re Jeff Sessions

      That came from a joke he made about the KKK

      “I thought the KKK were alright until I heard they smoke pot after their meetings”

      This topic is about how the media change and shape the message.In the US they can not stop themselves
      Steve Bannon has been lauded by numerous Jewish organizations and by the Israeli government who are very keen to work with him
      As they searched for scandal in our MPs they do the same with Trumps nominees

    113. T.roz says:

      Fireproof jim

      That’s the style, add to this, all of us doing some positive engagement and we are looking good. A positive case for an inclusive independent Scotland, yes, yes, yes.

    114. Luigi says:

      Fireproofjim says:

      18 November, 2016 at 7:04 pm

      YES is increasing (and NO falling) by approx 1-2% per year (by demographics alone, BREXIT and broken vows may speed up the process slightly), so I agree that 5 years seems about right. No hard science, just a gut feeling. 🙂

    115. Glamaig says:


      your maths is wrong, the net gain is the sum of the differences between yes and no at each end of the age spectrum.

      Anyway there are other changes, our young people emigrate to find work, maybe EU nationals are leaving, maybe forces families are leaving, maybe old people arrive/return.

      Who knows what those stats are – but I think the direction of travel is generally good.

    116. Meg merrilees says:

      Proud Cybernat @4.59

      If that is Maggie May’s plan then maybe we’ll end up with the South British lot clamouring for a referendum to get rid of us! Mind you, I think that would be a nasty situation!

      The South British have always been the more demanding in this Union. My niece has done various summer cafe waitressing jobs and she has discovered that the majority of complaints come from those tourists whose leaders signed the other half of the Acts of Union.

      And as the ‘Robert Peffers in a tweed jacket’ plant in the audience last night on QT foretold, Scotland has it’s own ‘Article 50’ i.e. ARBROATH!!!- to help us escape from this 300 year old Union. Not sure Dimbledore actually understood what the gentleman was talking about.

      Bit mystified as to why the Welsh want to have their say at the Supreme Court, although devolved, not aware that they have separate laws from England??

      I suppose, the more the merrier and there’s no love lost between them and their ‘Imperial Masters” either.

      I think there’s a huge percentage of English people who have NO idea that Scotland and England are the only two signatures ( didn’t want to write the ‘tory’ word!) on the Acts of Union and as such they will be flabbergasted to learn that we are Equal kingdoms. So many of them think Scotland is part of England and Scotland belongs to England, plus we only survive because they give us SO MUCH money.

      Could be another earth-tremor in the world of politics is about to take place. Roll on December 5th. 16 days to go and counting!!! Tick, tock…

    117. Ken500 says:

      Worth every penny. What a difference in Scotland. It is there for all to see. NHS/Education, mitigating welfare cuts, prescriptions, social care, nursery care, no ‘bedroom tax’. Investment in bridges, schools, roads. Investment in the railways. The welfare cuts will be mitigated and sanctions stopped.

      How much has Rothermere evaded in taxes £Billions. The Non Dom tax evader. The criminal who funds crooked Farague, Thry should all be in jail. Trying to take people out of the EU against their wishes. Blaming the EU for migration caused by UK/IUS and France. Killing and maining millions of innocent people in the Middle East and illegally taking their resources. Bombing these countries to bits, Supporting apartheid States and absolute despot monarchies.

      How many £Billions has been taken out of Scotland secretly and illegally.By Thatcher etc, Taxpayers having to pay £Billions for illegal wars, tax evasion and banking fraud. While the vulnerable are starved.

      Crooked Murdoch, Barclay brothers and Dirty Desmond Mafia comes from a Lithuanian family. A migrant. All tax evading Non Doms. They should be put in jail. Abusing democracy. Along wth their lying employees.

    118. Dr Jim says:

      SNP expenses, they turn up for work, the previous lot never needed to go because there was no fukcing opposition so they played golf went on holidays to Cuba along with Glasgow city council

      Switch on the your English parliament channel Dick, Phil, whatever your name is and sitting right there every day of the week are SNP MPs who incidentally are fitting in with your English system, not ours
      Look to the right of the SNP and opposite hardly anybody in sight and that’s still more than there used to be, only because the SNP are actually there Dumbo

      Yoons they always want everything both ways, they want their puerile rags to print the SNPs done wrong but their own government says they haven’t and they’re still upset
      Now they’re spitting feathers because Scotland is being “Allowed” a say in Brexit, when of course we’ve absolutely no right whatsoever have we? Who the F… do we think we are, can we please sit anywhere on the bus or do we have to go to the back Massa

      The trouble with Scotland is it’s full of Scots
      Aye but there’s a hell of a lot of them we’re fair ashamed of, not to mention the NO voting health tourists,Ha! bring those charges back,….. Skidmarks!….Woosh and they’re gone

      I’m really sick of these white supremacists with their pointy heads today

    119. Liz g says:

      Socrates McSporran @ 6.45
      Thing is Socrates I am not all that sure that’s what the Court is being asked to rule on.
      It might just be the devolution legislation.

      Remember a while back our MP’s were arguing with Fluffy about the phrase…..The Westminster government won’t NORMALLY legislate…..and the SNP said having the word Normally in there without a proper definition was tantamount to a veto.
      And should Westminster attempt to legislation against Holyroods wishes,it would have to go to Court.

      No No No said Fluffy he could not ever imagine a situation where that would happen.
      Well Says the SNP remove the word Normally and we won’t have to imagine.
      Now we do have to imagine because now we remember.

      Anyhoo sorry if you already know all that but.
      It might be that issue and only that issue that will be addressed by the court.
      Obviously I hope not …but even so these things are all still linked.
      Not forgetting up until now Westminster have been very good at preserving the Union by not letting it get before a court.

      It will probably all depend on which view the court takes.
      IE is it in this instance dealing with a devolved administration or the other concerned partner?
      I know the Lady who brought the case want’s Scotland involved,but I think the High Court has already ruled on the part of the Treaty she was asking about,so that won’t I don’t think come before this Court.
      Finger’s crossed.

    120. Robert Peffers says:

      @Scot Finlayson says: 18 November, 2016 at 3:55 pm:

      “sorry to be a pedant,
      but as I am sure you well know Culloden was`46`”

      Don’t be sorry and it isn’t pedantic. I constructed the comment rather badly. I began by speaking about the Jacobite rebellion, and that began in 45, then I spoke of the battle which you correctly dated as 46.

      I should have been clearer. It is a mistake I have made more than once.

      Incidentally there is a real confusion about the date of the battle. When it took place on 16th April 1746, that was the indeed the correct calendar date.

      Then they changed the calendar and the change meant, that under the new calendar system, the dates in the Old Style are translated to the new style calendar by adding 11 days to the original date.

      That, though, had nothing to do with my poor comment construction of what I was attempting to say. The Jacobite rebellion of 1745 ended with the battle in 1746 as you correctly state.

    121. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Maybe I missed any comment which came into the public domain, but, I seem to remember, when the original judgement in favour of Gina Miller and the others who brought the court case came out, it was said that some ten pages of it referred to the effect on Scotland.

      Of course, the MSM kicked these ten pages into the long grass – it seemed to be a case of: “move along, nothing to see here”.

      Have any Wingers read these pages and are able to enlighten us on the court’s thinking as to Brexit’s possible affect on Scotland. It might be interesting.

    122. ian murray says:

      Israels ambassador Dermer spoke as the baseless charge of “anti-Semitism” against Bannon collapsed with the Anti-Defamation League conceding on Thursday that it is “not aware of any anti-Semitic statements made by Bannon himself.”

      This after scores of Jewish and pro-Israel leaders spoke out in defense of Bannon, who has been described as a staunch supporter of the Jewish state. This reporter revealed on Wednesday night that Bannon encouraged Breitbart Jerusalem to cover stories exposing anti-Semitism and anti-Israel trends on U.S. college campuses, and that Bannon is particularly concerned about the movement to boycott Israel.

    123. Rock says:

      Why can’t the “sovereign” people of Scotland, with a “sovereign” legal system, make newspaper lies illegal?

    124. Thepnr says:

      @Socrates MacSporran

      Yes, I read them. I suggest Andrew McLean though is better informed than me on the legal speak and might be able to give you more.

      Basically what I took from it was that the points made by the QC representing Scotland had relevance but were not considered in their actual judgement since there was no need to do so as the claimants case was sufficient without the Scottish input.

      Or something like that.

      I’m sure someone will be along soon with a much better analysis.

    125. Liz g says:

      Socrates McSporran @ 8.04
      Sorry ,did read it at the time but could not be sure I wasn’t getting mixed up with the Irish judgement.
      Which to be honest I thought was the longest one.

      All I do remember is that the High Court didn’t think The Treaty of the Union issues she raised helped to answer the question she asked the court to decide on.

      They thought the Judgement could be arrived from the older English documents who’s name escapes me at the moment.
      But that I am sure to remember 2mins after hitting submit.

    126. Robert Peffers says:

      @katherine hamilton says: 18 November, 2016 at 4:17 pm

      ” … The insidious nature of your post is the SNP people claim more so something must be up.”

      Ah! Katherine, you must be one of the Rev’s, “alert readers”, for you have Phil correctly summed up.

      “However I can do conjecture too. Maybe the SNP people go every week, and the others didn’t. That’s obviously rubbish,too, cause I just don’t know.”

      Perhaps you don’t know but others here do know. So do the records in Hansard and they are available for inspection on-line by anyone. Your conjecture was on the ball.

      “If you’ve come back here after a while, welcome. You might learn something.”

      Oh! Phil’s never far away and swoops like a gannet when he thinks he has the slightest chance of doing down the SNP, the SG or anything whatsoever that is anti-Scottish.

      I will not mention my usual, one word, retort to Phil but I’m certain Phil knows well enough what it is.

    127. Grouse Beater says:

      Hang your head in shame, James May!

      Another one for the Infamous Ledger:

    128. K. A. Mylchreest says:

      Soft Brexit? Hard Brexit? What are you all on about? Is it a new brand of loo paper? 😉

    129. Rock says:

      Bob Mack,

      “People like Rock say sovereignty is all a myth,but it is very very real.”

      Scottish “sovereignty” is 100% unreal.

      The UK establishment does not want Brexit.

      And what better way than to fudge it and blame the Scots for blocking it?

      Scottish “sovereignty” in practice is not worth the paper it is written on.

      When was the last time that the “plebs” exercised their “sovereignty” in the last 710 years?

    130. Robert Peffers says:

      @Jack Collatin says: 18 November, 2016 at 4:20 pm:

      ” … More worryingly, who believes this utter tossery?
      Certainly the Neanderthal in Orange on last night’s QT farce from Stirling would be ‘outraged’.”

      Ach! Jack, All those Orange knuckle Draggers are in a permanent state of, “Outrage”, I’ve never known one who wasn’t.

