Wings Over Scotland

Presented without comment….sad face….really missing your comments.

Always a buzz when Wings posts.

Barring unforeseen events, next year Nicola Sturgeon should be exiting stage left, or right I’ve no preference, but she needs to go

Great to see Wings pop into my inbox again!

The highest % of numbers in ANY category for:

“Progress towards independence/a second referendum”

BY 2014 INDYREF VOTE (YES voters) 25%

2019 UK ELECTION SNP VOTERS 23%

ALL VOTERS BY AGE (16-35) 19%

After seven years, that’s the max that the people of Scotland/people living in Scotland were prepared to give the yellow coward as her greatest achievement in office in trying to get independence.

“No significant achievements, things are worse now than when she took over.”

Does beat it however…!

Lovely to see you post again Rev! If Nicola can bring herself to read this she will be one unhappy bunny!! Not only no progress! The majority across the board saying no improvement and things are worse today than in 2014.

Good to see you back.

Looking at the data around the first option – ‘no significant achievements, things are worse now’ – then the No voters, the elderly, and the EU Leave voters are significantly unimpressed by ‘Oor Nikla’.

In terms of gently persuading them to the cause of Indy, then I’d suggest by these measures she’s a complete Dud.

Anyway, I personally think the achievement she will always be remembered for is putting Free Period Sanitory Products in the Gents Toilets.

Nikla’s – Sanitoryproducts Now Party. Fannypad’s For Brains.

I’m astonished so many people feel that there’s been progress towards anything, never mind a second referendum. What planet are those Yessers/SNP voters living on?????

Great to see you back.
How can any sane, rational, person believe she protected Scotland from a hard Brexit?
And for all those who think she’s made progress towards a second referendum, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Alex Salmond’s legacy includes Queensferry Crossing; Borders Railway; completion of the M8, M74, M80; Aberdeen by pass (AWPR); a start to upgrading the A9 to dual carriageway between Perth and Inverness and an Independenc referendum.
What is Nicola’s legacy? Ferries that are years overdue and at least double the original budget and drug deaths spiralling out of control.

Sturgeon’s NuSNP…

A catalogue of failures sufficient to make a WM Tory administration under Boris Johnson look competent.

Hey Rev! Good to have you back – albeit briefly.

Let’s not forget the achievement of having women’s sanitary products put in men’s toilets so that men who menstruate can use them.

The stats only confirm what most of us already knew. Scotland is going backwards……………at a rate of knots.
Nothing significant will happen until Sturgeon and the rest of the incompetents are gone. But, as I have said before, who replaces them? The SNP dross that inhabits Westminster is equally as bad and self serving. The cupboard of political talent in Scotland looks pretty bare.

Good to hear from wings again.
Maybe next years poll will be about the leadership of Angus Robertson :’(
Thanks

Hope you’ve been getting some rest, Rev. By the way, was that really you popping up on the DonsMad forum for a minute? Your mere presence had that roaster Mason spluttering in anger.

I would hate to think the United Nations hired her for her professionalism, integrity, transparency and justice of which she has NONE of the above. She has cost the tax payer £26m suing rangers and we lost a QUEENS COUNCIL who had to HUMBLY APOLOGIES and resign his seat for malicious prosecution directed by NS.
Alex Salmond fiasco how many millions of £ did that cost?
Mark Hirst?
cant wait for the sequel BUTTERSTONE SCHOOL,COURT CASE! More millions waisted on ineptitude incompetency and down right lies.
no change there then?

Thanks for the poll Stu,
Glad to see that some SNP folks eyes are opening to the fact they’re now agreeing with you on the fact that you were correct that trans/woke issues would become a bigger issue for SNP than Independence & you were rightly vindicated on that subject.
Hope your doing ok bud.

“No significant achievements, things are worse now than when she took over” = 27%

And as for this mind-blowing statistic which just really does prove there’s nowt as queer as folk: “progress towards independence/ a second referendum” = 12%

TWELVE FRICKEN PERCENT? Very serious request: Will one of that 12% PLEASE show me exactly where & when she made that “progress”? Please! I’m truly eager to learn.

That’s as far as i’ve got so far with this polling data. BTW, Rev, i’ve been having a great time going through the archives again, a lot of articles really need updating due to Brexit etc.

But on a more satisfying note, unbelievable the amount of times your take on things has come to fruition. Always nice to be reminded of *EXACTLY* why they fear & hate you. LOL!

And folks, those that can should be linking this onto their social media accounts & onto Sturgeon’s etc. I’d love to put it onto Comfy Feet Pishfarts but like many others i’m blocked. 🙂

Great to hear from you again even though there’s no incisive commentary attached which is much missed. Have followed Talking Up Scotland blog since your withdrawal but although he is interesting and worth watching and usually OK he seems like many indy folk to have a blind spot for oor Nicola!

Excellent use of funds. Statistical significance is unquestionable. Although because of the ‘Recency Effect’ the positive returns could be inflated. Try it again a couple of years after the FM has left office. Counters the World Leading stuff we keep hearing at FMQs. Great work Stu, contributors on this site have not been unfair to the FM. Pete Wishart take note.

Great to see you back. I just wish it was for good. That’s not a great endorsement of her record. It’s not surprising that even the diehards in the SNP are doubting her now. The membership must have taken more of a hit by now. The sooner she’s gone, the better and I’m just hoping that Robertson isn’t parachuted into her position. Wouldn’t trust him any more than I trust her.

That middle comment on non specific praise came from a pc in Bute House.

In hoping we’ll get some analysis / comment at some point?

*I’m

Great to see a wings email. Very interesting polling results. I think most alert folk now know we won’t achieve independence with queen Nicola. She is just a clever spokesperson with a big ego but has done nothing meaningful to advance independence. Hopefully alert folk can manage to convince you’re more sensible folk who will listen to what’s going on. Sadly the queen Nicola sycophants will always support her regardless of no Indy 2. They are without doubt the most embarrassing group of people ever to pop up in Scotland. They idolise queen Nicola and think she can do no wrong despite Sturgeon being in charge of a Scotland with one of the worst COVID death records in the world! The worst drug deaths in Europe and some of the worst poverty anywhere on the planet. Behind the flashy look Sturgeon likes to portray is an extremely dreadful politician who has been harmful for Scotland ???????. Thanks for this informative poll Stu ?

@ DMT

Re. More polling.
In case you missed them, Scot Goes Pop has been carrying out recent polling on the subject of GRA and Self ID.

His various blogs can be accessed directly, or through the following linked site which is worth bookingmarking.

link to voices.scot

It was like opening the curtains to see bright sunshine seeing a new Wings Post!

Keep well Rev

I was thinking `didn`t She/Her get the bridge built`,

but turns out that it was Alex Salmond that got the bridge built,

She/Her was just popped up at the end for the selfie with Lizzie.

