Wings Over Scotland

She really does look more and more like Kim Jung Thing.

Funny you never see them in the same room together…..(?)

Ha Ha, there is truth in this. Well done Chris.

Never mind Hamish. We’ve all got your back.
And if there’s blood she’ll be nowhere to be found.

Great cartoon. It sums up the cringing hypocrisy at the heart of the Tories in Scotland. Only this week, the fishermen of Scotland found out AGAIN! (they were shafted by the Tories in 1970s, and Thatcher) that Tories lie to Scots with every single breath. They were promised, ‘leave the EU, and the fishing grounds will be all for you’ – only to find out, London intends using them as a bargaining chip to be traded away to help London (AGAIN!).

However, what really marks out the current bunch of lying Tories in Scotland when compared with their predecessors, is the fact that they don’t have the personal integrity to openly state their support for Scotland being ripped out of the EU against its will, and London trying to steal powers from Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament.

In any other part of the world, by now we would have civil war. No democratically elected national parliament would tolerate this behaviour by Westminster for one second. Not for one freaking second. They talk of a ‘constitutional crisis’, but I think it is more. London thinks they can play with (and ignore) the rules in order to get what they want, but that works both ways. In short, if London doesn’t play by the rules, then nor should Scotland.

Call the referendum, and don’t even bother asking them for some section 30 nonsense. The ‘constitutional norms’, as London likes to put it, no longer apply. We have a clear triple lock democratic mandate from both the parliament and the electorate for the referendum. Time to use it, and stop p*ssing about arguing endlessly with these lying clowns in London. If they don’t respect our Parliament and OUR government, they should hardly be surprised when we don’t respect theirs in London.

Call the referendum.

Starlaw at 0805 am,

I think that might qualify as comment of the year.

Nailed Chris. Are we at the point yet when we can call the ‘Scottish’ tories ("Tractor" - Ed)s and still be politically correct?

x sticks at 0818am,

x sticks, that point was reached in 1707 – they are of the same mould as those who sold out Scotland, against the wishes of Scotland’s people, for their own personal gain back then.

I have never had anytime for the north east fishermen. How many times have been sold down the Atlantic and still they come back for more. They are a greedy,selfish lot and deserve everything thats coming to them.As for Bertie Armstrong who is a deluded bampot of a leader no one listened to the warnings, no lessons learned from the past, removed two great Mps in Alex & Angus and now find out again the tories have used them as fishbait.As long as we have self centred fellow Scots like the fishermen we will never reach independence and i dont feel one bit sorry for them.Ok a bit of a sweeping generalisation from me but hope you get the gist. These fools really make my blood boil.

The great boxer Max Baer once got into the ring to face Joe Louis. He said, “I tried to show I was very confident,but when I looked over at Joe,I could tell he wanted to go home early ”
You know the rest. Hamish is our Joe.

Another keeper Chris.

Sorry Chris, you toon started me again. Its spot on.

Don’t fight using the rules, they wont and never have unless it is their rules.

Perhaps Mundell and his 12 Apostles will resign in protest.
Davidson certainly will. Oh look, a walrus.
They didn’t even go through the farce of the Supreme Court this time.
Holyrood officially has no devolved power on anything.
The Tories have returned Scotland to militarily occupied colony status.
WE are an occupied nation. We are suppressed and imprisoned by our larger nation to the South.
Mundell is Lord Haw Haw, and we know what happened to the original TRactor after WW II.
Over by October. Let’s get the fuck out of this corrupt wee Union now.
If England’s Elite can ride rough shod over the rule of law, so can we.
They have blown it. Davidson is toast.
Cairns, stop making me so angry, ya wee genius.

WE are an occupied nation. We are suppressed and imprisoned by our larger nation to the South.”

We are a nation that is endlessly brainwashed by likes of BBC Scotland to vote AGAINST our interests and vote FOR the interests of the tories, red and blue.

Its for our own good you see, we’re far too stupid to run our own country, Scotland. Just ask likes of Donalda, Brewer and Bird.

OT I’m looking forward to Patrick Harvie, or is it Harvy?, WATP Two Jobs It’s The Law Bigot Professor Tomkins,7 times serial political failure Murdo The Queen’s Eleven Fraser, Neil The Lightbulb Findlay, Monica Lemmon, and That Other Dick, ‘The Scarf’ Leonard, and James ‘I Will Not Sit Down’ political Reject Kelly as they link arms at the head of the illegal march on Ibrox tomorrow morning leading the True Loyal Sons of William ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards)gang of nutters. It is recommended that they wear dark clothing.
IF there is violence or death tomorrow, I expect this lot to resign in shame.
Perhaps Davidson will get her tank and Union Flag out of moth balls for the occasion.
If we don’t get our way, threaten violence and murder. It worked for the DUP.Thugs march through the streets of Glasgow on a Sunday morning because their ‘civil liberties’ must be protected.
If somebody dies tomorrow, may you all rot in your belief system’s version of Eternal Damnation.leading the True Loyal Sons of William ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards)

Morning headtracker.
I totally get it what your saying, but to be continually gullible just screams bunch if chancers and Im alright Jack. They are gready to the expense of their fellow Scots and then greet like weans when it doesnt and never was going to go their way. Thanks for posting the article, interesting read.

Not all fishermen take the bait. They should not be put into the same hokey, stinking, sinking basket. Many fisherman and farmers (in the NE) totally support the SNP and donate exceptionally. They want to reform and improve their industry. Increase sustained production,

The farmers and fishermen have been fed lies for years. Just like the rest of the population. The tide will turn. Westminster are trying to take their rights, They have in the past. There is now more awareness,

The Tories – unionists made gains in the NE because of lower turnout. Not gained support.. it was raining, people were just sick fed up of the electoral process. No wonder? They will be more engaged now with their livelihoods being threatened. A totally different situation.

Vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence. The only Party standing up for Scotland and fishing and farming rights, always have been. Any problems were being resolved with SNP representation. Changed innovative methods.

It was lower turn out that led to unionist gain in the NE. Not the neccessary increased support.. in light of rapidly changing curcumstances the tide can turn and change rapidly. Before even more damage is done to the economy as a whole.

Watch out Hamish, ye can’t trust that slippery slimy barsteward, he’s well known for his dirty tricks, keep yer guard up and when you see yer chance, GO FOR IT……………..

A Scottish central clearing bank, is needed now. For so many good reasons. There is one being set up but is needed urgently. Tout haste.

It’s in the water. The urgency is building, feel it in the air building. A second Indy Ref is coming soon. The buzzz is building. Preparations are being made in the background. Administration being put in place, Fighting talk from Keith Brown. The next deputy? A safe pair of hands of good sense and responsibility. Dedicated.

Just keep on voting SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence. Simple. Focused and aware. The alternative is unthinkable. The Scotland’s economy trashed again quite uneccessarily for no good reason.

I thought that was Kim………the N Korean leader too!

However I think Kim is much more clever than Ruth! Ruth has no hopes for Scotland or its people she only really cares about herself and the Tory party.

Neither does Corbyn, he doesn’t care about Scotland. He just wants to keep Scotland,s resources to help the British State as in the country of England.

And as for Vince Cable and Jo Swinson……….agh!

We need Independence and very soon.

Great cartoon Chris!

Nice one, Chris. Just one question though – shouldn’t Hamish have the gloves off?

galamcennalath @ 9:21

Hamish will be using South Queensferry rules. Say no more!

Fred @ 10.14am

Please, get it right; ‘Colonel Yadaftie’ described HERSELF as: “a shovel-faced lesbian.” Although, it may be that she was quoting what someone else had called her.

Just because the Unionists lie, twist, and misinform, and make wee errors of fact (cough), does not mean we have to follow them.

Hi Nana as I am not sure how you do these links maybe you can and let people remember what the Tories do with fishing.

Scotland ‘snubbed’ in EU fishing talks

Scotland ‘snubbed’ in EU fishing talks – BBC News
link to bbc.co.uk

Not easy for a 80 year old to master these things.

Perfectly illustrated Chris.

We will need throw in a few below the belt fly ones to get the better of that Great Brutish opponent.

Not like John Bull will ever play fair, that’s for sure.

Robert Louis @ 9.41 am
Tinto Chiel @ 9.55 am
I am often alarmed about how naïve Patrick Harvie/Harvy comes across.
He clearly is not a ‘football man’, and Kelly, Fraser, and Tomkins must laugh their heads off that the Greens are in bed with them on this bigoted sectarian BAD SNP nonsense.
The last thing the Billy Boys and the Fenians want is Freedom of Speech. Freedom to hate and malign. Harvie, get your arse in gear.
I repeat, if somebody dies today, I demand that they all resign.
In 2018, the mobs rampage through our streets, with nothing but hatred, violence, and destruction on their minds. But it sells papers, and keeps the Proddy Kafflick nonsense going.The dog collars will be happy at their pulpits this morning preaching harmony and understanding; aye, right.
I look forward to Ruth waving her Butcher’s Apron as the ‘parade’ passes by.
Ye blocks, ye stones, ye worse than senseless things.

@Robert Louis says: 10 March, 2018 at 7:59 am:

“They talk of a ‘constitutional crisis’, but I think it is more. London thinks they can play with (and ignore) the rules in order to get what they want, but that works both ways. In short, if London doesn’t play by the rules, then nor should Scotland.”

Have you, perhaps, missed the whole point, Robert Louis?

Which is that those rules are, first of all, Westminster’s applied interpretation, of the rules and are all about the, “constitution”, of the United Kingdom and those rules of the constitution of the United Kingdom are very clearly written down, agreed and were created by, “The Treaty of Union”, of 1706/7.

That being so we must, (before we consider anything else), consider exactly what the term, “Constitution”, actually means.

I long ago looked up exactly what is defined by the term, “constitution”, and I found two definitions:-

constitution – noun: constitution; plural noun: constitutions:-

1. a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

Example:- “Britain lacks a codified constitution.”

synonyms: charter, social code, canon, body of law, system of laws/rules:

Example 2:- bill of rights;

laws, rules, regulations, fundamental principles;

synonyms: charter, social code, canon, body of law, system of laws/rules.

constitution 2 – the composition of something.

Example:- “the genetic constitution of a species.”

synonyms: composition, make-up, structure, organization, construction, arrangement, configuration, framework, form, formation, anatomy, shape, design.”

So, ignoring the common made Britnat error which wrongly claims that, “Britain lacks a codified constitution.” because the writer has obviously mentally accepted the Westminster propaganda brainwashing that wrongly conflates, “The United Kingdom”, as being synonymous with being, “Britain”. then plainly the written constitution of the United Kingdom is exactly as stated in the Treaty of Union 1706/7 and thus, “The United Kingdom”, actually does have a codified constitution that, furthermore, is confirmed by both of the signatory parties by their respective parliaments having as their penultimate actions passed their independent kingdom’s Acts of Union. Their final respective actions were the English Parliament’s winding itself up, (permanently), but where the Scottish parliament was legally prorogued.

Thus the Westminster Parliament, which began on the 1 May 1707, is, constitutionally legally a bipartite United Kingdom parliament of two, equally sovereign, kingdoms. as agreed by the Treaty of Union and ratified by the respective, kingdom’s passed Acts of Union.

Since that date there has been no further codified constitution of the United Kingdom – it thus legally remains as constituted by the written constitution of the Treaty of Union 1706/7.