      Had one lived near me at one time. He used to get in his car, roll down all the windows and drive up and down past another neighbour’s home with flute Band tunes blaring from the car’s audio system.

      The guy was in a state of rage all the time his eyes were open. The neighbour who offended him so much just by existing was an RC, and an ex- WWII Polish fighter pilot in the RAF.

    131. Bob Mack says:


      Do you have some type of mental blockage ? Everybody and their aunt at Westminster is talking about how Sovereignty was given to the people of England and Wales to vote in the EU referendum. They never mention Scotland .Why is that ?

      You may not approve bud, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the issue of Sovereignty exists. I have spoken about this to several friends in the law profession and they all agree it is an important issue. But you ? I do not understand it therefore it does not exist may be your motto.

      Keep howling at the moon whilst folk with some real knowledge gain your freedom.

    132. Bob Mack says:

      @Socrates Mc sporran,

      Council for Ms Miller mentioned the problems with Scotland but the judges though acknowledging this decided to settle the case according to the law in England as it stood, They felt the questions about Scotland were not required to be dealt the question before them was from a different appellant.

      They did remark however that the issue of Scotland could be raised again in the future and they would have to possibly deal with that.

      In other words it was studiously avoided.

    133. North chiel says:

      There should be absolutely no doubt now as to who is
      ” pulling the strings” now within the tri- unionist cabal within Holyrood.
      As recently as June , immediately following the EU vote, there was unanimous support
      for Scotland to remain in the single market with the 3 stooges backing Nicola Sturgeon.
      It is patently obvious following the Holyrood vote this week that
      Rennie, Dugdale and Davidson have been ORDERED by their London
      paymasters to no longer support this position and they have thus voted accordingly.

      My own interpretation on this is that Westminster is seriously ” running scared” of a distinct
      Scottish deal over Brexit e.g. the recently quoted ” Norway model” . My inclination as to the reason
      possibly can be found within recent posts on “Wings” i.e. The identification of ” Scottish exports”
      to the EU and thus the identification of Scottish exports to RUK and non EU internationally. It follows on that ” Scottish” oil exports would also have to be identified and assigned as either EU , RUK or international exports. In fact the origin and destination of all Scottish products etc both EU and otherwise would have to be established. The ” proverbial” thus would hit the fan when the facts
      became apparent as regards Scotland’s trading position .
      Consequently, to thwart any transparency on this and to ” protect” the Westminster ” Scotland subsidy myth” and continuing stranglehold of Scotlands assets no unionist Westminster government ( Tory or Labour) would concede any distinct Scottish deal as regards the single market / e.g. Norway model.
      Teresa May cannot contemplate under any circumstances to concede any ” Scottish Brexit solution” ( it must be hard Brexit or TM is history.) I am not so sure a general election is a ” get out”
      For her either as Lib Dums would try to rally pro EU support and could be a big threat in Tory rural seats.
      Sooner or later there has to be a major ” showdown ” between NS and TM , possibly the Supreme Court ruling could provide the spark and ignition.
      It’s looks like for Scotland it’s Independence or complete subjugation.

    134. Smallaxe says:

      Orange is a colour
      It is also a fruit
      It bangs on big drums
      And it plays the Flute

      It goes to the football
      It sings nasty songs
      It doesn’t know right
      It only does wrong

      It takes its lady
      It calls her shagger
      its hands always bleed
      Its a real knuckle dragger

      coat on…

      Peace Always

    135. Liz g says:

      Nana @ 8.41
      Thanks for the link Nana what would we do without you.

      Socrates McSporran… From what I can tell from Nana’s link,it seems that it is only the question of Holyrood consent being required to trigger Article 50,and not directly our Soverenty.
      But if that Court orders Westminster to seek Holyroods permission,that will cause one hell of a stramash.

      I can’t even imagine how that would go.
      The Court (aka the crown) tells Westminster (aka the crown in parliament) that it can’t use Royal Prerogative (aka also the crown) .
      Nobody is meant to tell Westminster what to do.
      Never mind order it to ask Holyrood if it’s ok before they do it,because it’s Sovereign (aka has the power of the Crown).

      I am beginning to see why some would rather pretend this Soverenty thing is not real.
      I can envisage many many many people howling at the moon if this happens.

    136. K1 says:

      So is this the crux of the matter re Nana’s most recent update of Scots Law and A50?

      Will the UK parliament have the ultimate say and will Scotland’s position of ‘Remain’ really have any ‘impact’ when it comes to delaying A50 being triggered if as reflected in the Scotland Act 1998 ‘was not an absolute transfer of power, but rather a sharing of power, with the UK parliament retaining the ‘absolute’ power to legislate in devolved areas’?:

      What is ‘our’ case going forward with the Supreme Court allowing our intervention in the triggering A50? Given that we are ‘over ruled’ by the UK parliament through the Scotland Act 1998?

      Ah don’t want to get ma (our) hopes up, so if anyone with a better grasp of the legalities involved could chime in, that’d be grand.

      As reflected in section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, the devolution of power to Scotland was not an absolute transfer of power, but rather a sharing of power, with the UK Parliament retaining the absolute power to legislate in devolved areas. Section 28(8) remains subject to section 28(7) which states that “This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland”. This one sub-section in the Scotland Act reflects the essence of devolution of power to Scotland.

    137. Phronesis says:

      We must help the editorial boards of some ‘newspapers’ to re-wire their extreme conservative brain circuitry that typically finds expression in aggressiveness and fearfulness.

      They appear to be malcontents who are unhappy with their world especially if it relates to any aspect of Scotland’s inevitable independence. Perhaps some motivational training that is centred on listening and helping others, respecting others ideas and values might help. Values that might be expected to be written into intelligent journalism.

      ‘Self- motivation is a question of thinking effectively and meaningfully about learning experience and learning goals…applying positive thought patterns and belief structures so as to optimise and sustain one’s involvement in learning…It entails minimising the damage when these experiences are negative and maximising the subjective rewards when these experiences are positive’

      Ushioda ‘The role of motivational thinking in autonomous language learning’

      Or perhaps the simple solution is to stop buying said ‘newspapers’ or advertising in them.

    138. scotspine says:

      @ Northchiel

      Subjugation? That’s not an option for me friend!

      Any Westminster adherents or spooks reading this can take this as my bottom line.

    139. scotspine says:

      @ Rock

      Who do you work for? MI5, Int14, Special Branch or simply anyone (Scotland in Union) that is anti Scots aspiration?

      Fuck off you Troll

    140. Macart says:

      Seems folks are deeply unhappy out there in meeja land on the Supreme court story. Done a little wandering around the usual barking suspects and guess whut?

      They’re barking… at the moon.

      Jings! 🙂

    141. Liz g says:

      North Chiel @ 9.12
      Totally agree with your assessment.
      They are doing everything that can to avoid Scotland getting hold of the true figures.
      It would make more sense to broker a deal with Scotland in the EU.
      That would leave Westminster with a foot still in Europe and give credence to the arguments that Scotland’s voice is respected and take away the reason for another Indy Ref.
      It would also take up so much time and attention that the Yessers could potentially run out off steam.

      But they don’t do it,and the only reason they don’t is because they fear the truth about Scotland’s wealth and her ability to be serious competition for London coming out.

    142. sinky says:

      Phronesis says:

      Unfortunately the right wing UKOK tax avoiding press barons have deep pockets (other than Scotsman owners) and set the political agenda for BBC/ STV /Sky whose newspaper reviews at 10.30 etc steadfastly ignore The National despite their front pages being available.

      Most people buy the Daily Mail, which is the second best selling paper in Scotland, for the celebrity gossip but will be influenced by the SNP bad front page headlines as they do not follow politics in detail.

      Perhaps more of us should write to these newspapers to correct the falsehoods and through time they might get the message.

      OK I have been drinking!

    143. Bill Hume says:

      So…the MSM tell porkies…what’s new.
      However, may I point out one rather unsettling fact.

      It matters not whether we boycott their newspapers or not. It’s irrelevant whether Lego does not work with them.
      If all their advertisers gave then not one red cent…no problem.

      They are owned by multi millionaires……they can take the finacial hit for future returns.

      They will view it as an investment.

      We need to get out there and EDUCATE our fellow Scots…not keep bleating on about how the MSM are unfair.

    144. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Here’s the link to the R5 ‘QT Extra Time’ show.

      I mentioned ‘Morag’ last night. Don’t even know her surname, but many will have heard her on Call Kaye (she used to be on it a lot but I haven’t heard her on lately).

      The whole thing’s an interesting listen but Morag appears at 2hrs 27mins. What a great speaker she is – always keeps the heid, very eloquent, but doesn’t take any pish either. Anyone know more about her? For all I know she could be a regular here!

      (I’ve stripped out the http part of link – if it isn’t live just copy-paste into browser.)

    145. Rock says:

      Bob Mack,

      “I have spoken about this to several friends in the law profession and they all agree it is an important issue”

      Those in the legal profession, especially judges, are the lowest of the low.

      It is a talking issue only.

      In practice, the “plebs” of Scotland have never been “sovereign”.

      When was the last time that the “plebs” exercised their “sovereignty” in the last 710 years?

      Give me one example.

    146. louis.b.argyll says:

      The British Establishment is on the ropes.

      Their sneaky below the belt tactics are now rendered useless by Scotland’s politically enlightened population.

      Unionist’s dirty tricks now need to be unseen, they’ll ‘nobble’ every moderate, every democratically-minded member..

      ..create more fear and hatred..

      …pretend you were always slightly pro-brexit or suffer the party consequences, no MBE, no foreign conferences more getting paid to play on kiddie rides in a suit anytime.

      And of course – they’ll all be briefed to make stuff up.

    147. Big Phil says:

      Liz G @ 12.36.
      100% agree ,my thoughts exactly before i saw your comment.Bring them Home.

    148. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Socrates MacSporran (and others).

      You beat me to it, re: what will be brought up at the Supreme Court.

      Will Scotland’s Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, in pointing out that ALL local authority areas in Scotland voted REMAIN, with an overall majority of 62%, cite the ‘Declaration of the Clergy’. An Act which was passed during Robert Bruce’s first parliament, which was held at St Andrews in March 1309?

      I quote from Wull’s comment on WOS, on 4th November, 2016.

      “In the 1309 Declaration the ‘Plebs’, as Rock rightly calls them (and us), are explicitly mentioned. Not once, in fact, but twice.

      In both cases they appear in the phrase ‘Populus et Plebs’. At that time, the connotations of the Latin word ‘populus’ was at best ambiguous, if not downright aristocractic. It usually referred not to ‘the people as a whole’ but, rather, specifically, or even exclusively to the upper echelons of society. Basically, it referred to the aristocracy (both major and minor), including the knights. Instead of meaning ‘everyone’ (as ‘people’ now does), in those days ‘Populus’ usually meant only ‘the people who matter’, the elite.