@Shug 8:41pm
It has to come from within. By that I mean the SNP and not the Independence movement. Only when SNP seats are threatened will they act. Anybody like to point out any occasion when either an SNP MSP or SNP MP has voted against the party line?. Now we are talking about a heterogeneous electorate. Rural, urban and special interest etc. Unbelievable. So many police investigations and Inquiries of various forms. I vote for people that are capable of Independent thought. Sadly I can’t see anybody of that ilk. But she will go, they all do on the end.
Reason to be cheerful.

@ Stoker

Aye, I’m aware they have their differences, but at least some are finely catching up and taking onboard what Stu highlighted years back. And if the newly enlightened can furnish us with polling evidence that shows the policies being pushed by the Scottish Government Administrators of Devolved Powers are not supported by a majority of the electorate then that is surely a useful thing to have.

If we are not to cross-link to any site that is not in total alignment with this site, then that will severely restrict information sharing, and as we are up against an opposition that has far more reach and ability to influence folk, you’d have to be a fucking moron to limit the available tools we have to hand.
But then again, so many of our supposed “Pro-Indy” politicians and activists still can’t be arsed or have the Party discipline to archive links to unionist papers, so in the scheme of things I reckon my occasional links to different sources ain’t that bad…

Lesley Evans replacement lined up.

link to twitter.com

@ Dan re, ‘
Dan says:
18 November, 2021 at 10:36 pm

Lesley Evans replacement lined up.

link to twitter.com‘

Well spotted Dan, and very interesting.

Here is what is going to happen/already afoot, according to my crystal ball….

The British Establishment is going to take the foot off the accelerator re Self ID Gender stuff, the Gender Critical people have won a couple of rounds (a good start, but not enough in my opinion) but far more worryingly for the Brits, is that while they have tranquilised the Yes Movement, the Women Won’t Wheesht movement has allowed folk to keep their hand in… and across all political boundaries ( a serious worry for them, because it exposes ‘soft no’s to Yes supporters in a collaborative manner). From a Brit Nat point of view, that now needs to be nipped in the bud as a matter of urgency.

Secondly, they will/already have, ensured that the DPW offices that deal with claims in areas where they have target MP’s, eg Joanna Cherry, Neale Heanvey… will now be operating the most inefficent service for the public. It will be a like a retirement home for the most useless within the DWP, and there will be a boss in place in those offices, ensuring they are protected.
The idea being to overload/overwhelm those MP’s with claimants in need, so they cannot manage and get demoralised.

It’s important they know this, because if they can firefight sufficiently, it’s actually a potential voting gift. Every one of those claimants that the MP’s assist is worth 2 – 6 votes, if they do a good job.

And lastly, the recent very co-ordinated pile on on Joanna Cherry makes no sense, other than if Nikla goes soon, a leadership contest at present is likely to result in JC becoming leader… and Angus Robertson is absolutely the Brit Nats next heir apparant to Nikla.

Right just now, the Brit Nats number one priority is about how to neutralise their Joanna Cherry problem.

If they push her out completely, and she stands as an Independent, she is likely to keep her seat, in that ‘neutral’ position she would be ideal to unify the indy split between Alba and SNP… and her presence at this level would show up Angus on a daily basis.

Incidentally, I don’t think, (although things can change) I don’t think she should join Alba, her constituency is traditionally Conservative, I think it would almost guarantee her being voted out if she joined Alba – which is a bugger because she would be a great asset. But thems the way the cards are falling at the moment… as far as I can tell.

One last thought, a problem for the Brit Nats, is JC is now internationally recognised through her work on the illegal Prorogation and her GC work, she’s earned some formidible allies in England, and they will not want to lose her. Yet another reason why they will be looking to mothball the self ID Gender stuff as much as possible for now.

I realise for a lot of people it’s very much ‘all about Indy’ and the self ID gender stuff is a distant second, if at all. That is naive. We do not have that luxury. The Yes movement needs to maximise it as an opportunity as much as possible – even if it means trimming/tailoring the message somewhat.

Thanks for that very welcome contribution, it’s always a form of relief during these times.
Unfortunately the Cult won’t be interested in Polls, especially not from you, Stuart, it won’t offer any kind of epiphany for them. Nonetheless, I see the poll as a progress – slow-moving, sure – but definite progress and undoubted signs of change.

In the meantime, we’ll keep spreading the word and exposing the fraud, on Twit and elsewhere.
Another hero will join us again: Craig Murray will soon be free and, after he gains some strength – and the love from his persecuted family – I can’t see him being cowed by the crooks.

Thanks again. Hope you’re well.

It is generally understood that polls (to a large extent) measure propaganda and its effectiveness rather than public opinion per se. Naturally, then, it follows; the more propaganda a population is subjected to, the more skewed public opinion will be.

I have to wonder what value polls have in Scotland today when, as revealed here, women and young people have such a favourable opinion of Sturgeon’s SNP and its policies. Those two groups in particular are distinct losers as far as Government action detrimental to their specific interests are concerned (GRA tramples all over women’s rights and failure to progress independence must surely impact on the young more than anyone else).

In 2014 we were targeted by “project fear” but we had protection in the form of Salmond and the SNP, Wings, and others back then. The protection they provided in the form of alternative views and rebuttals made all the difference, taking support for independence from about 27% to 45% in the space of a few months.

The grim reality that we don’t have any real protection or alternative perspectives is reflected in these polls.

Sturgeon’s SNP has essentially joined forces with the British State and between them they’ve been able to spin all sorts of stories without interruption — on things like GRA, the plot against Salmond, independence, the pandemic, and much else — to the extent that polling today in Scotland is essentially a depressing measure of how much effort they put into bludgeoning us.

They’ve moved on to foreign policy and international relations too and you can bet you’d see that in the polls if you looked, with public opinion in Scotland suddenly more positive towards Israel, nuclear deterrence, and NATO, and more negative towards Russia, etc.

Maybe the money would be better spent on say substack where you can pay people like Dominic Cummings to answer specific questions (and I’d bet he could reveal a thing or two about the SNP’s position on stuff like “herd immunity”) or on old fashioned marketing.

…And lastly, the recent very co-ordinated pile on on Joanna Cherry makes no sense, other than if Nikla goes soon, a leadership contest at present is likely to result in JC becoming leader… and Angus Robertson is absolutely the Brit Nats next heir apparant to Nikla.

If anybody is in any doubt about the degree to which Joanna Cherry got under the skin of Westminster…

link to twitter.com

They are trying to reverse that precedent set whereby the PM can be challenged and defeated regarding the prorogation of Parliament. Joanna Cherry gave Scotland an important beachhead where a Scots Law doctrine held sway over English / Westminster law.

But like any beach head, bridge head, or air head, it is just a military manoeuvre which pierces the enemy defences and takes the initiative. But if you don’t rush in support and reinforcement to exploit the breakthrough, the enemy will recover, regroup, and isolate the salient and crush it.

Joanna Cherry had the UK Establishment on the run, twice, yet NOTHING was done to exploit the advantage, and be in no doubt, it was a Constitutional advantage, with Scots Law doctrines at the heart of it.