Now we come to the bare bones of the facts and they boil down simply to the difference between the legal sovereignty in the respective partner Kingdoms when they signed the treaty in 1706/1707. In England, (the Kingdom), that sovereignty was and is presently legally held by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of England but not by Elizabeth Queen of Scots. In the English kingdom the royal Divine Right to Rule of Monarchs was legally delegated to the Parliament of England in 1688 by the English, “Glorious Revolution”, but the Kingdom of England parliament was ended on the last day of April 1707.

In Scotland the monarch is not sovereign and, under Scots law, the people of Scotland are legally sovereign.

Thus there is no legislative change in legal sovereignty since 1706/7. Thus Westminster remains legally sovereign in the kingdom of England countries but has illegally assumed itself to be sovereign over the kingdom/country of Scotland and there isn’t any codified constitution that says the legally have the sovereignty over Scotland that Westminster has assumed it has.

Now – how will that play out when this matter eventually arrives at an international court? That international court will be the one often called, “The World Court”, but is officially, “The European Court of Human Rights, (ECHR).

Do they really fancy their chances in the ECHR? At the same time as they are attempting to leave the EU?

Now that brings up another concept. The concept of being recognised as an independent country has no real legal definition but depends only upon being recognised as such by the rest of the Worlds established nations.

So, unless they can come up with a, “Codified constitution of the United Kingdom”, (which doesn’t exist), it boils down to who is sovereign over Scotland and to who can make their claims of sovereignty over Scotland stick as per with other countries accepting their sovereignty.

The only codified constitution of the United Kingdom is the Treaty of Union and that clearly states the United Kingdom is a bipartite union between two equally sovereign Kingdoms and has not even one mention of country or countries in the entire document.

You can read it here:-

link to rahbarnes.co.uk

the quote was ‘two short-haired, flat shoes, shovel-faced lesbians with northern accents’ referring to both herself and Angela Eagle

sickeningly arse-licking article here – also shows how far Ruthies star has fallen since then

link to politicshome.com

Meant to say, great work Chris. Now you watch the state of your elbow joins – you don’t want to get repetitive strain injuries by repeatedly hitting those nails on the head.

starlaw says: 10 March, 2018 at 8:05 am:

“She does look like The N Korean leader. Bet he’s not to pleased about it.

See me! Ah’m afu conter. Ah jalouse the N Korean leader luks afu like Rooth the Mooth. Ah jalousie she’ll no be muckle prood aboot yon aither.

@Robert Louis says: 10 March, 2018 at 8:15 am:

“Their is a good piece about Keith Brown today, who is standing for SNP depute. Worth reading, if you STILL don’t read ‘The National’.
link to thenational.scot“

Be aware, Robert Louis, that, “if Wingers still don’t read the National”, and some will not be in no position to obtain hard copies if they are in more isolated areas, then it is a total waste of time posting a link to an on-line National article for the National on-line goes behind a pay-wall unless the would be reader is already subscribed.

‘removed two great Mps in Alex & Angus’

Now we know ‘why’ they focused so heavily on removing them.

Bastards.

When only those hard tasteless British tomatoes and are available..

(for the same price as current class 1 European tomatoes)

..they’ll say.. ‘ach..it’s only tomatoes’

Scotland needs a central bank as soon as possible. It is being done and is
quite easily achievable.

Does Tomkins know anything about Constitutional settlement. A part-timer. Comes across as a complete, ignorant. With total lack of knowledge. Googlygook. Totally irrational argument. Does anyone understand what on earth he is speaking about. Typical of some lawyers. Overbearing, conceit, ignorant and the total lack of respect. Totally disrespectful and rude. A bully. Typical lying Tory. A bore. Academic are supposed to be non bailed and impartial. According to their code of practice of their professional body. Being broken. With impunity.

The first half hour+ of the debate (Holyrood Continuity Bill) was quite civilised (with some exceptions and lies being told) par for the course. Interesting and informative. Then it just disintegrating into irrelevant boredom. Droning on. (Some Tory liking the sound of his own voice. Stuff and nonsense)

The majority (unionists) did vote for it. Small mercies.

@Scott says: 10 March, 2018 at 11:08 am:

“Not easy for a 80 year old to master these things.”

Well, from an 80 odd year old, you managed the link just fine, Scott.

It’s like riding a bike, (and some other thing I’ve forgotten about), once you master the way you are supposedly never going to forget how.

One wee point, though, for YouTube links only, you remove everything to the left of the, “www”, bit of the link.

The SNP do not need a snap election. They have a relative majority. A snap election would just complicate things. Delays when urgent action is needed. Look at May in an even more complicated position. More delay and confusion. More and more untenable. Weakening all the time. Opposition building up.

We shouldn’t let the UK government turn the power-grab into an argument about common standards.
Nobody is disputing a need for standards – the debate is whether they should be negotiated or imposed.

When the BBC and the BritNat Establishment cannot influence the Scottish public in sufficient numbers to bring about the compliant Unionist #RegimeChange they crave then they simply strip our parliament of its powers. Job done.

Question now is – will Scotland stand for it?

Well Scotland?

Notice how Pidlington has already started the ‘if we don’t get these powers it’s going to make prices rise’? SNP Baaad as usual. And that’s what the boiled frogs will hear.

TD @ 12.16pm

That’s a good point you make at the end of your post, about the need to test, in court, the primacy of Scots Law over Westminster, or vice versa.

The problem for Westminster is, the status of Scots Law is guaranteed in the Act of Union, so they would not, I think be too-willing to go down the court route with that hanging over them.

@Proud Cybernat says: 10 March, 2018 at 11:38 am:

“Mr Peffers – a question.
Why is ‘the Constitution’ a reserved issue? What is meant by this? If it means the Treaty/Act of Union then surely that cannot be solely ‘reserved’ to the UK Parliament?”

Read it again, Proud Cybernat.