      The addition of ‘et Plebs’ (‘and the common people’)to the term ‘Populus’ in the 1309 parliamentary text is therefore highly significant. It made sure that NO ONE could harbour the false assumption that the 1309 Declaration was talking ONLY about the elite. Instead, without excluding the elite, it talks about them together with all the rest of the population – explicitly, the ‘Plebs’. And these ‘Plebs’ would be hugely more numerous than the ‘Populus’.”

      And furthermore,

      “And what does the 1309 Declaration actually say about the ‘Populus et Plebs’ – i.e. the whole population – of Scotland?
      To answer this question we have to bear in mind the purpose of the 1309 text: it was published as a justification of the legitimacy of the Bruce monarchy. It sought not only to affirm but also to demonstrate that Robert Bruce was the legitimate king of Scotland and ruler of the Scots.

      In doing so it used various arguments, but (in my opinion) the key one around which all the others were organised was this: that Robert Bruce was the Scots’ legitimate king and ruler for the simple reason that the ‘Populus et Plebs’ of Scotland believed and said that he was, and continued to do so.

      The Scots had identified and recognised him as their ruler, and it was thus that he was entitled and able to govern them. They had freely consented to his rule; therefore, on that account, his rule was legitimate. The term ‘sovereignty of the people’ is not used in the 1309 text – it was coined in a later era – but here, in essence, is the very same idea: a rose by any other name is still a rose.

      It was an idea, moreover, that had not only been expressed (for instance in the 1309 Declaration), but had already been acted upon. In particular, when the Scots had made Bruce their king. At that point, so the Declaration claims, the Populus et Plebs of Scotland were exercising their right and ability to appoint their own rulers.”

      These are quotes from a more expansive comment that Wull posted. It could be worth a read, to refresh memories. (Link above.)

      Will the Lord Advocate also cite The Declaration Of Arbroath of 1320, which confirmed the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, defined in the 1309 act?

      Will he cite the Act Of Union of 1307, which guaranteed Scots Law in perpetuity, which includes the sovereignty of the people of Scotland?

      Will he cite MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953), in which it is reported,

      “…and brings us to Lord Cooper’s point of Law in 1953 that Scots Law and constitutional practice does not recognise the concept of the ‘crown in parliament’ being sovereign as this is a singularly English legal and constitutional concept, a legal point conceded on the UK Parliament’s behalf by the Lord Advocate”,


      “Who actually exercises control of the ‘considered will of the people of Scotland’ in the UK Parliament,  Lord Cooper suggested, was purely theoretical and unlikely to be tested within the UK wide party system then in place (1953) across the UK, as any Scottish representation was beholden to their main UK party’s manifesto.”


      We, the people of Scotland, voted to remain in the European Union. FACT. We have sent an OVERWHELMING majority of MP’s to represent our “considered will” in the UK parliament. That majority of MP’s is NOT “beholden to their main UK party’s manifesto” – they are only answerable to the people of Scotland.

      As has been typed more than once in the btl comments on WOS, “We live in interesting times…”

    149. Nana says:

      Had to go trawling back to find where I had read the word ‘normally’ and where it fits in with regards to devolution.

      I have posted this link previously, about half way down the page she talks about the Sewel convention and within the paragraph the use of the word ‘normally’ appears

      I’ve read so much on this brexit and the law to be honest I’m confuddled

    150. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      “Will he cite the Act Of Union of 1307”

      should read

      “Will he cite the Act Of Union of 1707”.


    151. Liz g says:

      K1 @ 9.21
      I think the main problem for Westminster is that they put the Sewal convention on what they call a statutory footing.
      That’s a bit more weighty than a memorandum of understanding.
      It’s now a law… Scotland Act 2016 part 1 section 2….
      But they put the word Normally in it.
      I suspect that will be Westminster’s position.
      In that this can’t be considered a normal situation and the our position will be Normal was not meant to be classed as unusual but rather as an emergency where there would be no time to consultant with Holyrood.
      We kind of can’t loose here because even if the Court’s find for Westminster,they (Westminster) can no longer deny there’s a veto.

    152. Gary45% says:

      Coat on, coat off.
      Your fine words my cap I doff,
      The order by orange, swagger to the bigoted tune,
      Beating their hatred for Scotland, whilst they bark at the moon,
      The flute, the sash, the beasting the goat, whilst all the while they do like to gloat.
      Aye the yoons, the scot buts, the order trouser leg at half,
      They don’t even realise it gives us a laugh.
      Our day will come, hopefully soon than late,
      Freedom Square we’ll make it a date.
      We have to try and make light of a dark situation,
      We are Scotland The Proud Indy Nation.

    153. John Young says:

      An email today from The Labour Party

      ‘Dear John
      So many supporters have already donated to snap up one of our 2017 calendars – “Labour Through The Ages”. We think they’ll make a great gift – for friends and family.’

      I agree as according to Shakespear the final Age of Man is

      ‘Stage 7 – Dotage and Death: He loses his mind in senility.’

      Seems appropriate somehow.

    154. Bob Mack says:


      What are you ? Wolfie Smith. ? I keep getting the feeling you are itching to man the barricades on Argyle St. Revolution eh ? Let me tell you something. When did universal suffrage come to the UK?
      Prior to that nobody was allowed to express a choice. For over 300 years we had to do as we were told or suffer the consequences financially and even militarily.

      Since universal suffrage what has happened ? A few people found their voice and carried it throughout Scotland until more and more people are taking up the cry.

      In how many years ? We have our voice now. We have our sovereignty back, and we will have our freedom. We will kill nobody doing it. A peaceful revolution. No barricades no violence.

      What have you done apart from preparing the revolution ?

    155. scotspine says:

      @ All regards Rock

      He is a Troll, working for the Establishment and working against Scotland.

      Rock is Anti Scotland.

    156. K1 says:

      ‘In that this can’t be considered a normal situation and the our position will be Normal was not meant to be classed as unusual but rather as an emergency where there would be no time to consultant with Holyrood.

      We kind of can’t loose (lose?) here because even if the Court’s find for Westminster,they (Westminster) can no longer deny there’s a veto.’

      Thanks Lizg, that clarifies a little.

    157. Liz g says:

      Big Phil @ 9.44
      Aye…and right soon.

    158. Big Jock says:

      We might have another 2 years of this folks. We must stick together, it’s too painfull watching my nation being vilified on my own!

    159. Liz g says:

      Bob Mack @ 9.56
      Well said Scotland will have her Independence but this foul Union has had enough of her blood.
      Not 1 drop more.
      We already proved we can do it,the last time we exercised our Soverenty… remember it was yon September about a year or two ago now.
      Pretty sure you were there.

    160. Robert Peffers says:

      @Liz g says: 18 November, 2016 at 7:52 pm:

      “Thing is Socrates I am not all that sure that’s what the Court is being asked to rule on. It might just be the devolution legislation.”

      Same thing Liz g. The whole concept of, “Devolution”, per se, is actually illegal under both Scottish and English law.

      The Westminster perspective is exactly what David Mundell claimed:-

      “The Treaty of Union extinguished the Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom”. It has no legal standing in either the kingdoms of Scotland nor of England.

      It isn’t rocket science either for a blind man with one eye closed and the other stuffed with rags can see that Mundell’s statement is gobbledegook.

      In the first place his use of the titles, “Kingdom of Scotland”, and, “Kingdom of England”, exposes the truth that the Union was undoubtedly between two independent kingdoms in 1706/7. His use of the terms Kingdoms exposes that as fact.

      Then the actual treaty and both acts of union emphasis the fact that there were only two partners to that treaty but the Kingdom of England was undoubtedly composed of three countries and the two documents of the Statute of Rhuddlan and the Irish Crown of Ireland Act prove beyond doubt that they were integral parts of the Kingdom of England long before 1706/7.

      So the Westminster legislation that has only England legislated for with Wales & Ireland being under English law proves the point but then the way only the Country of England is directly funded as the United Kingdom amplifies the point that the present devolution setup has not only divided the whole United Kingdom along country lines.

      It has also relegated Scotland from being an equally sovereign partner in the Union to being subject to the English Parliament of Westminster.

      The clincher, though, is the then introduction of EVEL which is NOT applied to the Kingdom of England but to only the country of England.

      There is ample documentary evidence in historic documents but also it is all recorded in Hansard and there is not a single bit of legal evidence to show that the Union is other than a treaty between only two Kingdoms and the whole devolution thing boils down to no more than, “Because we English MPs say so”.

      Ask yourself if you can think up a single bit of evidence that shows anything else? It all shows that Westminster has just decided it had sovereignty and yet there is a record in Hansard of a legal precedent ruling that under English law a sovereign, just by being sovereign, cannot legally give away the sovereignty of the Kingdom but can only abdicate the crown that immediately goes on the head of the next in line to the throne.

      There is much total idiocy about sovereignty – for example the stories that raise their head every now and then that the crown will by-pass Charles and go to the second in line instead.

      It will not unless Charles abdicates and he can only abdicate if he is first crowned king. You cannot abdicate the crown if you do not have it.

      English law precedes the Acts of Union and the only substantial change to that Kingdom’s sovereignty came in 1688 when the crown was forced to legally delegate the royal veto to the Parliament of England thus making the three country kingdom a Constitutional Monarchy. The whole point of a constitutional monarchy is that legally the crown still owns everything including their majesty’s subjects. However, as the Treaty of Union came after that change Scots have never been their Majesty’s subjects.

      Indeed under Scots law their Her Majesty is legally the people’s subject and can be sacked by them as we not her are legally sovereign and as sovereign we cannot legally give away the kingdom’s sovereignty.

      The only way to legally lose sovereignty was under divine right and that law system was ended in Scotland in 1320 and only altered a bit in England in 1688.

      The main reason that a sovereign cannot give away the kingdom’s sovereignty is because sovereignty was God Given by being born next in line and it is thus wrong to act against the will of God. “What God has put together”, and all that.

    161. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood @9.38
      Morag was a regular here in the run up to the referendum.
      Worked her socks off in the lead up to it.
      I have picked up the odd bit of personal information about her as we all do about each other.
      But I don’t think I would be comfortable repeating it.
      She is on the Revs twitter quite a bit.
      Oh and she is a published author.
      Wrote a book about Lockerbie.
      I do hope she re engages on here when the new ref is announced as you quite rightly picked up,she is a Lady worth listening to.

    162. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Lizg –

      That’s not the same Morag.


    163. galamcennalath says:

      From a tweet in WoS twitter …

      British nationalism is morphing into flat-out English nationalism.

      Perhaps, but IMO British nationalism aways was English nationalism. Those calling themselves British either mean English, because they see no difference … or … they are WannaBeEnglish if they would only be honest with themselves and the world. They are the non-English of these islands who wish they were English.

    164. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Ian B.

      Morag was at the May 2014 WOS get-together at the Counting house in Glasgow. (Sorry, no pics.)