I worry about Joanna Cherry’s position. Truth be known, I think Rev Stu suffers for it too. But when a nasty and vicious pack is after you, three of them can feel like fifty, whereas fifty friends and allies can feel like three. It’s not baseless fear either, because the attackers have the initiative to instigate an attack on you, where your support feels sluggish and ineffective in defending you. That’s a pernicious stress, and it wears people down.

“ The Yes movement needs to maximise it as an opportunity as much as possible – even if it means trimming/tailoring the message somewhat…”

It’s a very rare occurrence Daisy Walker, but for once I disagree with you. Nobody invited the Transgender Taliban to ride piggyback on the electoral popularity of Scottish Independence. They infiltrated our YES Campaign because it promised them power and electoral mandates which their delusional fantasies would NEVER have secured on their own. Our YES movement has been taken over by a parasitic organism that has grown fat gorging itself on our strengths, and when it is done with us, all that will be left is the husk of what once was.

It will be a gross strategic error to entertain a place for these poisonous individuals anywhere in future Independence Campaigns, or they will do to YES and ALBA what they have done to the SNP.

It is my firm conviction they have actually destroyed the IndyRef2 Option for the foreseeable future. Not only the inanely stupid cul-de-sac of Sturgeon’s Section 30 nonsense, but actually, the prospect of winning it, when Independence is forced to carry the dead weight of Transgender Extremism and is thoroughly poisoned by association.

I’d walk over hot coals to follow the Pantone 300 Saltires and YES logo’s of 2014. But I cannot even look at the corrupted SNP “YES” multicoloured logo without seeing the same corruption of something very pure and beautiful which was very dear to me. Nobody asked them to do it.

It is my equally firm conviction that ALBA, and a strategy very much in line with that described by the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group, is now the ONLY way that Scotland can save itself from the catastrophic failures and incompetence of Sturgeon’s regime.

I know a lot of people fought very hard to get Holyrood, and for a time, Holyrood was the Great Hope in the Scottish Independence story. Many saw it as being half way there. I didn’t. Instead I saw people who wanted a thing too much, and it made them, I hate to say it, gullible.

Holyrood could have been that half way house… I repeat reference to my Red/White/Raspberry Ripple sovereignty argument, but Holyrood’s cowardly acquiescence to Scotland’s wholly unlawful and unconstitutional colonial subjugation that was Brexit, has bleached Holyrood of all red pigment and revealed it as Westminster Institution which swears fealty to Westminster. Holyrood is lying when it claims to respect the Constitutional Sovereignty of the Scottish People.

Holyrood is dead to me. It is not the Government of Scotland. Scotland has no Government.

Scotland will remain without a Government until it creates the Grand Assembly Institution which takes actual command of Scotland’s inalienable Sovereignty and uses that Constitutional position to destroy the Treaty of Union and secure International Recognition, so that Scotland can inhale it’s first breath of oxygen in over 314 years.

@tannadiceboy, re ‘misrepresenting me’.

Dear tannadice, I made my comment without the slightest thought or knowledge of your stance on the subject. Sorry if that offends, it is not intended to.

Thinking some more about the Brit Nat’s need to get Joanna Cherry out of the SNP prior to a Leadership contest.

What are their options?

Keep Nikla in place – not good, she’s a spent force now, and likely to get stroppy.

(The purpose of the SNP now is to mop up the YES vote, with a leader who will do hee haw to progress it…. just like with labour before, and like labour before, to become increasingly lacking in ability or integrity… a slow and managed electorial decline.)

So, options.

Smear Joanna like they did Alex. Unlikely.

Hound her out, with relentless bullying. This is already being tried, but is backfiring. The optics are really bad, to the point of rallying people to her cause, and the more they try, the more the GRSelf Id Madness is exposed to daylight.

Incite one of the GR nutters to do her physical harm.

I’m sorry to be the messenger of doom folks, but I have no doubt the Brit Nats will be game planning all of the above scenarios, and the last one will definitely be on the cards.

The Yes movement let down Alex. It allowed the Brit Nats to destroy his reputation.

If physical harm comes to Joanna, it will allow Angus and Alyn to step up to the plate, and play at being ‘statesmen’.

We need to turn the tables on that, and do so now. And I’m not sure exactly how, although the #I stand with Joanna is a good start.

I suspect publicising the names of all the SNP MP’s and MSP’s who encourage the pile on, or who remain silent about it – a sort of name and shame policy – might be a start.

What are folks thoughts.

Sturgeon has dragged down the independence moment, her cabal needs to be cleansed out of the SNP. It will be good to see Sturgeon go sooner rather than later.The damage she has done to Patriots Singh,Murray and Salmond is unforgivable she a worse ("Tractor" - Ed) to Scotland than even Brown.
Good to see wings back, Scotland needs you now more than ever.

@ Breeks at 8.56: “Scotland has no government..”. I agree with that and with the rest of your thinking. I too loathe the multi-coloured Yes logo and can’t bear to look at it. Nor at NS. What a shambles and wreck they have made of everything.

@ Daisy Walker: “name and shame SNP MP/MSPs who encouraged the pile on [against Joanna Cherry]..”. I have started to try to stimulate a fightback by the Silent MSPs by emailing Kate Forbes on a range of issues. She isn’t my MSP but I don’t see why one shouldn’t tell any MSP our opinions. She is said to have some moral standards so her conscience might be prickable. If she got enough emails from all over Scotland then surely the message will get through?

Breeks at 8:56 am

“It is my equally firm conviction that ALBA, and a strategy very much in line with that described by the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group, is now the ONLY way that Scotland can save itself from the catastrophic failures and incompetence of Sturgeon’s regime.”

Yes, this is the only practical option, Breeks. ALBA might also seek to explain to Scots that independence is decolonisation, Scotland having been sold by its mankit elites into slavery in 1707, and ruthlessly exploited through indentured servitude ever since – as the price of ‘The Equivalent’.

Breeks.
As most often not I tend to hold you in esteem when it comes to alternative avenues as routes to independence and Scottish sovereignty.

And yet I see a deep divided contrast in the way WE the Scottish people recognise our sovereignty and get mad at the snp messing around within the politics,

Yet this bring my attention to the weaponisation of covid by not only th BT gov, but openly by the SNP.

We cannot claim that the Scots hold their sovereignty even under uk health overruling and having control of the health act, mandatory vaccines and mandatory passports in Scotland segregating society into a two tier population.

If you read the Scotland act, I think it is article 8 that states the human right to a home family and access to each other.
In Scotland such things as mandatory vaccines and mandatory Passports similar to how Germany laid its plans to begin segregating the people of Germany in a two tier society,
Can be seen as contentious for the right to home and family against imposed vaccines or lockdowns, sovereignty of people, never mind Scotland’s written sovereignty .

They simple are not compatible. In rights nor in law here in Scotland.

How can we claim we are sovereign then immediately give our sovereignty to the snp under rules that break the devolution Scotland Act. Plus a rather large white elephant in room when it comes to the treaty of the union accuracie.