There isn’t any other written down,(a,k.a.”codified constitution”), of the United Kingdom other than the Treaty of Union of 1706/7.

This treaty is not only a written down and agreed legal contract between the only two kingdoms still extant in the British Isles in 1706/7, but it plainly states that the two kingdoms involved legal systems cannot ever be other than independent.

Although it doesn’t say so the only obvious reason they must always remain independent is that, in spite of negotiations between the two kingdom’s representatives, the two legal systems can never be reconciled with each other because of the issues of sovereignty. This is obvious when you consider that in 1320 the Scottish, “Rule of Law “, was defined and accepted by the then international authority Christendom, The Holy Roman Se and that stipulated the people, not the crown, were sovereign under the Scottish Rule of Law.

Then, in 1688, the English Kingdom’s three countries Rule of Law, also changed from Divine Right of Kings and made the English monarchy legally delegate their sovereignty to the parliament of the English Kingdom. This made England, Wales and all Ireland into, “A Constitutional Monarchy”. That is, the monarch of the Kingdom of England,(three countries), remains legally sovereign but must legally delegate their sovereignty to the Parliament of the Kingdom of England. In 1688 there was no legal United Kingdom so that change cannot be applied to Scotland.

As the two, “Rules of Law”, are incompatible then they cannot be unified. Thus they must remain independent and, as both signatory kingdoms are equally sovereign, neither can take precedence over the other.

So let’s define what is meant by, “Rule of Law”.

“The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.

Example one – “when military dictators fall, the democrats who follow them must try to restore the rule of law”.”

As you can see the rule of law is actually defined as being who has the power of sovereignty to use already established laws of the kingdom, country or state that already has their own, “Rule of Law”.

It doesn’t take a lot of thought to see why the Rule of Law of Scotland and England can never be compatible. Basically in Scotland what the people say is the law but a whole nation will have disparate views so that means the people of Scotland must work by majority choice and that needs a delegated by the people parliament.

In the English Kingdom, though, the monarch remains legally sovereign but only in the kingdom of England’s three countries and it is NOT a democratic choice of the people that makes or changes the laws but the Royal prerogative. Except, under only English law the Monarch of England has to legally delegate their powers to the Parliament of England. In other words while the people vote for their parliamentary candidate they are not delegating their own sovereignty to that parliament but that of their monarch.

And here’s the catch – there hasn’t been a Parliament of the Kingdom of England since 1 May 1707. Westminster is not legally the parliament of England it is the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

So who is governing the Country or the Kingdom of England for every members is a UK MP.

Westminster is acting as the de facto parliament of the country of England yet no one is elected to a parliament of England. Yet they use EVEL. Furthermore the very good reason there isn’t a written, (a.k.a. codified), United Kingdom constitution is because there is no United Kingdom constitution and there cannot ever be a United Kingdom written constitution.

The best that can be done was done and written down in 1706/7 as the Treaty of Union. Westminster’s claims of sovereignty would never stand up to proper legal scrutiny, (and they know it).Which means also that the so called Supreme Court that Westminster concocted is also illegal.

The only legally correct constitution, (see the definition of constitution), of the United Kingdom is the written treaty that united the two, equally sovereign, kingdoms and no matter what Westminster attempts to force upon the two kingdoms can never be made legal unless both kingdoms agree to it but there is no real Kingdom of England parliament to agree anything which is why Westminster is only still a de facto parliament of England but continues to call itself the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is flim-flam now and it always has been.

Yes, Westminster can change laws, most notably criminal law, but they cannot change Scots civil law. Yes, they can outvote us by 10 to 1 in Westminster.

What they cannot do, and it is a problem for them is remove the sovereignty of the Scottish people. The courts may well rule that that sovereignty is expressed by the elected representatives in Parliament, but that same ruling must also allow that the majority of elected Scots representatives can call for a section 30 for a referendum.

They cannot have it both ways.

Robert Peffers @ 2.32
I like to think of it as a riddle wrapped in an enigma.
Because if the arrangements didn’t make “no sense” back then,they make even less sense now.
Unless of course you own land in both Kingdom’s.

As you say Robert…
They know fine well they can’t have a court shine a light on it.
Up to and including the court of public opinion…. which in Scotland is the Only one that really matters… and I think May doesn’t understand this.
But as long as more and more Scot’s do….so keep on tellin it Robert..

K1 says: 10 March, 2018 at 12:23 pm:

“Now we know ‘why’ they focused so heavily on removing them.
Bastards.”

Well! K1, Some of us knew that before they did it and some of us, including the Rev Stu Campbell, told Wingers as much and that was before the Yoons did it. That is, thought, where the Westminster Establishment have the strongest weapons of Mass(Media), Destruction. The fall out from which is very far reaching.

Wings is a bit like that old saying about horses and water. “Ye can fetch a Yoon to wings but ye canna mak them think”.

Richard Leonard talking nonsense, the man is deluded at best. British Labour in Scotland appear to think they are the Scottish government the stupid, useless, numpties ain’t got a clue.
New Independence Referendum soon please Nicola, very soon please we need to escape these loonies.

@Liz Rannoch says: 10 March, 2018 at 12:42 pm:

“Is there any point to our Continuity Bill now that the b’strds are taking the powers anyway?”

Of course there is Liz Rannoch, but the aim is not just to educate the Yoons or waverers but to build and establish a legal argument and set the scene for an appeal to the EU parliament and a likely case to the ECHR, (European Court of Human Rights), also commonly known as, “The World Court”.

It’s that argument I’ve been attempting to explain on Wings for years. I’m not a lawyer but that may be a good thing for I’m explaining things from the lay person’s viewpoint. I actually take great heart that no actual legal Eagle has, as yet, made my case seem wrong. Having mentioned it now I expect there will be some along soon, (it might take a wee while for them to arrive from Philadelphia.