    165. Big Phil says:

      @ rock,
      see all that above, thats yer “plebs” ,Wee lesson you can learn is that we “plebs”are and always will be looking out for fellow “plebs” ,the arseholes at westminister call us the same and i pity them , as i do you, NEVER pigeon hole anyone , Nobody knows what tomorrow brings, but i’ll always dream of us “plebs” having our OWN say in an independent Scotland. MR Peffers, not kissing yer arse but i love your Knowledge. Wish it was circulated to more people, SIR.

    166. Thepnr says:

      @Ian Brotherhood

      Yes. Morag is a star. I’ve heard her often on Call Kaye though not recently as she doesn’t seem to get on so often now. LOL I wonder why.

      I know she’s from Dundee but I really wish I could meet that woman, if you lurk on Wings Morag. Please say hello, you’ll get a warm welcome 🙂

    167. Liz g says:

      Robert Peffers @ 10.14
      Our problem in this case Robert is that the Court’s only going to focus on the question it is asked.
      Also to arrive at an answer it will only look at and apply the law’s it thinks it needs to.

      I am not sure I agree with you about devolution being illegal though.
      While I personally used to think that devolved issues should be conducted by the Scottish MP’s at Westminster and the other MP’s should be required to leave.
      As this would have defined our Soverenty better and in the proper place (our MP’s),in the long run though the current version worked out better.
      Mainly because the demand for more and more power is realistic having MSPs to take up the work load and a working parliament stands ready for Independence.
      Also the symbolism of Holyrood is important,I think that has outweighed making a point of demonstrating our Soverenty in Westminster.

      I have no problem with new law’s and protocols being developed,mainly and most importantly because the Constutional ones are still there.
      That is what parliament’s are for?

      So yes while I understand your position that there were law’s that say they can’t do that.
      It’s my understanding that a law only remains a law that’s enforceable if no new law is made.

      Remember that when devolution was introduced our Soverenty was in the hands of the Scottish MP’s at Westminster and they passed it into law.
      So that why I say it is legal.
      And anything else that they passed while holding our Soverenty.

      But as you correctly point out Soverenty itself they can do nothing with.

      As for the many many times The Treaty of the Union has been broken,thats the deficiency of the holders of our Soverenty and also us for letting them away with it.

      However the good news is that the latest High Court Judgement contains within it confirmation the Treaty not only still exists but is relevent.
      Some have tried to argue otherwise.
      Fluffy will be pleased…. won’t he???

    168. K1 says:

      Dr Morag Kerr is on Rev’s twitter and is part of Rev’s team Lizg, was a main contributor to the writing of both wee b books as far as I’m aware too. This is another Morag…the one who has been on a lot of ‘call ins’ on the radio as far as I’m aware. Also if I recall correctly ‘oor’ Morag has actually stated that she and the ither Morag are not one and the same.

    169. Stoker says:

      scotspine wrote on 18 November, 2016 at 9:58 pm

      “@ All regards Rock
      He is a Troll, working for the Establishment and working against Scotland.”

      He may be a major boil on the arse of some folk but he/she is far from being a Troll. You don’t see Rock ever directly linking to BUM rags, do you? And that in my book is far worse than anything Rock has ever said.

      Those rags, The Dirty Redcoat more than most, have repeatedly been used to destroy our country and keep us all compliant to their London masters wishes. Yet, we still see people on here linking directly to them, helping to keep them going.

      Plus, as the rules state, if you suspect someone to be a troll do not feed it and to contact the Rev expressing your concerns and he’ll take any action if necessary. Rock’s been posting on here for some considerable time and the Rev’s done nothing about it, that’s good enough for me and tells me that he doesn’t consider Rock to be a troll.

      Jeez, for all we know ‘Rock’ could be the Rev. He/She has certainly been good for the post count if nothing else. Unless you know who is behind any particular username we don’t know who we’re dealing with.

      A final point on this – another reason i don’t believe Rock is a troll, as you describe, is because the Green Slime are far far better at trolling and getting in amongst their enemy than Rock’s blunt and straight to the point style. Trust me!

      If Rock is a troll then he/she is succeeding hands down.

    170. Big Phil says:

      @Liz g,
      WOW, you buggers should be in parliament, I’m glad you are part of us. i wouldny take an open pay packet home to you ,and i mean that in utmost respect. Kudos is yours. 🙂

    171. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Thepnr.

      Morag from Dundee, on the radio, is Morag Lennie.

      The Morag on WOS (and iScot) is Dr Morag Kerr.

    172. Thepnr says:


      Rock is not a troll IMO just a miserable git who only sees misery ahead and that’s off putting enough.

      He also continually attacks Robert Peffers over the sovereignty of Scots. Personally I don’t think those on the same side should attack each other. I now ignore him. His posts are gash anyway.


      Your right, Morag that posted on Wings from the beginning of Wings Over Scotland is a different Morag than the one on radio from Dundee.

    173. Big Phil says:

      @ Stoker ,
      I agree but he does say things against a lot of people , and he must hate me cos im a “pleb”,(ex services) sorry but , gonnae no dae that.

    174. Liz g says:

      Big Phil @ 11.19
      Why thank you Sir.

    175. Thepnr says:

      Thanks BDTT

    176. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood et all
      OOPS….. sorry I didn’t know that there were two Morag’s.

      Sorry other Morag….

    177. Liz g says:

      Thepnr @ 11.22
      RE … Rock I had originally thought he just wasn’t understanding what Robert Peffers was telling him,but really wanted to.
      I tried to say the same thing a different way.
      But no you are right he seems to want to just insult people especially Robert. (Something you’re no telling us Robert wit did ye dae ye him)
      I don’t answer him now either…sad though to have to be like that with another yesser.

    178. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Ach, I know Rock can be a bit of a grumpus at times, but it can be useful (if frustrating) to have one’s more inflated bubbles burst occasionally.

      His basic point re RP as I understand it is that abstruse constitutional theory is all fine and dandy, but it withers on the vine if not kept alive by people in the here-and-now. He is clearly sceptical and thinks that is exactly what has happened – and the indyref1 result rather supports his contention – but he surely discounts too easily the re-awakening in popular consciousness before, during and since. It is still very much an issue in transition.

      Courts are populated by fallible human beings, learned as they may be, so the outcome is very unpredictable. The whole status of the UK Supreme Court re Scots Law and the Acts of Union is an awkward one at best, not least since English judges will (it seems) be involved in deciding Scottish matters, even if Scottish judges will also be involved. How much the former defer to the latter specifically re Scotland is not at all clear.

      Rock’s additional point is that the Treaty of Union has been violated repeatedly in the past without repercussions of any kind, so the precedent for trampling over Scottish rights is alas already well established. It is impossible to deny that fact.

      Lastly, it is worth adding that the expert legal opinions (NB: “opinions“) contained in the now-notorious Annex_4 specifically do not reach any conclusion regarding the respective statuses of Scotland and England post-Union. They raise the issue then dismiss it as irrelevant to the one and only matter they were tasked to consider, namely if rUK would likely have the right to claim itself as successor state to the UK in the event of Scottish independence.

      The whole constitutional status of the present UK is a complete and utter shambles, and the requirements of Art.50 have revealed it all too starkly. Anything could happen now.

      Hopefully more and more people in Scotland though will conclude that we are better out of the whole mess, and re-starting with a clean slate.

    179. Stoker says:

      Thepnr and Big Phil

      Can’t disagree with either of your points, but i’ll leave you all with this wee bit of wisdom before i go and chuck another log on the fire.

      A troll only ever becomes a troll as soon as one person responds to their posts, either directly or indirectly.

      As for ‘Auld Bob’, he can handle himself better on here than most.

      Goodnight troops.

    180. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Oops!: it should of course be “Annex A”, not “Annex 4” as stated in my previous posting.

    181. Robert Peffers says:

      @Rock says: 18 November, 2016 at 8:13 pm:

      “Why can’t the “sovereign” people of Scotland, with a “sovereign” legal system, make newspaper lies illegal?”

      Now, Rock, I have tried being civil to you. I’ve tried being aggressive to you too but you still dribble on with a load of pish.

      This one though is quite the most stupid one to date.

      Now, I’m going to attempt to be civil and explain simply why the sovereign people of Scotland DO NOT MAKE THE LAW of Scotland any more than the Sovereign monarch of the Kingdom of England makes the law of the Kingdom of England.

      Historically, in England, the law was, “Divine Right of Kings”, and the legal theory was that, by the right of birth, God chose the person who was to succeed the monarch upon the throne.

      Except, of course, if only God decided that person was no longer suitable for the job then God would either directly strike the unworthy heir to the throne down, (they didn’t have a great medical knowledge so things like strokes and heat failure were thought to be Acts of God), or there would be someone who defeated the sovereign in battle and that too was thought to be an act of God.

      Then in 1688 they changed the law from divine right to a Constitutional Monarchy and although the royal person was still legally sovereign they have legally delegated their sovereignty to the Parliament and the parliament legislates the laws that must first be done at the hands on the lawyers.

      In Scotland, as usual, we were way ahead of the English where to this day the people are Her Majesty’s subjects.

      To get the Bruce out of trouble with the Head of all Christendom, (the Pope was God’s main man on Earth and thus a Prince of Heaven). The Scots produced the Declaration of Arbroath that not only declared that Scotland was an independent kingdom but that the monarch was the servant, (subject), of the sovereign people of Scotland.

      Moreover, if the monarch did not do the job that was given then the people would drive him/her out and appoint another in their place. The Monarch’s job was to be the protector of the people’s sovereignty.

      So now the Monarch of Scotland was not appointed by God and was thus not sovereign. That meant that the Scots, of all the people on Earth, were God’s chosen people and legally the Monarch’s word was no longer law but the Scots did that in 1320.

      In Scotland from 1320 it was the parliament that made the law and in England it was only in 1688 that the parliament made the law. Mind you that is a little over simplified because the parliamentarians in both kingdoms left making the actual law up to the lawyers but the parliamentarians did the legislation. In England the sovereign must still sign the bill into law before it becomes an Act of Parliament.

      Thing is, as the people in Scotland are sovereign and not the monarchy, who was it made the law that Scots acts had to be signed by the English Sovereign?

      And there is the legal mystery that makes the Westminster Establishment’s delegated sovereignty only apply to English, Welsh and N. Irish laws for English law states, (the idea was to safeguard the delegated sovereignty of the newly appointed King Billy & Queen Mary that had been taken over by the English Parliament from the royals giving the sovereignty of England to the foreign House of Orange.

      The point is that law is set by precedent and that set a precedent that a sovereign, just by being sovereign, could not give away the sovereignty of the kingdom.

      To put that a different way they changed the law so that in England the sovereignty belonged to neither the people nor crown but to the Kingdom. Yet it left the monarch as still legally sovereign.

      In Scotland they took away the sovereignty of the monarchy but instead of delegating it to the parliament they gave it to the people.