For it to be law of the British government it has to be approved in the 1707 treaty of the union,
For instance it does not mention that it may lock up Scottish people under a new health act, by using the separate Scots law with was to be retained to Scotland,
It also does not state that a sub branch of Westminster’s devolved government may change Scots law,
Which held your sovereignty and the Scots human privacy rights.
Anything that is not, is in fact not legal,

@Breeks,

I am fully supportive of plebiscite elections for Indy, in fact I now see it as the only method by which we might succeed.

It is indeed de-colonisation.

With regards local elections – they provide Alba with a legitimate reason to knock on doors and speak to people. Doing so in a cold calling type scenario is not very successful.

Hopefully Alba – at every level – will be looking to do this, with a view to setting the foundations of a plebiscite GE election. That’s my stall set out on the issue at any rate.

@ Daisy Walker at 12.13: I was about to say that one reason for the current pile-on against Joanna Cherry could be that she HAS applied to be leader [as I and many others no doubt have asked her to do].

Or someone with her backing has done so.

It is a happy thought – but I think we would have heard if there was an application in.

@ Robert McAllan: there is a glimmer of hope re Kate Forbes – on 5th November Joanna tweeted a photo of Kate and herself at a COP26 event with the words “Delighted to hear Kate…. Women are stronger when we stick together.”

I took encouragement from that.

Robert McAllan @12.53

“Wee Free” Hypocrites?

Who’d have thought!

BBC Woman’s Hour interview with the Chief Exec of Stonewall; well worth hearing ..

link to bbc.co.uk

If you know anyone in the SNP show them this
courtesy of Yours For Scotland

link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com

Dan says:
19 November, 2021 at 1:56 pm
link to twitter.com

What is it that Phantom power said that has got this tumshie freaked out along with the other zoomers?
I can’t see what it is.

@ robbo

link to twitter.com

Hmm, for some reason that link is going to the tweet rather than the pic. Click on the pic and you can see the previous message.

The women’s hour interview with the head of stonewall was interesting and included a number of references to the shambolic scotgov.

We are no clearer on what transphobia actually is, or indeed what constitutes a woman, but from what I can gather there’s agreement on the need to remove the word “mother” from… well… everything.

It’s all starting to unravel, isn’t it… a few seconds of luke warm scrutiny and the whole edifice crumbles into a smouldering pile of implausible denials.

Not one straight answer.

link to bbc.co.uk

sarah@1-00pm,unfortunately sarah, Kate Forbes shares the same penchant as her boss Sturgeon namely that she seeks to have her picture taken wherever the opportunity and occasion obliges. The pages of the Ross-shire Journal and the West Highland Free Press regularly bear testament to this.

By her failure to publicly denounce the perpetrators of the attacks visited upon Ms Cherry she emboldens the Blackman,Bardell, Speir and Robertson ‘Woke’ orchestrated factional activity.

Kate Forbes ‘enjoys’ her Cabinet position at the pleasure of Sturgeon and to date demonstrates that she knows her place and in so doing is validating the biological science deniers and their continuing threat to women in our society. sarah, I see no glimmer there,only career enhancement prospects!

@ Dan: thanks. That glimmer is still just about there – illuminating the straw that I am clutching!

But otherwise it is worse than grim – Craig Murray was strip-searched yesterday in prison before he was allowed to attend a hospital appointment. They also said he had to be handcuffed but he refused.

For God’s sake, he is a civil prisoner. I would love to see David Arbuthnot, the governor of HMP Edinburgh, swap places with Craig. And Keith Brown. What awful people they are.

Sturgeon’s NuSNP has quietly morphed into a party of the Union, a party of Devolution, a party of the status quo.

The wider Yes movement is seen as mere ballot box fodder for the troughers, bench warmers, charlatans and grifters who pursue their political careers in the ranks of the NuSNP, all the while paying lip-service to the cause of Scottish Independence – “jam tomorrow everybody, if we all push together, just one more time…”

Welcome to a world where those who perjure themselves walk freely, whilst those who dare to tell the truth languish in a prison cell.

Welcome to a world where you can paint black stripes on a white horse and the State will enable you to call it a Zebra, all the while ensuring that those who would argue what you have is a black and white striped horse are silenced, through fear of criminal proceedings.

Welcome to a world where Orwell’s fiction has become fact. Where Kompromat is the new currency of authority. Where an online Woketorian Guard weed out the doubters and unbelievers via social media ‘pile-ons’ and threats of violence from anonymous, faceless accounts.

Welcome to a world where Cash at Bank exists, despite its being invisible, and where the once anti-establishment has become… the establishment.

Welcome to our world – Failte gu Alba

@Daisy Walker 9:55am
I will apologise to you. You are an Independence supporter. I got triggered by the GRA stuff. My belief, nobody is safeguarding children. And Hatuey almost triggered me tonight with the mother stuff but I pressed the big red button of controlling my frustration. It works for me. I hope Glasgow has recovered from the COP 26 circus and you have regained control of the street. I can tell Hatuey a simple fact when dying soldiers utter their last word. What is it?. Mother, mama, mum or some such derivative. If your mum is still alive, cherish her. My late mum was a raging Independence supporter. And grumpy to boot.

I feel the criticism on here of Kate Forbes is not justified.

When Derek MacKay`s activities were exposed, Kate had to take over the presentation of the budget to the Holyrood parliament at less than twenty four hours notice, and she did so brilliantly. Since then she has performed very well as finance minister.

She is young, well qualified and very intelligent which immediately separates her from the numpties favoured by Nicola Sturgeon as her ministers (cronies), Humza Useless and Shirley-Anne-Sommerville, to name two.

Yes, Kate has strong religious beliefs which to me means she has a strong moral compass. Remember these old fashioned things like truth, honesty, not telling lies, keeping your promises, etc. How often have you heard that Boris Johnston has no moral compass?

I have met Kate a couple of times and found her to be a very genuine and grounded person and committed to Scottish independence. I would love to see her take over the leadership of the SNP and clear out the NS woke cabal.

Back to the central issue. How do we get rid of Sturgeon ??

Robert Graham at 3.15pm

Does that mean that everyone in Gibralter has had a holiday ?

@ Benhope: I too have heard personal praise of Kate Forbes. If the party is under the control of two very strange characters, FM and Chief Exec, it takes more than one person to restore normality.

The leader has a sizeable group of acolytes in Holyrood and Westminster which makes it even harder. Add to that the change in party procedures so the NEC, staffed by acolytes, can get away with unlawful selection procedures, and it is near impossible to effect a change.

The only way to change the leader that I can see is to stand for the leadership in the Annual Conference. If several people had stood then it makes the impossible a lot more do-able – the flak would be spread and the message could have got through to the members that all is not well under current management. Sadly it looks as if no-one has made the attempt this year.

I think the change of SNP leader comes too late.