Philadelphia Lawyer:-

noun (informal) – Philadelphia lawyer; plural noun: Philadelphia lawyers.

a very shrewd lawyer, expert in the exploitation of legal technicalities.

(cough!).

Robert Louis 7.59
Agree with everything you say.

The Tories are acting like petulant, spoilt children.
As far as I am concerned, whst is not theirs is not theirs to have, but they are prepared to no matter what the cost.

It is now past the discussion change and the devolved nations should now walk away.

Bob Mack @ 14:38:

The courts may well rule that that sovereignty is expressed by the elected representatives in Parliament, […]

Yes indeed, but the question then arises, “which Parliament?”.

Before, there was only WM. Now, with the re-convening of the Scottish Parliament, that has changed everything at least three fundamental respects:

+ Holyrood now supplants WM as the true locus for the people of Scotland’s sovereignity, since here we are not “outvoted 10 to 1”, as you accurately represent the case at Westminster.

+ The re-convening of the Scottish Parliament, creature of WM as it may have been, also involved a fundamental change to the UK constitution, in that the creation was predicated on the principle that “everything not reserved is devolved”. While London can still do what it likes over reserved matters, it cannot unilaterally claw back the powers it freely surrendered (to the EU and to Scotland). The purely English notion of the absolute supremacy of WM cannot override that later constitutional change.

+ In the past, there was no Scottish locus to challenge the constitutional arrogance of the English, so they were able to impose their will on us regardless. That has altered with the establishment of a democratically-elected government with a mandate from the people of Scotland. It can, and it seems is also ready and waiting, to make a substantive legal challenge. The first Scottish institution in 300+ years with the will and power to do so.

And if an (unavoidable, IMO) constitutional challenge is dodged by a court system under the thrall of English norms, the challenge will become political. But equally unavoidable.

“Ding, ding”, (cringing) seconds out…!

@Bobp says: 10 March, 2018 at 1:10 pm:

“Why can’t the SG call a snap election,(When the timing is right) with a declaration of independence as their manifesto.”

You answered your own question, Bobp.

The wee problem is of predicting a guaranteed majority result.

Liz Rannoch @ 12.42
As I understand it Liz.
Our Continuity Bill,is to prevent any gap’s in the law that Westminster could rush right in and fill.

If Holyrood don’t agree to the Withdrawal Bill then that would leave a gap….and that’s where the Proper use of the
“Westminster will not NORMALLY legislate for Holyrood stuff” gets triggered.
As in somebody has to take care of these law’s, and if Holyrood can’t or won’t Westminster needs to.

It’s like N.Ireland just now they can’t pass their Budget “as they – NORMALLY – would” so Westminster step in.

So Holyrood if it won’t allow the Devolved Law’s to come back to it under the umbrella of the Westminster Withdrawal Bill ( which it won’t because its an incomplete package of powers)
And Europe are not to have them….then that leaves a gap.

Therefore Holyrood if creates a home for these powers, there is no reason for the “Not Normally” bit to be assumed by Westminster, as they can’t claim there is nowhere in legislation for these powers to go!

At least I think that’s the point of the bill..mibbi no the Whole point….. and as ever I’m happy to be corrected!

“The wee problem is of predicting a guaranteed majority result.”

Quite so. Even the mega-landslide SNP victory in the 2015 General Election only just attained 50% of the vote.

Despite Thatcher’s cynical remark about a simple majority of seats being sufficient to make Scotland independent, we know that the lack of a clear 50+x percentage would provoke all sorts of attacks on its validity from the MSM.

Seems to me that with the size of the Horlicks the Tories are making with Brexit, that nice majority percentage will tip our way in the next year.

Things shown as plurals: just add an ‘s’ at the end with no need for any superfluous punctuation e.g. boys, girls, dogs, shoes. Deer & sheep are only 2 exceptions.

If 1 girl has 1 sword: The girl’s sword.

If a bunch of girls (more than 1 girl) have 1 sword, in which they all share equal ownership: The girls’ sword.

If the same girls (more than 1) own several swords (more than 1) and each of these swords have their own scabbards (more than 1): The girls’ swords’ scabbards.

e.g. The girl’s swords’ scabbard. Means 1 girl has several swords (more than 1) but just 1 scabbard.

This applies to everything.

Proud Cybernat @ 3.30
Then Westminster don’t have any involvement in the Scottish Referendum.
A section 30 isn’t permission for Holyrood to hold Referendum’s, that’s always been a devolved power.
And the current Holyrood Parliament have a mandate from it’s own electorate to have one.

Not to have any say in how the vote is conducted,is not in their interests,but I don’t have a problem with it!
Although the price for having that say is an agreement to recognise the result….. Up to them really…..

On the ropes, Chris, if only that were true and permanent. Has to be an uphill battle to convince the naysayers and the waverers. The other side has the entire British establishment and media in their corner and no gloves on.

Your essential weekend reading:

Updated to include ‘austerity’: link to wp.me
A very fine history film ignored: link to wp.me
The trash at Geneva Car Show: link to wp.me

Mr Peffers @ 2.32

That is without a doubt the single most beautifully clear explanation of my human right I have ever read/heard (and my ears are ringing). Thank you.

@Tinto Chiel says: 10 March, 2018 at 4:05 pm:

“Seems to me that with the size of the Horlicks the Tories are making with Brexit, that nice majority percentage will tip our way in the next year.”

I think you are very probably correct, Tinto Chiel, but – and it is a big but, if politics has taught me anything in going on 70 years of being a political animal, it is that you cannot take as read what SMSM are saying nor can you believe their opinion polls.

About the best you can do is study trends and guess that the trend is pointing in the right direction. Then there is the certainty that the opposing campaigns will sway general public opinion and that is even if they are obvious lies to those who are politically motivated.

