The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Knowing their place

Posted on July 30, 2019 by

This seemed like an extraordinary piece of subservient snivelling:

But then it all made sense:

Scottish Labour, everyone.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

478 to “Knowing their place”

  1. Den Cairns says:

    And his dug goes wi sailors n’aw!!

  2. Neil Mackenzie says:

    This guy got the ‘O’ Grade, the ‘Higher’ and has graduated with Honours from University in that elite subject called “Scottish Cringe”.

  3. Donald MacKenzie says:

    I suppose it was the same reason that Donald Dewar, Jack MacConnell and Henry McLeish had people visit him In Bute House ……. but that was of course before Labour completely lost the plot and any chance they had of wielding political power in Scotland again.

  4. Alasdair Macdonald says:

    The sheer, petty carping triviality of this shows why Labour in Scotland has become a sour oppositionist rump, which is now rarely even asked for a view.

    It also demonstrates the contempt for Scotland and its Parliament – which Labour often trumpets that it set up.

    It is also an example of ‘know your place Jockos’ arrogance.

  5. msean says:

    City Hall,is that where the Bat signal is projected from?

    London is a city,Scotland is a country.

  6. Proud Cybernat says:

    Ooh FFS.

    Whit’s WRANG wi’ these people?

    Mental. Just mental.

  7. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    NorthBritLab defends Boris the Tory Populist.

    The moral decline continues apace.

  8. Marie Clark says:

    Oh dear, Labour in Scotland eh. What are they like. Nae ideas and nae hope.

    No wonder they’re in a state and loosing votes. Oh dear, how sad never mind.

  9. Terry callachan says:

    Yes indeed why should Scotland exist ?

    England doing all it can to reduce Scotland , with a little help from their friends

    They drummed up a Supreme Court and filled it with people like McKee soggy wet turncoats who would sell children into slavery for British rewards

  10. Proud Cybernat says:

    But I’m sure that wee diddy thinks this is perfectly okay:

  11. orri says:

    Actually the body language from Johnson attempting putting his arm around Sturgeon can be seen in a few ways.

    1) Trying to be overly familiar.
    2) Trying to dominate.
    3) Demonstrating who’s in charge.

    Even if the excuse is he’s being polite that’s only valid if he’s being sexist instead.

    So the simple answer might be it was a failed attempt at exerting control or wresting it from the FM. A play at laying claim to Bute House for Westminster and by that the entirety of Holyrood’s estate.

    Also be interesting to find out how many were actually in that meeting as Johnson seemed to have hauners.

  12. Get up off your snivelling knees, McKee.

    Your Union is up.
    Unless of course you intend to be a ‘refugee’ come Independnece and flee to England’s Green and Pleasant land?
    What a smouldering husk Labour in Scotland has become.

  13. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    The British Nationalists in Scotland are now the equivalent of the diehard Nazis fighting in the rubble of Berlin 1945.

    They know it is a lost cause but will fight on regardless against what they see as their ideological enemies.

    Only the extremists (OO etc. types) and those who stand to lose the cushy lifestyle they gained by putting another country’s priorities before that of their own and their fellow Scots (BritNat Politicians, their Placemen, Placewomen and propagandists in the ‘Scottish’ Media.

    BoJo expects every Unionist to do their duty, for God, England and Brexit!

    93 Days to Brexit.

    Hysteria rising in the YoonStream!


  14. prj says:

    What kind of person is he to think we are subservient to a higher order? Especially when governments are there to serve the people.

  15. John Walsh says:

    How do we overcome the
    “Curmudgeon Paradox’ of Scottish Labour

    1. Everything is dreadful and we demand that everything be improved
    2. But we absolutely refuse to allow anything to be changed
    3. But changing things to make them better would involve new things, which would be bad too

    I’m coming to the conclusion that you cannot counter with reason an opinion that people have formed without using any reason.

  16. Morgatron says:

    That wee jiz monkey hasn’t had much luck running two failures press office for them, perhaps a relation to Mcternan?. His opinion that Bawlis visits Scotland but the FM should go to Downing St? Hahahaha, it’s not Nicolas job to hold the union together that job according to todays press is tank commanders.Is he the riddler?