The real test for the SNP will be whether they will individually engage with the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group’s proposal…

“The Scottish Parliament should therefore pass a resolution establishing both that it is the only parliament which represents the sovereign will of the Scottish people, and to declare that the Nation of Scotland is sovereign, and is withdrawing from the 1707 Treaty of Union with England with immediate effect. This could easily be legally justified by citing the myriad of ways in which the UK Government has broken the terms of the Treaty over the years, and continues to do so in respect of Brexit and the Internal Market Bill among others.

They should each be pressed for an answer. If you want to continue as an elected representative of Scotland, you do not have the right to remain silent.

If they do not engage, then Scotland has the dubious distinction of having a Scottish “Government” which doesn’t respect the sovereign integrity and Constitution of the people they “govern”. Holyrood will, to all intents and purposes, conveniently impeach itself.

That situation would make Holyrood Government untenable, but more importantly, it would simultaneously greatly empower and legitimise a new Scottish political assembly which did pledge it’s allegiance to the sovereign people.

So what are we waiting for?

Fantastic to see you back – your input is seriously needed to lift us all out of the mire.

The way Joanna Cherry has been treated is despicable – the snp should be ashamed – but it seems if your face does not fit a pile in is allowed and will not be stopped by oor Nicola.

Hope you are back – up for a fund raiser.

Colonialism is hardly a recent phenomenon insofar as Scotland is concerned. Constitutionally, Scotland is not a colony; it is in the political, economic, social and cultural senses that Scotland has been and remains subject to colonialism, all of which involves exploitation, prejudice, racism and worse.

In all practical senses Scotland is subjected to colonial power and control, and Scotland therefore exhibits a colonial legacy in all its wretchedness – which is what gives rise to demands for independence.

Independence is therefore very much about the decolonisation and liberation of the Scottish people, as well as the question of our constitutional right to nationhood.

link to grousebeater.wordpress.com

Welcome back Rev Stu. You have been sorely missed.

See when I start to type “Wings …” into my search engine? Up pops the message “The world’s most-read Scottish politics website”.

Please don’t let this priceless asset wither away.

This poll shows she isn’t winning over soft no’s and underlines the fact there is no strategy for Indy.

I read this morning that Cameron’s bidding for his friends
in a dodgy bank will cost the tax payers £335 Million.

Just like Hancock, Jarvid has major shares in a company
that is being awarded NHS contracts.

How about this think tank- Scotland would not have enough energy
if independent as we are dependant on Westminster subsidies??

Unbelievable !

…. how do you convincingly demonstrate a mandate for independence to the the international community?

It is an absolute and binary condition. Scotland is sovereign.

Even supposing 99.99% of the population was pro-Union and content with subservience and Scotland not being sovereign, it still wouldn’t change the binary condition, that for as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. Scotland is sovereign by legal definition and Scotland’s Sovereignty is inalienable. The job is taken. There is no vacancy for anybody else’s sovereignty.

In those circumstances, Scotland does not need to demonstrate any democratic mandate for Independence. If the Treaty of Union has been breached, that too is an unalterable legal reality that is not dependent on a political mandate.

Scotland can declare the Treaty broken, and the Union is ended. It is likely and indeed preferable that such a Constitutional change would benefit from having a ratification plebiscite.

But, even in the darkest scenario of Scotland ending the Union but failing to win endorsement through the subsequent ratification plebiscite, the Treaty of Union would still be ended and could not be resurrected. All the ballot would be is an aspirational mandate from the people of Scotland to create a new Union from scratch, but that’s a mandate which the Parliament of England what have to agree too, and to which both nations would have to agree terms.

Last point, even though we don’t need one, Scotland HAS a democratic mandate to end the Treaty of Union. In 2016, the Sovereign people of Scotland voted emphatically for the UK to remain in Europe. The Westminster Parliament breached the Treaty of Union by subjugating Scotland’s sovereign will, and it also demolished it’s own unwritten “Convention” that Scotland was in a consensual Union, when Scotland had expressly and unequivocally refused to give it’s consent.

Arguably, Westminster has already ended the Union by breaching it. Scottish Independence is now a technical matter of consequence.

Thanks, Breeks, for what you say in your post @ 11.35 pm on 19th November, on the subject of Scotland not being a ‘colony’. I think we are fully agreed on that one.

I also agree with almost everything you say about Scotland taking its fair share of the former UK’s debt when the UK is finally dissolved. For me, this is primarily a matter of justice.

However, your post also points out ways in which this will actually serve Scotland’s long-term interests, even economically, giving her the credibility on the international stage she will need from the outset.

The crucial point will be how our share of the national debt is calculated. The most important points here will be economic.

For me, the fact that the revenues from Scottish oil were not credited to Scotland has to come into play here. Through an obvious accounting trick, or subterfuge, 90% was siphoned off from a resource in Scottish waters to be spent on huge projects furth of Scotland. These mainly profited London, and/or the rest of the South of England, and they still do. That is a very sizeable chunk of money which ought to be re-attributed, in such a way that it reduces the amount of UK national debt Scotland is obliged to take on.

The other huge item that ought to come into play in these calculations is the unilateral redrawing of the sea border between Scotland and England. This action, incidentally, would have to be considered a straightforward breach of the Treaty of Union, especially if the straight-line sea border was already in place in 1707. But even if it wasn’t in place then, and came into existence only later, Westminster still had no right to redraw it.

That point is eminently winnable for Scotland, and there are two possible approaches for her to take. She could either say: give it all back to us, which would be my own preference. Or else, alternatively, its worth could be calculated, no doubt by some independently agreed assessors, and Scotland compensated accordingly. The amount arrived at would then be taken off the amount of national debt Scotland is required to take on.

I expect both these moves – and there might be others similar to them that equally make sense – would result in a substantial decrease in the amount of national debt an independent Scotland would be saddled with. Given the population difference, it cannot be more than 10% of the total anyway (though even 10% is huge), and when these other aspects are factored in it is bound to come to quite a bit less than that.

Finally, less importantly, there is also a question of names. All parties concerned will have to agree that there is NO ‘continuing UK’. The UN should require clear and formal acceptance of this, for instance when Scotland applies for membership, and also when the rest of what was the UK does likewise.

Scotland will still be Scotland – probably as a Republic rather than a Kingdom – but what will the other entity call itself?

If the ‘no continuing state’ principle means the end of what used to be called the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, I don’t see how we can altogether prevent the other country emerging from the break-up calling itself the ‘United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’. If, that is, what they want to call themselves.

If that is their option, it would indeed be preferable that they call themselves the ‘New United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’, or ‘New UK’ for short, thereby maijng plain the distinction from the old UK which people are accustomed to. But we can’t force this on them, unless the international community (UN) does so, for instance in order to prevent any confusion.

Whatever the case, it is important to emphasise that neither entity can claim to be the continuation of the old UK. They simply cannot be, either legally or even in terms of common sense.

Taking our fair share of the debt is also the only way to facilitate future friendly relations between the two future countries which emerge – or rather re-emerge – from the demise of what was the UK. If we were to escape from having to pay our fair share on the basis of some kind of legal technicality, there would be endless bitterness and recrimination from our southern neighbour which would serve no one’s interest at all. The ending of the Union should also be the end of all of that hostility, once and for always.