Take the example of North East Fisher Folk. Anyone with any sense knows that the great days of the Scottish Herring Fisheries didn’t end because folk stopped eating herring. They stopped because the fishers emptied the fishing grounds and their catches declined. No one was better placed to see and understand what was happening but these fishers just carried on overfishing.

It wasn’t the Scottish Fishing fleet that saw a limited revival in some species of fish in Scottish Waters but the EU and EU regulations. It is entirely plausible that if these North East Scotland fishers get their way now that they will once more overfish the Scottish fishing grounds.

They were, after all, much involved in what are known in Scotland as, “black fish Landings”.

link to britishseafishing.co.uk

As always the SMSM were fairly silent about these illegal landings and I think we all know why. If you don’t understand why you could always ask Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson who lost their seats and were a great loss to all who live in Scotland – not least the fisher folk of the North East of Scotland.

That was a great performance by Scotland full of adventure and spirit, and sometimes it don’t go right, the difference being pretty well about 6 passes that didn’t get there.

All they need to do is play the same but better, and that’s the first time for years I’ve been able to say that, though the’#ve been getting better the last 2 or 3 years. But it’s there now, they’re the equal of any team in the world and can go out there – home or away – with a real expectation of winning.

As far as Rugby is concerned, Scotland is back. All it needs is a few more points on the board.

Mmm, back to Indy and all that, there’s something going on behind the scenes, I don’t know who and don’t want to know, and I don’t know how many, and I’m not going to tell you what it is, but keep it up, it’s a WINNING strategy 🙂

Just vote SNP/SNP or YES, whatever comes first, that is as simple as I can make it.

Meg Merrilee’s @ 4.46
Ye were spot on pointing out that the BBC were probably only reporting a version closer to the truth Meg.

Westminster thought it had took care of any independence referendum by reserving The Constitution.
So it gave Holyrood – The Right – to hold referendums, in the 1998 Devolution Act, (quite a normal function of government)
so Holyrood have always had that ability.

Westminster it seemed,had made it impossible for Holyrood to organise an Independence Referendum and kept that particular power only for itself.

Except…. Alex Salmond persuaded David Cameron, to use that good olé Parliamentary Sovereignty of Westminster’s, to make the impossible, possible.

Turn’s oot that the powers to hold a referendum on the Constitution can be used in Holyrood after all.
Cameron also agreed the reason for makin this happen,was that the Scottish people had voted for a party with “holding an independence referendum” in their manifesto.
While he did put a sunset clause on it…nevertheless that power was Devolved
……and Devolved because that’s what the Scottish people had voted for,thus setting the precedent that it is indeed legally possible after all.
Not to mention, it avoided a Court case around Scottish Sovereignty.
Which I suspect Alex Salmon, would happily have instigated.

So therefore the only real reason to “try” to refuse doing it again is
….if the Scottish people don’t want it and/or it is thought that it was being forced on them by an out of control ideology obsessed administration….
Sound familiar?

I have always suspected that Alex Salmond never expected to win that referendum… But rather his victory was in setting the Precedent not only in the UK Parliament, but also within the Scottish population that we can have one anytime we vote for it.

What was possible in 2014 is still possible now,and Westminster can only look like they are tryin to put obstacles in our path.

Should they be that stupit!!! its only a hop skip and a jump till everyone in Scotland understood and was ready to assert that Sovereignty of our own.
I’m sure Robert Peffers could testify to just how hard it’s been to get that concept past the UK media and into the mind set of the Scot’s.
But we are in more ways than one “halfway there”
Even the British Nationalist Scot’s, by way of sayin “not another one” acknowledge the existing possibility.
Should Westminster choose to do the rest of the heavy lifting!
Well nae argument here.

BLiS______ders look away. Blood all over the floor…

link to weegingerdug.wordpress.com

Robert J Sutherland @ 5.51
Actually Robert,for what it’s worth I think that TD @ 16.49 is right.
Well as thing’s currently stand.
Westminster could tomorrow, pass a law,that superseded all laws before it and close Holyrood.
There is no Court anywhere that would or could legally stop them.
The consequences for Westminster would be political not legal.
It can do this because the Treaty of the Union, gives the Acts of the Union,the Force of Law.
This Treaty arrangement was ratified by a “legal,free and fair” ballot in 2014.
How and why that Treaty came about is now irrelevant, the Sovereign People of Scotland accepted it.
And by doing so gave Westminster it’s permission to write laws for Scotland under it’s own arrangements,for Law writing.
Westminster,indeed has the arrangement that,it can make and unmake ANY law,it is no bound by Any Constitutionally at all.

I can’t see how any Court can help establish our Sovereignty while we are still in agreement to be bound by the term’s and conditions of the Treaty of Union.
It it I think a political issue not a legal one.

@TD,

It only does what it wants ,when it wants because the politicians prior to 2007 had a Unionist majority. They were not going to challenge anything.

“I’ve been thinking about all this London supposed supremacy, and the bottom line is this, London has these ‘supposed’ powers because it says it does. It is that simple. It is not something ordained by god, or inscribed in tablets of stand, they literally make it up as they go along.”

I have been inclined to think the same, Robert Louis. “Make it up as they go along” seems admirably to describe what the English call their unwritten constitution, something they try to ram down our throats.

Such a pity they omitted to absorb Scots Law in 1707.

Rev

…just to remove any confusion re post and photo ” is that my wee pal Scott…”.
I’m the one with the MIC and have no connection to Scott!

Iain mhor @ 18:25,
Liz g @ 18:30,
Robert Louis @ 18:33,

I (obvs!) disagree with the first two of you. How can the notoriously “flexible” British Constitution only ever be one-way? A kind of weird Alice-in-Wonderland construct where UKGov simply asserts that “the constitution is what we say it is”? And everyone just meekly assents?