  17. Marco McGinty says:

    The sad thing is, that what is left of “Scottish” Labour, would prefer to have Boris Johnson and his cabal of racist, sectarian clowns running Scotland, rather than their own Labour Party running an independent Scotland.

    And they still can’t see why their party is almost dead in Scotland.

  18. manandboy says:

    Gordon McKee – like a 2 minute egg. In his favour, he’s not David or Oliver Mundell.

  19. call me dave says:

    The Resolution Foundation…Aye the left leaning think tank thing.

    Torsten Bell spad to Darling and Ed Miliband’s friend release report data about unfair council tax in Scotland.

    Urgent reform needed

    “Very tricky and political for the SNP” says shortbread Fraser.

    Sounds about right. Another day in Scotland 🙂

  20. Tom Kane says:

    These are strange times, Stu. They must have been horrified to see how seriously disliked BoJo’s bonhomie Tory Brexit banter was received here… I see Andrew Sparrow of the Guardian are doing rolling coverage of BoJo charms the Welsh today. Am pretty sure that Andrew’s day off yesterday was carefully planned.

    Actually haven’t seen any big media coverage of just how embarrassing BoJo’ s reception was. Don’t see anybody touching it, except the trolls…

  21. Bob Mack says:

    It was shameful. I never saw even one forelock being tugged.

    What are Scots becoming at all? We used to know our place.

  22. Giving Goose says:

    Gordon McKee is an English Nationalist.

  23. Breeks says:

    Open Question to all Labourites… Is McKee expressing what you really think of Scotland?

    I’m not in any political party, but that goes way beyond any partisan politics you kinda expect, and takes a running jump into weird and cringy all out creepiness and self loathing.

  24. Phil says:

    Lib dems MSP Alex Cole Hamilton tweeted today that Scotland going independent would be like California leaving the US

  25. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Jockanese Wind Talker @ 14:12,

    With that grovel above and the Labour councillor’s top appointment to the OO mentioned in yesterday’s National, I’m beginning to wonder if we’ve been getting this the wrong way round. It’s not that the OO has some influence on NorthBritLab, it’s that the (shrunken) NorthBritLab is increasingly becoming just an OO front.

    A desperate survival strategy, methinks, but then their other (“Queen’s 11”) branch is also visibly faltering.

  26. kapelmeister says:

    Gordon McKee of Labour there, concurring with the Tory belief that the First Minister of Scotland is on a par with the leader of Lincolnshire County Council.

    What an unedifying spectacle.

  27. manandboy says:

    So, in a YouGov poll in June, 63% of Conservative voters in England, chose Brexit over keeping Scotland in the Union.

    Scottish No voters are just so out of touch with the reality of the mis-named Union. Sixty three percent! The will of the 63% must be respected.

    Are you listening SNP politicians? Make sure you broadcast this loud and clear next time you’re on the telly or the wireless.

  28. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    John Walsh @ 14:15,

    “Curmudgeon Paradox”. I love it!

    I don’t think we need do anything about it, though. I’m not one to be complacent, but as a strategy it’s manifestly self-defeating.

    Oh, except we should keep repeating that phrase, of course. Like all great slogans, it says it all in an instant.

  29. geeo says:

    Labour in Scotland, snivelling sycophants ?

    Who knew !!

    My wife detests politics, so imagine my surprise when she called me to ‘see this’

    ‘this’ being Nicola appearing to mouth the words “just get in the bloody hoose” (as my wife reckons it looked like) !

    She then said this: “I hate politics, as you know, but that Boris Johnson is an arsehole, we really should go for independence or that arse will ruin us”

    So there you go, Johnson as PM has motivated the least political person i know, to actively discuss the need for independence.

  30. Republicofscotland says:

    A Labour House Jock, who just can’t help standing up for the Tories as usual. His masters in London have complete control over him how embarrassing.

  31. HandandShrimp says:

    Labour, a party with no direction home, a complete unknown just like a rolling stone.

    What are they for these days?

  32. Bob Mack says:

    Some spinal implant required to allow these creatures to stand upright.

  33. Ian Brotherhood says:

    I know this sounds mental but could there be some plan afoot to wheel out The Blair Brigade to save the UK from Brexit?