As independent countries, both England and Scotland will need to foster good and mutually respectful relations with each other.

@RoS 8.12 pm

It doesn’t really help to say 48.99% voted for the SNP/Greens on constituency vote and 50.12% for SNP/Greens/Alba on the regional vote though does it? The position the Scottish people isn’t currently that they support the proposals being put forward by the SSRG, or any other alternative to #indyref2 is it?

We might wish that was different, and want it to change, but the kind of changes you quote depend on “the Scottish people” forcing their representatives to use the “electoral, internationally legal, and moral authority” they hold to assert the primacy of the Scottish parliament. I’m interested in hearing how you think that is going to be done, what the (realistic) timescale is for it happening in your opinion, and whether that’s likely all things considered to be quicker than say…winning a plebiscitary election?

I can see the logic of pushing the SSRG “repatriation” option, but even if it became official policy for a party like Alba, it’s a long way from being accepted as a route map to achieving independence by the SNP and Greens isn’t it? So how does that happen?

@RoS 8.52 pm

So we need to inform and convince a majority of Scots to support changing the route to achieve independence from gaining a Yes majority in a referendum to an SSRG style assertion of sovereignty and “repatriation of power” followed by a declaration of independence by the Scottish parliament?

I’m still struggling to see how that’s going to happen more quickly than (for example) trying to convert the SNP to the idea of changing from a referendum to plebiscitary elections?

You ELLIS

Cuntie Mc fuck . Shut the feck up ya rammer .

Thanks, Breeks, for what you say in your post @ 11.35 pm on 19th November, on the subject of Scotland not being a ‘colony’. I think we are fully agreed on that one.

I also agree with almost everything you say about Scotland taking its fair share of the former UK’s debt when the UK is finally dissolved. For me, this is primarily a matter of justice.

However, your post also helped me to see various ways in which this will actually serve Scotland’s long-term interests. Economically, as you point our, it will give her the credibility she will need as a player on the international stage.

There are other benefits. Taking our fair share of the debt is the only way to facilitate future friendly relations between the two future countries which emerge – or rather re-emerge – from the previous UK. If we were to escape from having to pay our fair share on the basis of some kind of legal technicality, there would be endless bitterness and recrimination from our southern neighbour which would serve no one’s interest.

We surely want independence done in a way that respects everyone, and heralds in a new kind of relationship between Scotland and England. This new relationship, beneficial to both without either country exploiting or undermining the other, will be nothing like the centuries of perpetual conflict that occurred in the Middle Ages.

To be honest, although I have always been totally opposed to the Union ever since I was a kid, I now think if its terms had been fully respected and honestly implemented, it could have achieved that goal.

Instead, and perhaps most unfortunately, right from the beginning, virtually while the ink was still drying on the 1707 Treaty documents, the terms were ignored and England began to act as if it had colonised Scotland. That was quite obvious for the first 60 or 70 years of the Union, and had devastating effects on Scotland.

That ‘colonial master’ attitude from our southern neighbour later continued, albeit less visibly and more subtly, for a couple of centuries from the Enlightenment onwards. It was under the radar, not out in the open, but still very much present and ongoing.

Scots reconciled to the Union (despite the subterfuges which had brought it about) had their view of it, which was actually the correct and legal and entirely legitimate view, as set out in the 1707 documents. They were ‘allowed’ by the southern neighbour to keep that view, so long as it had very few real consequences, and did not imping on England’s domination of ‘these islands’.

At the same time, the English deliberately (and culpably) ignored both the actual terms of the 1707 Treaty and the nature of the new legal entity it had brought about, except those elements of it which were in their own interests. They continued to presume (quite wrongly) that the Union meant that they had taken Scotland over, once and for all.

England, they mistakenly thought, had subjected the Scots and Scotland. What English kings since Edward I and even before him had long aspired to do by military means, without success, had now been achieved through the bribery, corruption and deceit that had undermined the Scottish parliament (and illicitly trampled on the rights and desires of the Scottish people) to bring the Union into existence. But they never saw it as a Union at all; rather, as a subjugation of the (population-wise) smaller part (Scotland) to the larger part (England). A colonial take-over, therefore, and not that Union between two equal partners – both free in themselves, and neither in a state of subjection to the other – which the Treaty had clearly presumed, and set out.

The English signatories signed one thing, and thought and believed something else. Or, more to the point, their political masters in the English government did: as if what the document said was not what it meant. The English then began to act as if the Treaty had confirmed the centuries-long English dream, or objective in regard to Scotland. This was entirely the opposite of the Treaty’s own terms. The English ‘partner’, or rather party to the agreement, therefore felt free to ignore its terms.

In the English political mind-set, the Treaty of Union of 1707 therefore became something entirely different from what the terms of that Treaty actually said, and from what both parties were required to presume in order for it to be correctly understood. What had happened, the English convinced themselves, was what they had hoped to achieve by it. This was something entirely different from what the Treaty said, and from what they had signed up to.

This is the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ world of English politics where, as one of the characters says, ‘words mean what I say they mean’. in other words, they do not mean anything in themselves, and I am not bound by them. They only mean what I want them to mean. And what that eventually means is that ‘words mean whatever happens to be advantageous to me, at any particular moment – so there! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!’

In other words, words have no intrinsic meaning and neither do laws or treaties; they are all pliable, and can and ought to be interpreted differently in different circumstances, according to whatever suits best the interests of certain individuals or, more particularly, the interests of ‘the nation’. And, lest there be any doubt, ‘the nation’ actually means ‘England’! Thus, this concept, ‘the nation’, can be expressed in several different ways – Great Britain / the UK etc. – but what it really and truly, actually and always means (at last a word with a specific meaning!) is, precisely, specifically, England!

It amazed me – naive as I must no doubt be – how strongly and quickly this ‘English colonial attitude’ towards Scotland and the Scots re-emerged when Scotland struck oil, and still more so when the possibility of Scottish independence began to gain traction. Not only was the attitude unpleasantly vitriolic, it was also extraordinarily visceral. Which only went to show, at least to me, how deeply entrenched it is in what I can only call, for the want of a better term, the ‘English psyche’. Not, please note, in every English person individually, but in the largely unstated, only semi-conscious hinterland of what for so many in England it means to be English.

If most historical peoples or nations are to some extent defined against, or in differentiation from, other peoples or nations – usually their neighbours, from whom they distinguish themselves, (not least as distinct political and cultural entities) – and if this is true, as indeed it is, in regard to Scotland and England, we must remember that this is a two-way street. And we should be honest enough to admit that this involves a degree of antagonism. It is not just that ‘these terrible Scots are against these nice English people’, as the propaganda that pours out on us incessantly would have us believe (some of it unfortunately internalised by some Scots themselves), it is also a fact that the English really think that the Scots should not, as such, exist. Hence the underlying attitude towards Scots that ‘you are not a nation’, ‘you are not a people’, and ‘you shouldn’t pretend or try to be what you just aren’t’; by contrast, we, the English, really are all of these things.