      In neither case does either the sovereign or the parliament make the laws but they do legislate for it and make it an act of parliament.

      You have seen an example yesterday where the court overruled the parliament and stated that Scotland and Wales had the legal right to have a say in Brexit.
      That was, Rock, legal sovereignty in action.

    182. Big Phil says:

      Robert Peffers,
      LOL, thats the best intellectual kick in the baws ive ever read . I applaud ye . 😉

    183. Thepnr says:

      @Robert J. Sutherland

      Who knows? Maybe though this Supreme Court case is an opportunity to strike a blow for Scots Law. Of course I am am sceptical but the Scottish Government are not going there for the fun of it.

      I believe the Supreme Court will reject the governments case again without considering the Scottish situation.


      They will not and cannot allow Scots Law to override English Law especially where Brexit is concerned. I very much doubt as one of our own Proud Cybernat believes that May hopes to lose and blame the Scots, as plausible as that may be.

      I don’t think they can afford to do that without problems arising in England. May and the rest of them are stuck between a rock and a hard place. No friends and nowhere to go.

      Maybe the planets have aligned and this is Scotland’s chance?

      Why not, it couldn’t get any worse for the Union. Maybe time to kill it off. It’s served it’s purpose. It’s time for them to let go.

      Let Scotland and her people choose their own future.

    184. Meg merrilees says:

      K1 @9.21

      Sorry, I’m 3 hours behind on comments and catching up fast however re Nana’s update on Scots Law and Article 50:

      Not knowing the exact wording of Section 27 of the Scotland Act, I did wonder however IF the fact that Scotland is not a ‘devolved AREA’ but a de facto Kingdom, nation and country would create a ‘loophole’ as such to render Section 28 invalid?

      Just a small chance?

      Going to carry on reading and catch all the other comments…

    185. Liz g says:

      Robert J Sutherland @ 12.22
      I can’t disagree with what you are saying Robert,but that’s not all there is to it.

      He expects and demands his questions are answered but he won’t answer any.
      He is rude and abrasive,and likes to taunt people.
      But mainly he is a waste of time,he never explores or expands the conversation,or even has a joke.
      If he ever has a point it’s lost in irritation.

      I don’t comment here and expect everyone
      to agree with me or claim anything other than this is how I understand it.
      In fact I am here to learn and join in.
      I am not here to meet what ever emotional needs Rock has,so I will just be joining the growing number who don’t engage with him.
      But well done you for having a bit of compassion for him,I sincerely hope he doesn’t wreck it.

    186. Big Phil says:

      you may have a point, i wouldnt underestimate any theories now, I wish we had more ammo, as in the SG backing this blog , and the truth.

    187. Big Phil says:

      Did ye see that , I said Blog. ? thats all it is we need to get OUR “blog” out there . This is only US shouting about it , WHERES our Media, any of you plebs millionairs.?

    188. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Lizg –


      He’s been doing the same routine for the past, what, three years?


      (I don’t understand why Robert P even bothers – must have the patience of a proverbial.)

      It’s like that fad, a good few years ago – an artificial mounted fish would sing something every time you passed it.

      (And that’s really bugging me now…can’t remember what it was.)

    189. Big Phil says:

      @Ian Brotherhood,
      but that wee fish had a good tune.

    190. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 1.00
      Billy Bass
      I am ashamed that I know that!

    191. Liz g says:

      Oh and if you ment the song….take me to the river

    192. Chic McGregor says:

      The Supreme Court will, at the opportune moment, rule that unilateral independence by Scotland is illegal.

      That is what it was set up to do.

    193. Thepnr says:

      Wearing my Nostradamus hat here’s what’s going to happen.

      The government will lose their appeal and that means a vote in the HoC and HoL as to when and if article 50 is triggered.

      More importantly for us, the ruling that the Supreme Court passes will be that of the High Court. That is you cannot take away the rights of citizens without Parliament approval.

      This ruling had no relevance to the Scottish position.

      From our point of view the status of Scots law and of Scots sovereignty will be ignored completely. It will have been heard and then ignored. They will make there decision based on current English Law. They have no other choice if they make our voice heard now then it will reverberate for decades.

      They cannot afford that, government will lose the appeal as it must under Scots Law but that will not be the reasons given.

      This is good news, we are on solid ground, Westminster is sinking in a bog of it’s own making.

    194. Big Phil says:

      @ Chic,
      But if sovereignty is in question then they are fecked . I think. and im unedumacated. Ive read all the text but the uk will deny it ever exsisted, Our Sovereign reigns supreme. . ? am i correct?

    195. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Lizg –

      🙂 🙂

      Billy Bass!

      There must be a YT vid of that…

      Cheers aplenty!

      (That was going to keep me awake. Seriously.)

    196. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Liz g @ 00:48,

      I know what you mean, Liz. Gratuitous abrasiveness just distracts/detracts from a case. We’re all too human, but when a discussion descends to personality clashes, we all lose.

    197. Thepnr says:

      @Ian Brotherhood

      Here is one Ian and a cracker too. LOL

    198. CameronB Brodie says:

      Big Phil
      Sorry mate but I don’t think it would be a good idea for the SNP to back WOS, which isn’t an SNP resource. Lots of reasons, such as I think it would be likely to constrict the independence of WOS (see what I did there?). Personally, I wouldn’t like to see WOS become affiliated to any party.

      I reckon though there are a few in the SNP who privately endorse WOS.

    199. Liz g says:

      Ian Brotherhood
      You’re welcome.

      Robert J Sutherland
      Aye Robert and we all have our moments but his confrontational manner is all he ever brings here.

      Big Phil
      Aye they can’t touch our Soverenty and they don’t want us to know about it.
      It’s a bit like how the weans think they canny do something because of what you will do to them.
      When we all know we can’t and won’t do anything to them.
      The minute they work it out all control is gone and you are left to try any get along with them.

    200. Thepnr says:

      @CameronB Brodie

      How could the SNP back the supposed lunatic fringe of the Yes movement?

      Better we just do our own thing. Totally agree Mr B Brodie 🙂

    201. K1 says:

      ‘…I did wonder however IF the fact that Scotland is not a ‘devolved AREA’ but a de facto Kingdom, nation and country would create a ‘loophole’ as such to render Section 28 invalid?’

      Not sure about that Meg…and given Chic’s comment…

      ‘The Supreme Court will, at the opportune moment, rule that unilateral independence by Scotland is illegal.’

      And of course the many other valid comments on the subject, ah think we’re aw a bit perplexed as to what the outcome may entail of ‘our’ intervention. But we (SG) have to exhaust all ‘legal’ means to ‘work out a deal’ whereby we are given ‘special’ arrangements regarding our remaining in the EU/single market whilst rUK buggers off the cliff. Before triggering IndyRef2.

      That is what ah the SG’s aim is truly about in this matter. That they know the sleekit beasties of the Westminster establishment better that we…and they are involved in the exercise of exposing them for ‘all’ to see.

      From Nana’s (archived it,for people to bookmark) link:

      ‘The Court has allocated four days to hear the appeal, from 5th to 8 December 2016.

      The proceedings will be streamed live on the Court’s website.’

    202. CameronB Brodie says:

      I may have slipped off the meds* again but I’m nowhere near eleven yet mate. 😉

      *I’m an arse.

    203. Meg merrilees says:

      Been reading the Scotland Act and to be pedantic, I think Section 28 is actually subject to section 29, not 27.

      Been reading on Wiki that:
      ” some jurists have suggested that, following the Acts of Union, the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty may not apply in Scotland ‘ and quotes ‘ “McCormick v Lord Advocate” which stated ‘That the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scots Constitutional Law” and that legislation contrary to the Acts of Union would not necessarily be regarded as constitutionally valid…

      Further research on the Scotland Act 2012 revealed this.. Section 57 (2)

      The Lord Advocate has no power to do anything in contravention of the European Convention rights…. this provision effectively allows any human rights issue raised in Scotland to be appealed in the UK Supreme Court as a ‘constitutional devolution issue’ – (which may explain Nicola’s angle on things.)

      ‘The Supreme Court consists of two Supreme Court Judges from Scotland and 10 from the rUK. When hearing appeals, the SC sits with at least 5 Judges, so even if both Scottish Judges are present for a Scottish appeal, the majority of the bench will be made up of Judges who may not be especially well versed in Scots Law. According to Lord Hope of Craighead, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, non-Scottish judges will in fact defer to their Scots colleagues in Scottish cases, and often simply concur with judgements written by Scots Judges.’!!!

      However, this situation ( re the Lord Advocate and European Convention/Supreme Court) is seen by the Scottish Government as undermining the integrity of Scots Law .

    204. Big Phil says:

      CameronB Brodie ,
      I love your style buddy, but why shouldn’t they ? what media do we or they have.? we need to stop cowtowin if that’s a word,. you are a mainstay on this wee blog , but it needs to be OUT THERE, This blog is MY Media and im for Scotland, but the No’s dont No’s about it.

    205. CameronB Brodie says:

      Big Phil
      I hear what you’re saying, it’s not pleasant living in Scotland if you don’t endorse Yoonery.

      I don’t know all the answers but I would be concerned that an ‘official’ endorsement would open up an unnecessary vulnerability for the yoons to attack.

      It appear to be fine the way it is as the BUM are now responding to WOS, as often as not. The BUM no longer controls the news agenda. 😉

    206. Liz g says:

      K1 1.47
      That was always the problem with recognising the Supreme Court in the first place.
      We should never have done it.

      This is why the European Court of Human Rights is so important for us.
      We have Soverenty.
      We have proof.
      The European Court of Human Rights will most likely recognise it.

      Supreme Court is a bit more concerning but it is a Court no a parliament.
      It can only vote on a law that is there it can’t make Law.

      Right now the Law says we are Sovereign but more to the point there isn’t a Law that’s replaced it…..not yet anyway.

      That’s why the High Court working off the 16th century English documents was so important and also by saying that they didn’t need to look at the Act of the Union they indirectly acknowledged it.

      I think and I hope that they missed their best chance to alter the Law.when Blair was powerful and creating legislation for devolution and the Supreme Court.
      And not many Scot’s knew about it.
      Most at that time still hoped Blair would fix everything.

      But I still hold to the principal that if our Soverenty is removable then so is LIZZIE Windsor’s.
      And I suspect that is the real reason they don’t and won’t try.
      The only winning move is not to let it into a court.

    207. K1 says:

      So SG believes UK Supreme court is acting as an ‘over ruling’ body on Scots Law Meg?

      Is Nicola focusing on our European ‘rights’ being infringed upon by Brexit in relation to triggering A50?

      ‘…this provision effectively allows any human rights issue raised in Scotland to be appealed in the UK Supreme Court as a ‘constitutional devolution issue’ –…’

      Thereby our ‘rights’ are infringed upon but we (our Scots Law) cannot ‘object’ to that at the EC level as we are usurped by the UK Supreme Court’s effectively reducing our claim of ‘mistreatment’ to ‘a constitutional devolution issue’? (Ergo, ‘they decide’ the merits of our case and we can’t appeal to the EC to ‘over rule’ a Supreme court decision?)