    Just heard McTernan on LBC, then saw Campbell on Sky, and they were both praising Blair, quipping that he would beat Boris and/or Corbyn hands-down etc.

    I know, he can’t be PM again, but are they up to something?

    Corbyn had better make double sure his door’s locked at night.


  34. robertknight says:

    Another ‘House Jock’ who thinks we should all kneel before the Massa from the deep south and take a whippin’ for daring to think ourselves as equals.

    WTF do these creatures use for backbones? Used bogroll tubes and duct tape?

    Hey, Gordon!

    If you read this, and you can get up of your knees for a couple of hours, there’s bird shit on the roof of my car. Can you come up to Ayrshire and clean it off for me? I really can’t be arsed and you seem like a nice, servile if needy sort of bloke. My wife is English if that helps. We’d both appreciate your help and if you do a good job we may even allow you to thank us.

    How about it? See you around 6’ish?

  35. Bryan Ritchie says:

    Pure Fuddery

  36. Corrado Mella says:

    A wholesale load of cringe and subservience served cold.

    Chaps, don’t go that hard on the whipping boy.
    It’s the London poison.
    It seeps into your brain through your pores.

    Wife visited very recently, and her lasting impression is that London stinks.

  37. Jack Murphy says:

    Sorry for going off-topic,but I’ve found the Keith Brown MSP interview with Kay Burley of Sky News yesterday.

    Worth watching for 5 minutes.

    It’s via newscotland-tv


  38. manandboy says:

    If asked for my opinion of Labour in Scotland, I’d say they were totally irrelevant. Hanging around as they do, they just make the place look untidy, and with their bloated salaries and expense accounts, they are more akin to parasites, living off the helpless taxpayers.

    At least Kezia Dugdale has left the stage. I don’t hear of anyone missing her. Now on the staff at Glasgow Uni in an Establishment post. She’ll be parked there until such times as she can be slipped quietly into the House of Lords, the first class carriage on the Gravy Train. Then it will be the Uni’s turn to be glad to see the back of her.

  39. Capella says:

    From Camberwell, London.

  40. Merkin Scot says:

    The Red/Blue Toies are going to have another go at presenting nice Tory rebel, Ruth the Mooth, as being the antidote to Boris.
    Emphasising, with Swinson, the need for Scots to be united against extreme Independence.
    Doomed to failure, of course.

  41. Bob Mack says:

    McKee is not about politics. He is about Unionism. The same type that allows a Labour councillor to become Secretary in the Orange Lodge. Make no mistake, Unionism pervades all party’s through sectarian deep roots. That is the issue.

    They do not want a Scotland moving on from the divisions of latter years. They want to re-establish them and put Royalism and Loyalism back to where they think they belong.

    This is not just a fight for Indy. This is a fight for the very soul of our country. To move on from tribalism and sectarianism, which for too long has blighted our attempts to be integrated as one people.

    There are cuckoos in our nest determined to throw out anything which undermines their myopic historical view of the world. They cannot change.

    We must and shall defeat them.

  42. katherine hamilton says:

    Mr. McKee, what is your issue here? What is unedifying? He chose to come up here. What is the FM supposed to do? Protocols, my boy. No choice.
    I was Labour all my previous life. Dicks like you left me. I didn’t leave Labour. You’re gone, man, solid gone. Mind you given the D’Hondt system you’ll get a wee number in Holyrood. Good money. Get on the list lad. Then you can whine with the rest of them. Good money. eh?
    Bad news, SNP all the way!

  43. Capella says:

    He’s got a new neighbour:

    blockquote>Yes, new Prime Minister Boris Johnson has bought a home in Camberwell, in the heart of London, to the delight of any sellers who might like the spotlight being on their neighbourhood. Just as BoJo moves into the most famous address in the land – Number 10 Downing Street – all eyes are on a £1.3million townhouse barely three miles away in south London, which he has snapped up with girlfriend Carrie Symonds. It is understood that the couple bought the property with a joint Santander mortgage and that their ownership was lodged with the Land Registry on Monday.

    The Express

  44. sassenach says:

    Jack Murphy @3-33pm

    That link has been available all day on Nana’s links!!!