The fact that the Scottish Parliament was re-convened by an Act of WM doesn’t condemn it to remaining perpetually inferior either. A prime example is the Canadian case, where the “supreme” WM ceded authority to the Canadian Parliament and although in some kind of theoretical way it could notionally claim it back, I would like to see it try!

Which does of course justify Liz’s point that ultimately it’s always political.

But RL nicely amplifies my point. The almightly British Constitution has never really suffered any kind of serious challenge. Not least because the UKGov of the day has always studiously avoided any such by dodging and weaving if necessary. And until now the Scots have always been too deferential to properly try.

But maybe that age of deference is about to end, and it faces a UKGov uniquely incompetent and backed into a corner of its own making. So who knows? One push and the whole impressive edifice might come tumbling down.

Our very own Jericho moment! What a thought…!

(…though I suspect that politics will take over first. But you never know. Look what Gina Miller achieved…)

Proud Cybernat says:

“Does anyone know if Salond’s S30 request went to a vote in Westminster or did Camron, as PM, have the power to simply sign-off on it without it going to a vote in WM?”

The Section 30 order known as the “Edinburgh Agreement” was signed off by both Cameron and Salmond before it was voted on in Westminster and Holyrood.

“On 15 October 2012, the Agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland was signed in Edinburgh by the First Minister, the Prime Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland.”

The draft Section 30 Order was laid, for approval, before the UK and Scottish Parliaments on 22 October 2012. Secondary legislation, such as Orders in Council, can only be approved or not approved in the form that they are laid in Parliament, they cannot be amended.

Having been approved in both Parliaments, the Section 30 Order provides the statutory authority for a referendum on independence for Scotland to be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament, and held before the end of 2014.

Lots of interesting information on the S-30 order in this pdf.

link to parliament.scot

link to parliament.scot

Are there still some folk who think this power grab is actually about UK frameworks
It’s about direct rule from Westminster turning Holyrood into the Scottish county council otherwise what’s been the point of beefing up Mundells Scotland office with a skyrocketing budget and the place brimming over with a gazillion staff, remember Mundells own words *Scotland is not a country it’s a region of the UK* live on telly *Scotland tonight*

The SNP are the only thing standing between them and us

This has been coming since Scotland voted NO in 2014 and Westminster Tories and Labour now have their chance to pull the trigger on it all
There was a deal almost on the table for Norn Ireland over a week ago both parties turned up to sign up to it then Theresa May and her team arrived and it was all Oooh! (Shock and surprise) all of a sudden no deal possible Hmm? So that’s Norn Ireland ready for takeover, Wales is easy (poor souls)
now for the main job…. Scotland

So we expect all this from Tories but there are still folk out there who think the Labour party wouldn’t put up with this, well Labour voters not only will they put up with it, they’ll help the Tories with it
Why do any Labour supporters think that Jeremy Corbyn is running around talking like Nigel Farage now with his new *Immigrant bad taking all your jobs driving down your wages pish* he’s doing exactly the same thing as Farage did to win the Brexit referendum but he’s doing it in Scotland now
Get the immigrants out and we’ll all be better off in the new Scotland of nationalisation, the Man’s a Liar and complete charlatan
The Westminster powers know it couldn’t use Farage in Scotland he’s totally discredited and no one would fall for it so the willing minions of the Tories Labour are ready and prepared to serve their masters for the cause and a piece of the power that no doubt Jeremy has been promised
for doing the will of the people

(Westminsters people that is)

Robert J Sutherland @ 7.02
While Gina Miller did land a blow on the “Government” Robert it was in defence of the Westminster system.

But it does kind of illustrate what I’m sayin about Court’s.
They will focus very narrowly on the question they are asked,and they get to decide of its even OK to ask it.
So even if the Continuity Bill does get into a Court,it will most likely resolve nothing around our Sovereignty.

Anyhoo…..Westminster don’t “just” assert their right to decide what their Constitution is (and yes it’s Alice in wonderland stuff) they are willing to enforce it.
And unfortunately might often means right.

If they think they can demonstrate that they have a majority of the population supporting them.
Then they will indeed use force and they will declare it a UK matter,thus heading off any international involvement.
Think Ireland.
Think Falklands…
and that’s only the recent past.
They keep a section of the population either loyal, or in the majority, or both
We need to be confident that most of Scotland want this…
Are you?
The only way is by a ballot….. a court will make not a bit of difference… (Please don’t think that I thought, or am tryin to make out you were suggesting violence.
I’m pointing out when you say “what can they do” …thats where they take it…..and they are well practiced at it)…
Court’s are only useful for Law’s that are already there,although fortunately that means Treaties too!!!

Clootie @ 19:03,

Oh, the Judean Peoples’ Front are at it again, are they? (RIC had a conference, who knew?) But they just can’t help themselves. All that excess of ultra-left socialistic exceptionalism has to have an outlet somewhere!

Thing is, I could forgive them absolutely everything if they could “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk” and actually recruit vast legions of the non-voting proletariat to actually coming out for indy. So genuine good wishes for them with that very laudable aim.

But so far they have only come up empty, though they have managed to fool some (like our resident Monolithic Man) with their overblown rhetoric. But the IR1 figures show that even in Yes-voting areas like Glasgow where they were most active, the turnout was depressingly low, so that was a bust. Further confirmed by their miserable showing in the following ScotGE.

No wonder they’re bitter. But jealous back-stabbing won’t help either them or us.

Liz g @ 19:57,

Well, yes and no.

Gina Miller put a spoke in the UKGov’s attempt to decide everything for itself alone, so that hardly counts as a “defence of the UK”, except in the narrow sense of defending all our rights. It was a setback for Mayhem, and it hurt her. So a win by proxy for us too.

You may be right that courts are reluctant to make law instead of merely trying to interpret it, despite vile Daily Heil accusations to the contrary. A weakness of the UK system, since there isn’t the reliable yardstick of a written constitution by which all governmental actions can be properly compared.