      Is this what our SG ‘means’ by ‘undermining the integrity of Scots Law’?

      (sorry if this is all a bit ‘simple’, but ah need to grasp this legal language in simple terms tae get ma heid roon it)

    208. Liz g says:

      Big Phil
      The main reason is that the Yes campaign is a civic movement.
      They try to make out it’s an SNP thing only.
      Listen to how they talk it’s always the SNP and there supporters.
      They can’t call Wing’s that and it really bug’s them.
      It’s also the truth we are not all SNP and the party has no say on here.

    209. K1 says:

      ‘Human rights’ being infringed…doh

    210. Liz g says:

      The Supreme Court is the one below The European Court.
      You have to get a judgement there before you can go to Europe.
      To do that you have to have an issue that the Supreme Court is responsible for.
      You go there for devolved stuff cause the devolution powers come from Westminster not from Scottish Law.
      They are the ones who can decide if Westminster is acting with in the Law
      The Court of Session can’t tell Westminster anything.
      Am I making sense or helping??

    211. CameronB Brodie says:

      @Supreme Court
      Before you utter a single word on the future of Scotland, please explain why the British state denies Scots access to their inalienable human rights. Failure to acknowledge such human rights provision, would indicate the Supreme Court is nothing more than a tool of colonial power and criminality. I hate such hypocrisy and refuse to recognise such legal authority over my person.

      “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

      “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

    212. K1 says:

      Little bit Liz. Yes.

      What is the basis of SG’s intervention. Is it that the ‘detriment’ to Scotland is a ‘human rights’ infringement? What is our case. In simple terms?

      As we are one of a number of ‘others’ up against UK gov’s ‘royal prerogative’ in triggering A50, and the Supreme Court ‘rejects’ our ‘specific’ case, can we then take this to the European court?

      If they reject ‘our’ case does it follow that they will ‘reject’ the ‘entire’ case brought by ‘all’ parties on this issue?

      Also, how are ‘our’ Scot Laws interwoven in this if at all? Do our ‘law lords’ only rule on devolved issues, is that it?

      (I’ll shut up after this…promise)

    213. yesindyref2 says:

      @Meg merrilees

      Near the beginning of the UK Gov’s appeal is this:

      “The UK has a dualist constitutional system”

      and that Parliament enacts Treaties, but that doesn’t prevent Government from doing what it wants with Treaties after, including revoking them. Which effectively covers both the 1972 communities, and the 2015 referendum act, which were used in the HC judgement.

      Which is all very interesting and quite logical, and the Law is logical in its determination. Which means the UK Gov does have a good chance (English and Welsh law), and that, of course, is where the ScotGov (Lord Advocate) steps in, I daresay “Just a wee cotton-picking minute here”.

      I can’t for the life of me work out whether that’s good, or bad. Treaty versus Act(s). E.g. of Union. Good I think.

    214. Marker Post says:

      I’ve read a few articles on the usual MSM channels. Most of them say something like, “the Scottish government would play a relatively limited role in the hearings, and would be asked to focus on areas of Scottish law that were relevant and new to the case”.

      But I’ve never seen any explanation of why the Welsh government will also be permitted to present. As far as I understand, there is no separate Welsh law. So on what basis will they present?

    215. Meg merrilees says:


      This is Nicola’s argument:

      The S G believes that triggering Art. 50 is unlawful as it would invoke a ‘fundamental alteration ‘ in the UK’s constitutional arrangements and the rights of Scottish people – who voted to remain in the Eu- about which the Holyrood parliament should be consulted.

      The article I was reading re the Scotland Act does imply that the SG is not happy with ( does not really accept) the requirement to have to accept the Supreme Court as superior to the High Court of Judiciary. And, if the Deputy President of the Supreme Court is accurate when he says that non-Scots Judges in Supreme Court appeals usually defer to Scots judges in Scottish matters (and it seems that NI judges also accept that Scots Law is ‘sacrosanct’ – can’t think of a better word, sorry) then I think the initial High Court judgement which refers to the 1707 Act may in fact over-ride the Scotland Act??

      As regards an appeal to the EU court would they be willing to consider an appeal from Scotland on a constitutional matter? My understanding is that regarding EU membership, they don’t recognise us as a country but only as a devolved region of the UK ??

      Certainly, the fact that there is no written constitution for the UK makes this whole scenario fascinating and hopefully, from our point of view, winnable!

    216. CameronB Brodie says:

      English law? Scots law? Where are my fucking rights?

      @ English and Scots legal systems
      Slaves revolt!

      “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” (Article 1.1, Declaration on the Right to Development)

      “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.” (Article 1.2)

    217. Liz g says:

      It’s nae bother you don’t need to shut up at all.
      Just please remember this is my take on it.

      Human Rights say that your allowed to organise your society as you as a people see fit.

      Scotland has is own law system and wants to keep it that way.

      If Westminster pulls rank and tries to mess with it then.
      We go and complain to the Court they are undermining our law and,according to the Law, you, Supreme Court are to order them to stop.

      Scottish Court’s only rules on the Law’s after they are written.

      This case is about who is doing the writing,an cause Westminster writes the law we need to be in a court that is making sure the law Westminster is about to write stay within the Treaty they are Legally signed up to with The European Court of Human Rights.

      If we don’t think the Supreme Court got it right we next go to The European Court it’s self.
      The chance that European Court could look at what the Supreme Court Judgement was should keep them within what the law says no matter what they would like it to have said.

    218. yesindyref2 says:

      Ah! Found it easily.

      This guy argued very similar on the 4th November, and this was passed on by Aileen McHarg as “very interesting”. Now, she’s one of the group of 7 Scottish constitutional experts who held the ScotGov had the right to hold a referendum without the UK Gov’s “permission”. Whether or not that’s connected with the “very interesting”, only she knows. She became a YESser during the ref. Can’t find her article, not even on SCFF now, but here’s another one:

    219. Liz g says:

      Marker post
      I think it will be the bits of the devolution law that’s been tied to European law.

    220. Meg merrilees says:

      K1; Marker Post

      The Welsh are to argue for parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law

      The high court ruled that the PM could not trigger art. 50 without an Act of Parliament as she could not use the Royal Prerogative for this. The Judges cited the 1707 act of Union as one law preventing this and also, I think the 1688 Act following the ‘Glorious Revolution’ which made the English parliament sovereign. As Robert Peffers points out, Scotland and England joined in Union in 1707, therefore, the Royal Prerogative did not apply to Scotland and is not a ‘reserved’ matter under the 1707 Act – ( Please correct me, anyone, if I have that wrong).

      Mike Russell seemed to think that the High Court ruling was unarguable and that TM and her government should drop their appeal to the Supreme Court and accept the need to get an Act of parliament to trigger Art. 50.

      Don’t forget, Nicola is a lawyer and will fully understand the legal arguments. I think she is keeping her ‘trump’ card a secret. Also, was there not some talk a while ago that triggering art. 50 without an Act of parliament would in effect ‘break’ the Union?

      I think you’re right Liz g that they are trying to skirt round any Scottish issues as much as possible, to avoid seeing the elephant in the courtroom!

      Under English Law, I think a rejection by the S Court could be appealed in the EU court and that would suffice.

      It’s a veritable can of worms!

    221. K1 says:

      Thanks Meg re Nicola’s argument. Not much detail but the essence is there. I will watch the evidence during the hearings in December, interested to see ‘how’ this will be articulated re Scots Law and as you mention whether this will raise the Articles of Union and of whether they will indeed ‘over-ride the Scotland Act.

    222. K1 says:

      Thanks Liz.

      ‘This case is about who is doing the writing,an cause Westminster writes the law we need to be in a court that is making sure the law Westminster is about to write stay within the Treaty they are Legally signed up to with The European Court of Human Rights.’

      Got ye.

      ‘The chance that European Court could look at what the Supreme Court Judgement was should keep them within what the law says no matter what they would like it to have said’

      Good to know if indeed we have recourse to that. Meg suggests above that that may not be the case as we are a devolved area:

      ‘As regards an appeal to the EU court would they be willing to consider an appeal from Scotland on a constitutional matter? My understanding is that regarding EU membership, they don’t recognise us as a country but only as a devolved region of the UK ??’

      So yes it is all a bit complicated but it’s good to unpack this all a little bit on here in laypersons terms.

      From the point of view of UK gov from Meg:

      ‘I think you’re right Liz g that they are trying to skirt round any Scottish issues as much as possible, to avoid seeing the elephant in the courtroom!’

      They want to shoot the elephant. Ah rather think Nicola is ‘…is keeping her ‘trump’ card a secret.’

      Popcorn time…awaits.

      Night all…and thank you all for responding to ma queries. 🙂

    223. Liz g says:

      Meg Merrilees
      That’s the bit that is confusing me.
      Can the 1707 act override the subsequent Scotland Act.
      I think the terms might be mixed up.
      The new act always replace the old act
      And I think this is what Robert Peffers is getting at.

      The Treaty of the Union and the Act of the Union are two different things.
      So I think it is The Treaty that overrides the Scotland Act.
      That would be true for any act that is against the Treaty with Europe NATO ect

      But and it’s a big but given the acceptance as Law all these acts for all that time.
      And that law disputes are settled on the basis of what a reasonable man can infer.
      How much weight will a 300 year old unchallenged Treaty hold.

      Or will we be left crowdfunding a legal claim that there is and hasn’t been for 300 year’s any such thing as a reasonable man.

    224. Meg merrlees says:

      As Marker post says earlier,@ 2.51 the SG will be asked to comment on aspects of Scots Law that are relevant and new to the case. Could be that the 1707 Act will not be ‘new info’?

      Yesindyref2 it’s getting too late to absorb much more legalise but i will read your links after some sleep. Thanks, had a quick squint.

      The NI ruling agreed that the actual triggering of Art 50 did not in itself
      change any law therefore they rejected that part of the argument with the lovely phrase ‘the wind of change will be blowing but from which direction we know not”.

      My understanding of part of the judgement of the High Court was that we needed an Act of Parliament to become a member of the EU and hence could only be removed by a subsequent Act of Parliament, and there was the stuff about the Royal Prerog. .

      Also, I understand that the UK government now wants to argue to the Supreme Court that the process of Art. 50 is reversible at any time, therefore it does not really create any huge problem. (oversimplified).

      It’s obvious TM does not want to go to Parliament!

    225. Liz g says:

      Night Hun
      One last thing…yes we can go to Europe prisoners do it!

    226. Meg merrilees says:

      Liz g

      Just posted something that has disappeared! Getting late!

      I’m sure you’re right re the Treaty – and I suppose the word ‘override’ is a bit too strong. I mean that it ‘holds weight’ and that was hinted at by the NI judges and certainly the High Court ruling.