  45. AuldAlliance says:

    At root all unionists suffer from an incurable inferiority complex surrounding their own country. I suspect a good humoured Englishman, even a Brexiteer, would have a chuckle at the theatre of Boris ascending the steps of Bute House to greet Nicola – but alas, not the sour faced Anglicised Scot.

    To quote Ian Hamilton: “for there is no one quicker to take affront at an insult to Britain than an Anglicised Scot”

  46. galamcennalath says:

    A sad lost soul devoid of respect. No respect for himself, and certainly none for Scotland or the office of First Minister. The blinkered über BritNat worldview where a ‘socialist’ would rather support a far right hooligan with no democratic mandate, rather than the duly elected leader of their nation.


  47. Jack Murphy says:

    Thankyou sassenach at 3:45pm.

  48. orri says:

    speaking of protocols,

    were either of Deidre Brock or Brendan O’Hara informed that BoJo and co were visiting their constituencies as required

    Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice earlier this morning of the broad context of this point of order, but I will now present the details. At 17.55 yesterday evening I received an e-mail informing me that the Secretary of State for Wales would be visiting my constituency this morning. I am pleased that he is visiting Ogmore, because he does not do so often—in fact, he never has. I responded immediately, because I was fortunate enough to be at my desk until late in the evening. At 7.4 this morning I received an apology for the late notice but no details of where he was visiting in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), even though I had requested them. At 9.43 this morning, following prompting from my hon. Friend, a subsequent e-mail clarified where the Secretary of State was going in the full itinerary. At 10.30 am the visits began. A less charitable Member might think that there had been an intention to avoid my being there to accompany the Secretary of State. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you clarify what the protocol is for informing hon. Members of visits to their constituencies?

  49. CameronB Brodie says:

    OT @ Mark Smith The Herald

    So you support the proposed changes to the GRA? So you want women to know their place do you? The woke-wing of the SNP are ideological fantasists who’s opinion stand opposed to the views of the World Health Organisation.

    By denying the significance of biological sex, you and all the woke-crew are supporting misogeny.

  50. Capella says:

    It’s not all posh.

    Among the lurid pictures of burgers, kebabs and pizzas that festoon the shops, one advert stands out at an outlet called Morley’s. It’s aimed at passing children and trumpets: ‘School kids offer (3pm-6pm)’.

    For just £1, pupils on their way home from nearby schools can fill up on fried chicken wings and legs, or burger and chips — and wash it down with a sugar-laden drink for another £1.

    Is it any wonder that Camberwell Green, in the borough of Southwark, is at the centre of the nation’s childhood obesity epidemic?

    This week, the area was singled out by Public Health England as the first in Britain where more than half of children are overweight or obese by the time they leave primary school.

    Sorry, won’t archive

  51. CameronB Brodie says:

    Sorry, I was composing that comment and hit the send button long before I meant to. I know it’s too early for an OT. Sorry.

    Gender and Genetics
    Genetic Components of Sex and Gender

  52. Robert Louis says:

    My god, the Scottish cringe is strong in so-called ‘scottish’ Labour. Imagine ANYBODY in ANY other country in the world, talking down their own country in such a way. It just would not happen. I mean, how pathetic can a person be? How pathetic can Labour be? The man, I assume, was born or lives in Scotland, yet he does not think that Scotland, the country of his birth, should be treated as such, and instead wants it treated like a regional council of some kind. How cringey can a person be?

    And they wonder why nobody votes Labour in Scotland anymore. I do sometimes wonder, if people like the inestimable Gordon, above, actually have the cognitive ability to see just how pathetic such comments are.

  53. Robert Louis says:

    Sassenach at 355pm, and any others who use Nan’s links,

    Could I make a suggestion regarding Nana’s links. I do not know the details of why she won’t post on here anymore, and frankly don’t want to know. But, given the relevance and work which goes into them, could the person/people responsible, not re-consider.

    I had heard, it was some kind of thing with REV STU, but like I say, I do not know details. Is their any way the situation might be resolved, for the greater benefit of everyone???

    Just a suggestion. Perhaps the point of objection has been made? Any chance of somebody (cough…cough..) being the ‘bigger’ person here??