But nevertheless court actions do have an impact, including the ones that are nominal losses. Look at what happened to Liar Carmichael, for example. He escaped on a technicality, but lost in the court of public opinion, and damaged his own party across the country in the process, even if he managed to hang on (for now).

Losses in court are not necessarily losses in the public sphere, and are not therefore to be feared. In constitutional terms, highlighting our lack of equality – if that’s what happens – may make the point more effectively than any number of speeches.

The point I’m mainly trying to make is that we can’t possibly advance through crippling self-doubt and a belief that the UKGov is supremely all-powerful. That seems to be the Scottish disease. If we don’t ever demonstrate the confidence to stand up and fight for what we think is right, win or lose, how can we possibly inspire others to follow?

Sometimes a loss, as in 2014, inspires people just to try harder, or indeed enrages and rallies so many non-involved bystanders that it backfires spectacularly.

Sometimes you’re David taking on Goliath, and yet you still win. Because the apparently impregnable has a fatal flaw. I believe the UKGov is in exactly that position now. They’re quietly cr*pping themselves in private over Brexit, while trying to pretend to the world that they’re “in control” (to coin a phrase).

But you can only win if you’re willing to try in the first place.

Liz Rannoch @ 7.38
Totally agree Westminster is never going to give way on these power’s.
What worries me at the moment is…Holyrood is not the only Parliament that can do Emergency legislation.
I’d wager that they are tryin to work out what the Political cost would be to just going ahead and putting the withdrawal bill into Law,before our Continuity Bill gets there.
I hope the Scottish MPs are on the ball and care keepin an eye out for Emergency sittings…

OT rugby
I was on record / playback for the England match, good grief, the commentators are telling us how the penalty try wasn’t a penaltry try because even though that’s the rules that it’s a penalty try it’s a bit harsh following the rules so France shouldn’t have had a penaltry try. So England actually won because, errr, thing. Oh, and the England team should be sacked because they’re all getting old and have lost 2 games. And this lot are better than the ITV commentators who are even direr if that’s a word, I just went out half-time to get away from the ITV garbage commentators who wouldn’t get a gig at the local pub dominoes championship.

Robert J Sutherland @ 8.27
Well Yes and No……now that’s a politicians answer,and no a judges… LoL
But yes Robert while we differ slightly on the details, we are broadly in agreement.. We have to try…we have so much to gain.
And when I’m Queen of Scotland………But seriously, we are on the same page,and I have enjoyed the debate,especially since I know next to nothing about rugby!

@BDTT: I’ve often thought about this and have told this story before.

Blair Jenkins turned up in our town the Saturday before the referendum. The blue fire-engine was there and we were all feeling hopeful, given the local soundings (our Hub was second or third nationally in canvassing returns).

My wife liked Blair and we started to chat. He was confident that, between pledges for the Referendum Covenantsignythingy and voter registrations, the whole thing was in the bag.

I will spare you our reaction on 19/9/14 (including our daughters).

Still don’t know how to put my finger on the particular problem.

There were Yes saltires, big ones all along parts of Byres Road and Great Western Road on the 18th Sep 2014, high up on the lampposts up until about 2/3pm. Then they all vanished…I went along a bit later and couldn’t quite believe or understand why they’d been removed. There was also a ‘strange’ feeling in the air on that day too…can’t quite put my finger on that either.

Given the polling stations hadn’t even closed yet I’ve always considered that something was a bit ‘rum’ about that entire day.

Sigh…and here we are dealing wi the consequences…

K1: that would be about the time we got the message from Yes HQ to stop canvassing and start to prepare for a result of historical significance.

Told to just turn up at polling stations and smile confidently.

What saps we were.

Robert J Sutherland @ 9.13
Just before ye get tae that Exit…
Do you speak of funny ball’s tae yer future Queen Sir???

Tinto Chiel says @ 9.18 pm:

That was never the message. Given that the turn out was much higher in Tory areas it was to get into working class areas with lots of razzmatazz to motivate normal non voters to get out and vote for their country.

Even the Postal voting returns showed much higher returns from better off areas it was clear, even to Ruth Davidson, that the Yes campaign was behind.

If Glasgow and Dundee had turned out to vote to the same extent as Edinburgh and Aberdeen YES would have carried the day.

That is the message for Indy Ref 2 get traditional non voters registered for a postal vote.

That should be the priority for the SNP and Greens when canvassing or knocking on doors.

Wasn’t there a phenomenal voter registration campaign by RIC in Glasgow, and wasn’t this the ‘weird’ thing about the low turnout here?

Why did so many sign up to register and then not ‘turn out’ to actually vote?

It’s never made sense. And still doesn’t.

This is priceless and hilarious link to imgonnasayitanyway.wordpress.com

It exemplifies the current liebour debacle

K1 @ 21:48,

RIC have frequently claimed that, but who knows? Could possibly be somewhat exaggerated self-promotion (or self-deception).

When it came to it, although very many folk were motivated in IR1, and remain so, it is very plausible that some actual “new” voters just didn’t put up in the end. Signed a registration form shoved at them at their front door but couldn’t then be arsed to take a wee walk down a few streets to a polling place when it really mattered. “Horse to the water” and all that.

Just like always in regular elections, so nothing surprising there really. More like disappointing, since it’s their future at stake as much as (if not more than) the rest of us.

Maybe there is some way of energising them. There effing well ought to be, but we don’t seem to have found the secret yet. (But I reckon it may take the street-wise to do it, not well-meaning middle-class idealists, somehow. Preferably people from their own local community that they trust and respect.)

And don’t forget, demotivation is a powerful weapon that Bitter Together deployed very ruthlessly. (Especially effective in a Scottish context, more’s the pity.)