      Yes, it could come down to a crowdfunder but maybe there’ll be Indyref2 before then!

    227. Liz g says:

      Meg Merrilees
      Finger’s crossed for Indy ref 2 sure would save a lot of time and treasure.
      Night Hun.

    228. Smallaxe says:


      Good Morning Nana.

      Plenty of links today,Kettle’s on

      Peace Always

    229. Breeks says:

      The problem I see with the Supreme Court is that it can only rule on a matter of Scottish sovereignty if it’s asked to, as it was in the AXA case, which is the first point, and the second point is that only ruling it can deliver on that issue is to declare the issue beyond its jurisdiction.

      But what if it doesn’t?

      I like the input we get from Robert Peffers, and I like to test the rigour of his arguments without being critical of them, because frankly it’s the most engaging argument which cuts to the quick of the issue about sovereignty… something that our Independence debate never seems to grasp.

      My latest issue however concerns culpability, and I apologise if that isn’t the correct word. If I am happy to accept all the arguments about Westminster and the contrived system to get around / deny Scotland’s sovereignty, my question is where does the culpability lie?

      Does it lie with Westminster? Can Westminster be blamed for what you might call political expediency to have a functional system of government? Was Westminster the cause of Scotland’s sovereign grievance or merely a consequence of something else?

      I think the Westminster united parliament only exists because the Lords of Scotland signed up to it, but lacked the sovereign authority to do so. Doesn’t this make these Scottish Lords culpable, and the whole mishandling and misappropriation of Scottish sovereignty in the 18th century is in fact a matter entirely contained in Scottish jurisdiction?

      My point is the Supreme Court of the UK cannot affect any material change to Scotland’s detachment from its sovereignty.

      It is not the UK’s Supreme Court who can extricate Scotland from the bogus Act of Union, it is Scotland’s Court of Session, and Scotland’s Court of Session alone. The “rift” in Scotland’s sovereignty, that is the point when it was misunderstood and misused, occurred at a time when Scotland was independent, and the act was committed by Scottish Lords. If this is the point of culpability, everything else, however grand, becomes a domino changing its face in a line of cause and effect.

      It is not for Westminster to declare anything on Scotland’s sovereignty, nor is it the UK Supreme Court. Sooner or later, this whole issue can only be resolved in the Scottish Court of Session. If we want clarity, what exactly are we waiting for? Someone to give us permission?

    230. Andrew Mclean says:

      I have been reading the transcripts of the high court again, to try and understand the thought process behind the ruling, but it is clear that the judges had no concept of Scottish sovereignty as regards royal prerogative, and why should they, our legal system is separate.

      Someone earlier mentioned the adoption of the English Supreme Court as final arbiter in Scotland. This was and is the biggest mistake of the legal profession since the act of union, I remember being absolutely livid, I was not wrong then and I a not wrong now. It was a clear political act to subdue the Scottish judiciary.

      But this may help rock too, don’t think sovereignty is a weapon, or a cloak to protect ourselves, it is rather the foundation, that every thing is built upon, it’s a basis so profound to the foundation of our nation that to diminish that, or too attempt to diminish it, is an attempt to dissolve Scotland.

      Finally I would suggest that we remember that although the sovereignty of the people is fundamentally at the heart of Scottish law, and that throughout time Scottish law, and to an extent English law has recognised that, it was the intervention of the Pope in his papal ban, that internationally recognised the sovereign nation of Scotland and that the basis of that sovereignty is in the people of Scotland, there is no Devine rights of kings in Scotland, we cannot recognise that concept ever. That is why prior to Holyrood, it was the Scottish office who transcribed Westminster law to Scottish law, and why rulings from the high court in England to this day cannot be enforced in Scotland without the permission of the Scottish judicial process. Just ask three celebrities in a hot tub about that.

      Rock you don’t understand sovereignty, I get that, but you are being obtuse if you don’t understand that others recognise it as fundamentally important. I don’t think you are green slime, ( hats off for remembering that for me I can tell you some stories about those boys and girls!)

      If I was May, I would drop the appeal, ’tis an issue she really doesn’t want to open now, least it starts a revolution, and it has the potential to do just that.

    231. Nana says:


      Cold morning, had to coax the dug to go out and he’s not best pleased.

      Plenty reading material today, I’m catching up with the comments above.

    232. Andrew Mclean says:

      Apologies after “Devine right of kings, we cannot recognise that concept ever”, insert and an independent legal system, protection guaranteed by the act of union and 300 years of judicial ruling.

      My thoughts were running faster than my fingers could type.

    233. Nana says:

      Don’t remember if I posted this before now, anyhow this the last blog from Aileen McHarg

      and if you type Brexit-The immediate legal consequences into google you can read the pdf which contains references to the Scotland bill etc

      For some reason I’m unable to copy the url

    234. Andrew Mclean says:

      The use of the Devine right of kings, or commonly used term royal prerogative, to fundamentally change our relationship with the EU, for Scotland cannot stand. Citizenship, duelled in this case with European countries, has a precedent in Scottish law, the common citizenship with France, to use an archaic English legal practice, to remove my rights in law as a European citizen is in direct breach of the article of the act of union.

      Should the Westminster government force this through, then the act of union must be deemed unlawful. It must be set aside.

      Sovereignty and citizenship are inalienable rights of man. Recognition of such is a bedrock of international law. The law of the European court and of the United nation charter.

      Mrs May, in her arrogance has put into play the dissolution of the union, hurrah!

    235. Smallaxe says:


      I don’t blame the dog, its cold here too, but the sun is shining and hardly a cloud in the sky.I’m trying to catch up with everything, some excellent posts on this thread,you’re links are showing up just what an utter shambles this world is in,rapists to marry their victims,Trumps man threatening the whole middle east etc.etc.

      I don’t know if I should build a bomb shelter or a space ship.

      Peace Always

    236. Andrew Mclean says:

      Small Axe,

      Space ship please. Let’s put all the lunatics on board and send them somewhere warm. I hear the sun is nice this time of year.

    237. Nana says:

      @Andrew McLean 9.38am

      From everything I’ve read I believe you have got it bang on and it looks like some are getting scared now that Scotland has a say, as in “some rights”

      Can’t have that eh?

      Apologies for direct link but there’s a video

    238. Nana says:


      To be on the safe side, build both. Can you provide a nice padded cell for me please.

    239. Smallaxe says:


      The padded cell is already being used,but there’s plenty of room for more.


      Could the crime of Hamesucken not be brought into play,after all, we did not invite the Tories to come into Scotland and cause harm to the people in the place where they dwell?

      Peace Always

    240. Robert Peffers says:

      @Stoker says: 19 November, 2016 at 12:26 am:

      ” … A troll only ever becomes a troll as soon as one person responds to their posts, either directly or indirectly.
      As for ‘Auld Bob’, he can handle himself better on here than most.”

      Indeed, Stoker but here is a wee thought for you. There is a way to turn the trolls attempts at trolling back upon the troll. However, the would be troll slayer must keep in mind that the reply being made assumes that other non-trolls are going to read the trolls comments and thus the reply the troll slayer makes is not directed at the troll, per se, but at the others who may read the thread.

      As for my own, “handling myself”, I’ve been around computers since the general public did not even know what electronics were, much less computers.

      As an MOD apprentice I did a spell in a then top secret government establishment. This was a massive computer built into several aircraft hanger type buildings.

      The computer, for that was what is was. used thousands of wee twin triode valves that operated post office style relays and uni-selectors.

      The electric power required for the valve heaters alone was enough, back then, to provided enough electric power for the city of Edinburgh.

      All those valve heaters caused the whole electronic circuitry to be sensitive to temperature and humidity. The racks of equipment were thus all temperature and humidity controlled.

      The result of this was to attract every insect in a 15 mile radius to the temperature and air conditioned racks of the complex. One regular job was to clean out the several layers of dead, and alive, insects from the bottom , (power unit drawers), of each rack.

      We young apprentices were provided with two special tools that looked rather like a tuning fork. On one end they had a pliars like bit but unlike pliars when squeezed the two end bits opened instead of closed. On the other end there was a very fine file like blade, rather like the wee boards the ladies use to do their nails. The job was to go to the racks where faults were reported and use the reverse pliars to hold open the contacts on the Post office type relays. Then insert the emery board end between the contacts and let the contacts close. A quick wipe to clean the contacts cured the fault. The usual thing that caused the fault was an insect caught between the blades of the relay.

      We coined a phrase for these type faults that is still used in computer engineering to this day, though most now do not know where the phrase came from. We had cured, “A BUG in the program”.

      So there you go, Stoker, you can learn things on Wings here every day of the week.

      Goodnight troops. I’m reading this in the morning after but thank you anyway.

    241. Chic McGregor says:


      In Canada, where this whole notion of a Supreme Court having final say on constitutional rights was concocted by Canadian and UK mandarins, the Supreme Court there did rule that unilateral independence by Quebec would be illegal. They did add the soul saving corollary that if Quebec did vote for independence that the rest of Canada would be duty bound to accept it though, so not quite the unequivocal ruling intended by the politicos.

      Quebec has never officially signed up to the legislation increasing the Supreme Court’s remit.

      This deferral of the right to self determination to an agreement by other regions has never been tested internationally, since Quebec has yet to vote yes and the UN have maintained a studied silence on the matter.

      OTOH the UN court (ICJ) has ruled since then that Kosovo’s UDI was NOT illegal.

    242. Tinto Chiel says:

      Liz g@3.34.

      “How much weight will a 300 year old unchallenged Treaty hold?”

      Interesting question but legally it probably has weight, despite being unchallenged yet, if you used the right argument.

      After all, the Union was forced through completely undemocratically by modern standards: the “plebs” were completely disregarded (hence the widespread rioting at the time) but it certainly has weight, unfortunately.

      I can’t help thinking that if the boot were on the other foot and it suited WM they would be questioning the Union’s validity on the grounds that it wasn’t truly democratic, split-tongued sourocks that they are.

      WM are unwise to get into these constitutional arguments, so let’s hope they carry on. I can understand Proud Cybernat’s theory that this is all May’s Cunning Plan to stay in and blame us Pesky Seps but I doubt she has the brains for it and it is always risky to go to law (smiles ruefully). I still think it is more likely she wants Brexit and an even nastier hard-right government where she can carry on with the Tory bonfire of all our democratic rights.

      Well, we’re about to find out.

    243. Macart says:


      Great link to Alyn Smith who appears to be no slouch with links himself. 🙂

    244. Robert Peffers says:

      @Chic McGregor says: 19 November, 2016 at 1:11 am:

      “The Supreme Court will, at the opportune moment, rule that unilateral independence by Scotland is illegal.
      That is what it was set up to do.”

      Aye! Chic and if you remember I’ve been way ahead of this for years and have poster many times that Scots, being legally sovereign, cannot actually make any UDI proclamations.