The propaganda is not new, not in the least. Just read what Edward I said in his time, not least before the Papal court, the greatest international instance of the day. And then read ongoing versions of the same thing, from his son and grandson (Edward II and III), through to others like Henry VIII and Cromwell, down to the machinations and false interpretations of Union of 1707 and beyond, to our own day.

This anti-Scotland narrative and attitude is a continuing strand in English political history, and it is essentially aggressive, for it aims ultimately at Scotland’s final obliteration. That was recognised and explicitly articulated not just by the English but by the Scots, in their defence of their position in 1301, and it is still in full swing today.

We are being told that we should not say such things any more, or even point them out, because to do so is now ‘not nice’, or ‘not politically correct’. When you hear such things being said, no matter by whom, you have to ask yourself: who profits by no longer pointing this out, or even remembering it?

If there is a propaganda war in full swing, is all this ‘niceness’ really ‘nice’? Or is it just another way of waging and reinforcing one side of that war, in order to bring about precisely that objective – the obliteration of Scotland. By its being absorbed entirely and irreversibly into England, and thus subjugated to her (England)? So that our interests and aspirations become entirely subjected to her (England’s) interests and aims. Even, indeed, at the expense of our own!

You Scots – you don’t exist as a people. And neither does your country – it’s only a piece of land, owned and subjected to the crown. And that does not mean your crown but ours, the English crown. (“You can call it ‘the British crown’ or ‘the UK crown’ if you want, but remember what these words actually mean. They mean ‘the English crown’. Because words mean what i say they mean! Keep smoking that pipe! And pipe down!”)

For me, the fact that the revenues from Scottish oil were not credited to Scotland has to come into play here….

That’s a really interesting point you make Wull, and it won’t be easy to resolve.

One of the UN’s criteria for assessing or defining colonialism is whether a nations resources are expended for the benefit of the nation or someone else.

Arguably, Scotland could sue for more than straightforward revenue, and choose to pursue a missing Norwegian style Oil Fund, particularly since the proposal was made but specifically rejected by Westminster.

What I wouldn’t want however is to push England to the point of Bankruptcy. Not that they wouldn’t deserve it, but because England might then become the modern day Weimar Republic, crippled with hyperinflation, unemployment, and a burning resentment towards Scotland. The ugliness of English Nationalism and English Exceptionalism is already there to be seen, and UK Arms dealing, which would become English Arms dealing, is already an inseparable element of their foreign trade. Scary.

I don’t believe that England would spiral into a repetition of 1930’s Germany, but that’s maybe what people said about 1930’s Germany. England being a money laundering tax haven and weapons manufacturer, and with America’s current instabilities and love for it’s Military, the perennial Middle East “problem”, and a European Union that thinks for itself, and doesn’t necessarily see “the West” as it’s special relationship Ally…. Well, there are some ominous ingredients for dark times ahead, and frankly, not much optimism to be found.

Scotland in my opinion would need to enter UK Dissolution negotiations like an uncompromising lion rampant, but perhaps, I stress perhaps, be magnanimous, and be prepared to occasionally indulge some lamb like tendencies, just for the pragmatism of a quiet life after the Union’s demise.

Be prepared to compromise, but actually compromise, professionally -negotiate, secure concessions, – don’t crumble and concede… Now who, in Sturgeon’s nSNP seems even remotely capable of doing that? – Answers on a Post Card to Joanna Cherry.

Unless people would prefer Sturgeon? (Oh God no!). The fat Banker? (Oh no!). Angus Robertson? (Just oh!). (Just NO!)

Or maybe that long-standing pillar of the British Establishment Wishart? Stewart Reds-in-the-head MacDonald??? Maybe Drew Henry and David Lindon? (in their dress uniforms naturally), or Alyn Smith naturally in a dress? There’s Kirsty Blackman who could probably be trusted to get the UK’s Twitter Account taken down.. That’ll show ‘em.

Thank God there’s ALBA and Alex Salmond. That wee chunk of finest Scottish granite that is Lego to Westminster’s bare feet.

@Hatuey 6.08 am

Good luck getting an answer from the obscurantists now infesting this site Hatuey. Isn’t it telling that nary a one of the usual suspects has even attempted – still less succeeded – in addressing any of the issues raised? All we have in response is varaitions on a theme: sweary abuse from the knuckle dragging fraternity like robbo, or de haut on bas deflection from Gareth Wardell who wouldn’t demean himself to answer fairly simple questions.

I think the “ghost in the machine” analogy is a good one. As Gareth’s contribution shows, these folk honestly believe that single minded confidence and banging on about colonisation and the breaking of the Treaties of Union by the perfidious English will magically transport us to the sunny uplands of independence.

Whether the point of contact can only be a referendum is open to debate: I still think plebiscitary elections are more likely in the short to medium term.

Apparently to the hard of thinking BTL in here though it’s “unadulterated waffle” to even ask the question about what their plan providing “the locomotion that leads to real change” actually is. Somehow it all just happens because *reasons*!

Cue the tirades from the usual suspects about me being variously an SNP stooge / Britnat / 77 Brigade / MI5 / not a real nationalist.

Joanna Cherry as a replacement to Sturgeon would be I think a game changer. The direction of the SNP would change.

She would of course be a big asset to Alba but for the foregoing reason she would be better remaining in the SNP and becoming leader. The Establishment know this, and like Alex Salmond, Craig Murray, et al, their policy is to try to destroy those who present a real threat to them of moving Scotland to independence.

Under Sturgeon the SNP has become pro establishment, the parliament but a community council filled with somnolent Pygmies.

This survey reveals many mixed messages and some very clear. But for me, the one thstvrevealed 48% still want independence when the subject of independence never touches the lips of our SNP MPs or MSPs tells me that the dream has not died.

Far from it, a reinvigorated campaign under new committed and sound leadership with someone like Joanna Cherry, would change the entire political scene.

Republicofscotland 20 November, 2021 at 8:12 pm

”The Scottish people have stated their position quite clearly by voting in earlier this year a majority of indy minded MSPs and MPs, …”

Jeezo Republic, what you smoking?

You can’t use the “Tin Of Beans” analogy with politics, and most certainly not with Scottish politics.

Like all of us, you expect a tin labelled “beans” to contain beans.

But you can’t any longer expect politicians labelled “nationalists” or “independence supporters” to support these positions. No more than you can expect politicians labelled “conservatives” to conserve, “labour” to promote jobs and employment, or “green” to prioritise the environment.

Andy Ellis is right. You want Scots Indy? Then you start at the bottom, with a new party, purged of liars, troughers, narcissists, reality deniers and time servers, and build up from there.

Andy Ellis is right. You want Scots Indy? Then you start at the bottom, with a new party, purged of liars, troughers, narcissists, reality deniers and time servers, and build up from there.