    Like I say, I don’t know what happened, so, if the situation cannot be resolved, well fine.

  54. Petra says:

    This guy, Gordon McKee, is just one of many Scottish? cringers. Hardly newsworthy, is it, as we’ve got their measure from the top of their heads to their kneecaps?


    Dominic Cummings. The man calling the, UK, shots.

  55. galamcennalath says:

    AuldAlliance says:

    sour faced Anglicised Scot

    Indeed. They have only two facial expressions – the scowl and the sneer. They are Scotland’s biggest enemy, a Fifth Column among us.

    They other enemy we have to content with is the English Nationalist who, through feelings of exceptionalism and entitlement, believe these Isles should all be theirs to do as they please with.

    Most ordinary English folk bear us no ill will and as they come to have a greater understanding of why we want independence, increasely wish us well.

  56. auld highlander says:

    Who? Never heard of him.

  57. Abulhaq says:

    Gordon McKee retweeted this long read from the Guardian.
    Humanitarian sensibilties or just diss all things Scottish. After all it would appear from the tenor of this piece we pioneered slavery and consequently have no right to seek the end of the quasi-colonial relationship and mindset that made such slavery possible.
    On the subject of human bondage.
    Where they may have got the idea. Worth a long read in some ‘liberal’ print? Or just to close the ‘racist’ edge?

  58. Liz g says:

    Aye well…. Mibbi if Bore-Us Johnson won any kind of democratic mandate in Scotland a return visit by Our First Minister could be considered.
    But account would have to be taken of the fact that Bore-Us Johnson has nae real demonstrable mandate for … Well!!
    Anything really!!!
    How lucky was he she has manners and agreed to let him in,and let him sneak back out too….

  59. manandboy says:

    So currency speculators are making a lot of money from a weakening Sterling.

    “Government Brexit policy amounts to ‘free lunch’ for currency traders, says former Treasury minister
    This is what Jim O’Neill, the former Goldman Sachs economist and former Treasury minister, told the World at One about how government policies are driving down the value of sterling. (See 2.29pm.) O’Neill started by stressing that it was hard to predict what currencies would do, and that the value of currencies could go up as well as down. But he went on:

    We have got the ingredients of quite a challenge here with the pound. In my many former years [as a Goldman Sachs economist] I would have a little quadrant of different policy combinations and what they would mean for a currency … In addition to the obviously increased no deal Brexit risk, I think the markets are also now looking at a government that might be leaning on an independent central bank, possibly including the choice of its new governor, as well as … having a free lunch on an expansionary fiscal policy. An expansionary fiscal policy and an expansionary monetary policy combination used to be what one would associate with the Italian lira and Latin American currencies. So those, on top of a no Brexit risk, are essentially all pointing one way for the pound.

    O’Neill said he was not involved in currency trading any more. But he then went on:

    I’m pretty sure that a lot of big foreign exchange and hedge fund-type people have had a pretty tricky life for the past few years for a whole host of reasons and they are probably looking at what’s being said coming out of the UK as almost close to a free lunch; that you’ve got a government that is deliberately promoting the no deal risk, and one that is talking so adventurously, let’s call it, about monetary and fiscal policy too. The world I was in, a lot of them are saying, ‘Thank goodness for Boris, he’s giving us a chance to make some money.’”

  60. manandboy says:

    Looks like the British Secret Service planted a tracking device into the roof of Gordon Ross’s car even before he had taken delivery of the hired vehicle.

    Better Together. With brainwashing and spying.

  61. winifred mccartney says:

    I know labour take the credit for Scottish Parl but it was only at the insistence of the EU that this came about – it would never have happened without the EU.

    I still think the new financial regulations coming in (some about tax havens)by EU and the fact the EU demands that monies are shared fairly across countries that has the WM elite desperate to leave the EU because of their own selfish interests and tax haven monies – BJ and his ilk could not care less about anyone else.

    Labour sold their soul many years ago to WM elite and got too used to the good life to bother about the working man. Sending monies back to WM when they could not think of anything Scotland needed is just the tip of their rotten iceberg and shows readily their choices, impress the people or impress WM. It just took Scotland a long time to realise/believe what they were doing.