      There is English law precedent that basically states that a sovereign, by being sovereign, cannot give away the sovereignty as the sovereignty of the Kingdom of England does not belong to the monarch but to the kingdom. That is why a monarch can only abdicate the throne and not give it away. It is the basis for the proclamation upon the death of a monarch of, “The King is dead: Long live the King”,

      On the monarch’s death the next in line to the throne is immediately made sovereign but, since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, English monarchy has been forced to legally delegate the Royal powers to the parliament of England. However, as in 1688 the two kingdom had not yet agreed to form a United Kingdom none of that applies to the Kingdom of Scotland and cannot be applied as the treaty unambiguously states that Scottish law will remain, in perpetuity, independent.

      The Westminster Establishment has actually painted themselves into a corner and there is in fact no legal way out.

      No matter which way they jump on this issue the Supreme court will expose the fact the supreme court is diametrically opposite to the articles of the Treaty of Union that they, (Westminster), have been getting away with ignoring since 1 May 1707.

      Now they face the crunch of either telling the truth that the United Kingdom is indeed NOT a country but a bipartite union of equally sovereign Kingdoms and thus Westminster can only claim sovereignty over the sovereign people of Scotland by the sovereign people of Scotland’s tacit, (understood or implied without being stated), agreement.

      That means if the SG has been mandated by a majority of the sovereign people of Scotland then Westminster cannot legally overrule them. They have indeed been ignoring the people’s sovereignty for the entire duration of the treaty but now, with Brexit, the World is watching and have now realised that the United Kingdom has indeed got two distinct kingdoms and is thus not a country but a bipartite kingdom. Not only that but it is in the EUs best interest, in several ways, to treat it as such.

      I’m betting that the Supreme court will already have sussed that out and the EU has most certainly done so.

    245. Ian Brotherhood says:

      James Kelman here, talking about ‘rights’, self-determination etc…approx three years ago.

    246. Dorothy Devine says:

      Nana , may I add my thanks for the links you post , especially today as the BBBC one had a further engaging piece attached.

      Apparently a lovely lady in the Canadian Parliament uttered the word FART . “Outrageous “, I hear you all shout!

      To add further insult she refused to retract.

      One’s pink and shell likes are offended indeed!

    247. Smallaxe says:

      Dorothy Devine:

      It’s very difficult to retract a fart,they had no right asking the Lady to perform this impossible feat.@Blowhards

      Peace Always

    248. Dorothy Devine says:

      Smallaxe, thank you for pointing that out – I doubt if dogs are allowed in to the chamber either! ( I always find being a dog owner has unvoiced benefits!)

      Hope you are as well as possible .

    249. Meg merrilees says:


      Didn’t Ruth Davidson stand up at FMQ’s recently and talk about the promised ‘eight’ frigates
      and seemed to pull a face and shake her head in denial when corrected that it should have been 13? Or am I hallucinating?

      Interesting links, thankyou.

    250. Dorothy Devine says:

      OT But the English NHS is ‘rationalising ‘ services according to the Guardian – it intends closing many maternity units , A& E ‘s and cancer services.

      Where is BBBC Scotland’s finest now? Where is Eleanor Bradford of ‘Bad SNP and its horrid , Death star hospital”?

      Will our Buffalo Girl be bringing this up at FMQ’s?

      Will she be dictating that we follow suit so’s not to make our friends south of the border jealous ? After all we are Better together aren’t we

      Will there be Barnett consequentials?

    251. Nana says:

      @Meg merrilees

      I don’t remember Meg if Davidson brought it up at FMQ’s. If she did Nicola would more than likely have shut her up sharpish.

    252. Andrew Mclean says:

      Small axe

      Wee link for you

      What are we Scots like, with our separate legal system.

      I wonder if the lawyers drafting the act of union, knew if they protected the church and the judiciary, they would protect the Scottish national soul.

      If the act was to ment to have extinguished the national identity and rights of Scotland, then in the formation it was designed to completely halt any attempt to do so.

      So we should feel gratitude to the men, who in their design, protected the sovereignty and independence of the Scottish people’s rights.

    253. Andrew Mclean says:

      Two miscreants appeared before the old sheriff, we was walking to ma mates for the bells. Sheriff ” are you proposing to call the Bells, as witnesses, as I don’t see them listed”

      Accused, “i was going to the shops for crisps and ginger” sheriff to the accused lawyer, ” and can Cristopher and Ginger testify to that?”

      What is your occupation, said the sheriff to the accused, “a humph ginger for spring wells”
      I don’t understand said the sheriff, he is employed as a unskilled manual labour, for the company manufacturing flavoured water in Springfield Glasgow. Well why did he not say that!

    254. Liz g says:

      Chic McGregor & Robert Peffers
      I suspect that while we continue to exercise our political Soverenty at Westminster.
      The Court’s no matter which one will never address it head on.
      There will always be some legal wording or other than bats the issue back for discussion.
      Like the McCormick ruling,he never said The Scottish People are Sovereign.
      He just said this parliamentary Soverenty malarkey hasn’t ever been written in or applied to Scot’s Law.
      So we keep discussing it unless and until something gets written down.
      And it’s the politicians that have to do the writing before the Court can rule.

      What I don’t get is why Holyrood doesn’t just write a Constution and have the people back it , most thanks to the US know about and look favourably on Constution’s .
      It would not change our political arrangements,like when Nicola said at the GE voting for the SNP was not at that time a vote for Independence.
      Just a civic exercise.

      Have the people back it and LET THEM take us to Court over it.

      That would bring everything out in the wash.
      Can see why it can’t be done.

      It would also provide a safety net if we didn’t get out and Unionists got control of Holyrood.
      Because I am pretty sure there is a shiny new Act of the Union just waiting to be ratified.
      With the most interesting small print that “protects” us against any more of this upsetting uncertainty.

    255. Liz g says:

      Should read. CAN’T see why it can’t be done

    256. Andrew Mclean says:

      Liz g

      That’s dangerous, given half a chance they would try to rule that Scottish sovereignty passed to Westminster, and as I said that can never be allowed to stand. Never ever.

    257. Liz g says:

      They could potentially do that now.
      What I am taking about is codifying Scot’s Law.
      On the premises that in the 21st century it’s no longer acceptable that Scotland’s Law isn’t framed by a Constution.
      It doesn’t affect reserved matters.
      It would not change the political position.
      In fact it would frame it.

      Remember there is an argument that Scotland doesn’t need Westminster permission for a referendum.

      A Constutional Convention that is consulting the people with a view to writing one,should be happening anyway.
      Given there is a good chance Scotland will leave the Union.

      If there’s enough time to have it ready its adoption could be included as a secondary question on the next Indy ballot.
      That also would focus the debate on the Constution where it should be.
      Also even if there was a no vote we could still have gained the protection of a Constution.
      What’s to lose.
      If they try to take us to Court to prevent a Constution they practically guarantee a yes vote,it would be a bit like you can’t have the pound.
      If we need to have the referendum debate about our constutional arrangements… let’s make it about that.
      And not allow them to deflect it to the economy again.

    258. Liz g says:

      Oh and how are they going to argue having a Constution is a bad thing?
      Do you think the Americans will help with that.
      They will really struggle to keep “Constution good ” stuff of the TV

    259. Andrew Mclean says:

      What is to lose, everything. We would have SNP bad on stilts. To be honest I think it’s to late anyway. I can’t see the union lasting another 5 years, it’s over. All that is happening now is the final acts of an old play.

    260. Kennedy says:

      Here’s a thought

      If they hate us so much why not print front pages encouraging us to vote for indpendence. Then we will go and stop bothering them.

      It’s a no brainer really.

    261. Liz g says:

      Andrew McLean
      I agree it’s probably far to late
      But talking about a Constution you can have with or without Independence.
      Like the tax raising powers option on the 97 ballot.
      Having footage of a document waiting to by signed in to Law by the Queen.. The following Monday … Wither the Independence vote was Yes or No.
      Would have I think, made for quite an inspirational and aspirational campaign.

      They will monster the SNP anyway.
      But they don’t get to define the debate.
      There’s also the Bonus of having them worry their own electorate would hear about and quite like the idea.

      But even if it is too late for the next Indy Ref.
      We still need a Constution.
      And that last interim one was shockingly bad.
      IMHO we should be working on one now.
      And I don’t mean that blog where the great and the good in Scottish Law bat opinions about.
      Although I do fear that’s where the received wisdom for our actual Constution will come from.
      Because there’s no other body of work been done on it.

    262. Rock says:

      Bob Mack,

      “When did universal suffrage come to the UK?
      Prior to that nobody was allowed to express a choice. For over 300 years we had to do as we were told or suffer the consequences financially and even militarily.”

      So we were “sovereign” but we weren’t allowed to express a choice. We had to do what we were told?

      What sort of “sovereignty” was that then?

      As I have been pointing out, voting rights only came from Westminster long after the union.

      The “plebs” of Scotland have never been “sovereign” via any Scottish declarations.

    263. Ron Maclean says:

      W. Elliot Bulmer has written “A Model Constitution for Scotland”. Dr/Prof? Mark Macnaught wrote about constitutional affairs often in Newsnet during Indyref1. I think both he and Peter A Bell have been discussing the Constitution recently. No doubt someone will be along shortly to tell us there’s no point in having a Constitution until after independence.

    264. Rock says:


      “A final point on this – another reason i don’t believe Rock is a troll, as you describe, is because the Green Slime are far far better at trolling and getting in amongst their enemy than Rock’s blunt and straight to the point style. Trust me!”

      And it has not yet become the normal practice for trolls to consistently advocate a vote for the SNP at all elections until after independence.

      The usual suspects who attack me are never able to counter the points I make. They therefore resort to “t” word.

    265. Liz g says:

      Ron McLean @ 7.34
      Thanks for that information I will certainly take a look.
      It’s just I don’t see any moves to involve ordinary people in the process.
      Before the interim Constution last time,and ( also because it’s obvious we are going to need one) this time.
      I have heard about involving Civic Scotland what ever that’s ment to mean,but nothing about the public at large.
      We need an inspirational and more importantly an understandable document.
      One that we can get behind.
      And one that makes a difference otherwise what’s the point.
      And we need it soon.
      Hopefully the people you mentioned are on it.

    266. Rock says:

      Liz g,

      “It’s just I don’t see any moves to involve ordinary people in the process.”

      The ordinary “sovereign” people of Scotland.

    267. MarkyBooth says:

      Thanks JamesCaithness for linking to my spreadsheet, I was just about to post the link myself.

    268. MarkyBooth says:

      So it appears the DM got the 2014/15 travel expense figures from the new IPSA website which seems to be missing a big chunk of data.

      The correct figures from the old website (which I used in my spreadsheet linked above) tell a totally different story.

      The old website is:

    269. Sorry about that MarkyBooth. Chances are I got it from a twitter tweet you may have posted. Apologies.

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top