I don’t agree John. I actually think the Unionist Establishment fully understands and thrives on Scotland’s small ‘c’ conservatism and reluctance to do anything too radical. “Oh it’s gotta be done correctly or it won’t count!”… blah, blah, blah…

(Remind you of anybody’s “Gold Standard Referendum”?)

The establishment of the Union wasn’t done correctly. Not withstanding all the corruption and crookedness of the Scots “Lords”, the attitude of the English Parliament towards the Union was that it had “catch’d” Scotland. How do you interpret “catch’d” other than a successful entrapment?

My attitude towards this Union is that it is despicable, dishonest, and unfit for purpose. Quid pro quo… Scotland show the same contempt for the Treaty of Union as Westminster. Only Scotland’s objective should be to end it as quickly as possible by the most expedient route that is lawful.

In regards to the point alluded to by so many on here, Wings included as I recall, that a majority of votes rather than a majority of MSPs is the threshold that matters, even there it isn’t so simple.

If that situation was inverted and a clear majority of Scots voted for independence supporting parties but, through some quirk of the electoral system, failed to achieve a majority of MSPs, is there anyone that doubts the BBC and its political wing (the Tory Party) would be telling us that vote share doesn’t matter, that it’s the number of MSPs that matters in a parliamentary system?

In most countries, including the US and the UK, it’s seats that matter, not the share of the vote. When did Scotland decide to do things differently? It’s not as if we have a pure PR system which would, axiomatically, put emphasis on vote share.

At the end of the day, it’s the number of seats rather than the number of votes that matters as far as forming the government is concerned. The system that they designed to keep Scotland in place, somethings they are pretty open about, ignores vote share and tells us that it’s seats that matter. Who are we to argue?

I find it quite odd that nobody here or anywhere else has ever really taken issue with this. We all just accepted the argument and moved on.

Seems we all see the problem, but just can’t settle on the solution.

BawJaws at No.10 and Brexit were the biggest open goals to come along since 2014, and just like our national team’s usual performance, both ‘sitters’ were missed – or to be more accurate, the “Captain” simply walked the “team” off the pitch, because she wanted to have a chat in the dressing room about gender woo-woo, and the former Captain, and the cash left in the club kitty, etc. etc.

And before you could say “what strategy for Independence”, Covid came along and the Indy can didn’t just get kicked down the road, it was chucked in the bin marked “Recycling”.

So, until we can organise a new team, with a new Captain, there’s little point in playing another game – ’cause we’ll just lose, and the fans will drift away, along with our best players.

What I’m trying to say is focus on the team, then focus on the next match.

Some on here are trying to do it the other way around, and it’ll simply never work that way.

Breeks and Wulls posts.

Further to comments on the vast revenues from North Sea Oil. Every penny of the countless billions went to the UK treasury who blew the lot on reducing top rate income tax from 60% to 40%. Greatly benefitting the wealthiest but doing next to nothing for the average person.
Of course not a penny was invested for the future, unlike prudent Norway, now the richest country in the world.
The treasury refused to allow even a population share to be spent in Scotland although 95% of the oil came from Scottish waters.
And the billions are still rolling in although it is not fashionable to boast of your oil revenues these days.
This is why I disagree with those who say we should offer to take a share of the National Debt. We never had a share in creating it and we never had a share in any revenues from oil.

And what about the uneven tax revenues and expenditures under the Barnett formula when it come to sorting out the debt that may be owed by one side of the treaty of the union.

“Andy Ellis is right. You want Scots Indy? Then you start at the bottom, with a new party, purged of liars, troughers, narcissists, reality deniers and time servers, and build up from there.”

John Main @10.42am.

I don’t think I’ve read such a naive comment as the one above on this blog. Anyone who thinks that there can exist a political party without those above within its ranks is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, human nature rules it out.

We didn’t need an indyref to get into this union and we certainly don’t need one to get out of it. It should’ve been annulled centuries ago, due to the illegal way it was forced on the people of Scotland, but it wasn’t because a small percentage of co-opted Scots made money out of it, and some are still doing so.

Westminster has broken the 1707 Treaty of Union on multiple occasions, however our current FM and her clique which controls the party that we voted into power to deliver us independence, has become extremely comfortable to just govern Scotland within the illegal union.

If Sturgeon would’ve called upon voters in May to give their list votes to the Alba party there would be around 90 indy minded MSPs at Holyrood. Some of those MSPs don’t actually want independence, however they were voted in by us to deliver it and they haven’t.

So the process has to be taken out of their hands, with the SSRG’s route put to them for all to see, (the SSRG has already written to them) if as we suspect that this viable route out of this 1707 forced union is shunned by the SNP and Greens, the public must be informed that the party for independence has done so, and the public (indy voters) must act accordingly by withholding their votes from them starting at next years council elections.

Getting the SSRG’s message out to its widest audience is the biggest stumbling block.

Colour us all unsurprised that the usual suspects are invariably Putin’s stooges as well as nativist moon howlers. All we need is their hot take on Covid vaccination being a plot for the trifecta.

They lack even the basic self awareness to see that their world view is about as palatable to most Scots as that of Trump and his benighted cronies. There has sadly always been a sub-set of Scots nationalists that were anti-American, anti-NATO, anti-EU. They’re about as representative of Scots as the Socialist Worker’s Party or the EDL is of most English folk.

It’s a shame a minority of zoomers and true believers in truthy woo-woo has infected the site in its twilight period. It’s grist to the mill of deeply unpleasant chancers like Stewart McDonald, slytherin Alyn Smyth etc., because it allows them to paint mainstream folk from Alba and those who see merit in the SSRG’s proposals with the brush of being fringe nutters.

If Alba has any sense it will disassociate itself from such roasters with all possible speed. It’s rather a shame they haven’t done so already as Stu Campbell advised some time ago.

I often wonder how many of the posters on here would readily accept an independent Scotland, starting next week, with Nicola and her incompetents in charge of everything!
This going against the wishes of the majority of their fellow countrymen/women!
No doubt they would try and justify this action because of an abused Treaty of Union which occurred hundreds of years ago. The majority of their countrymen/women, of course, have no idea what this is nor do they even care.
I will be shocked if an independence referendum takes place in 2023. Mrs Murrell has many faults but she is not stupid. She will not call a referendum knowing that she will lose. This would place her in a position where she may have to ‘fall on her sword’, just like Salmond did, with the loss of her salary, benefits and power.
It is perfectly obvious that, correctly, Scotland wants nothing to do with Bunter and the Tory’s but nothing else is clear.
No doubt the 8 page? comic, recently produced for those who need to be told what to think, will try and provide some clarification but I will be surprised if there is even an attempt to try and answer the many difficult questions that have to be asked and solutions found.
I am in the camp which wants the current SNP rooted out en masse. They have had umpteen chances and blew them all, preferring to enrich themselves.
Salmond has previously stated that he has ‘the dirt’ on Nicola to cripple her. Where is it? He is not getting any younger!
It would appear that there are many different kinds of ‘Nationalists’. If left long enough each faction will destroy each other, as can be evidenced from perusing the posts on here.
Scotland and Independence is rudderless at the present time.