    Their anger at the snp is now palpable, they are so used to currying favour with WM and lying it is part of their DNA. Thankfully at last Scotland has sussed them out.

  62. call me dave says:

    £ slips some more against everything but this time all the FTSE’s are down. 🙁

    The lord giveth and then the lord taketh away leaving a few crumbs lying around for some. 🙂

  63. Muscleguy says:

    @Robert Louis

    There’s a trope in NZ of people with more materialism instinct than sense upping sticks and sloping off to Australia. A former PM had the perfect response even if he was a Tory. Rob Muldoon: “such people raise the IQ of both countries.”

    I think exactly the same could be said of hardcore yoons fleeing the golden future of iScotland for England. It could once have been cruel but the xenophobic, gammon faced, Brexiteer laden culture down there these days makes all too easy.

  64. Clootie says:

    What makes a person think like that?

    His Nation is not one of two countries in a Union. In his mind Scotland is a county of England. This is the same opinion the Tories have of Scotland.

    I wonder what his view is of the Irish “PM”. Does he accept that Nation is not a region of the Empire now. Does Gordon expect him to know his place! Scottish Labour are insulting all of us with this pathetic grovelling.

  65. Clootie says:


    I like that line on “IQ”

  66. kapelmeister says:

    You can catch Gordon McKee this August doing his routine at the Cringe Festival.

  67. Shug says:

    We really want westminster to start moving n ireland to reunification

    That would be the final blow to their precious union

  68. Colin Alexander says:

    Following rejection of my complaint by the EU Commission, I have now taken my complaint to the EU Ombudsman regarding Scotland being dragged out of the EU:

    Here is part of what I have submitted to the EU Ombudsman:

    Part 2 – Against which European Union (EU) institution or body do you wish to complain?
    European Commission

    Part 3 – What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it? Add annexes if necessary.

    I complained about the UK’s / EU Commission’s Article 50 process of the UK leaving the EU without consideration being given to the position of Scotland which is a sovereign Kingdom within the constitutional set up of the UK.

    Part 4 – What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

    It has allowed UK Parliament and the EU Commission to overlook the fact that Scotland voted to Remain part of the EU.

    As a sovereign people, Scotland should not have that sovereign democratic decision to remain as part of the EU overridded by a deal between the UK Govt and EU Commission.

    Part 5 – What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

    It is not acceptable for the EU to simply say the UK’s constitutional affairs are a matter for the EU. When the UK has acted unconstitutionally / in breach of the constitution, thereby depriving Scotland’s EU citizens of their UK and EU constitutional rights, then that should / must be a matter for the EU too.

    The EU should examine IN LAW

    1: whether Scotland is an equal partner in the UK Union, so has an equal say in whether the UK leaves the EU.


    2: recognising that the people of Scotland remain sovereign in Scots Law, not UK Parliament. It should rule Scotland should not leave the EU until the people of Scotland vote to leave.

    UK Parliament asserts its sovereignty as a result of the “sovereignty” of the monarch of the Kingdom of England in UK Parliament.

    The UK is a Union between the Kindgoms of Scotland and England. Supposedly as equal partners.

    For Scotland, the monarch of England ( who is also the monarch of Scotland) is NOT sovereign, the people of Scotland are sovereign. See: Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689 and Declaration of Arbroath 1320.

    When the people of Scotland were asked directly what their views were on EU membership and voted to Remain, as the people are sovereign, this decision should have been binding on the UK Govt.

  69. geeo says:

    Ian Murray heaping praise on Mundell in the article as well..


  70. Doug says:

    Cringe-merchants like him make me boak.

  71. Liz g says:

    I can’t wait till England wake up to the fact that they can have their Brexit without a backstop, with a transition period and a renegotiated free trade deal, very easily.
    It could almost be the easiest deal in human history!
    They can get it in an afternoon over a cup of tea.
    This they can do anytime they want!!
    They just can’t take Scotland and N.Ireland with them…

  72. galamcennalath says:

    Liz g says:

    It could almost be the easiest deal in human history!

    That’s exactly the way I see it!

    Their problem is trying retain the UK and have a hard Brexit. The two are incompatible.

  73. Colin Alexander says:

    If anyone is interested, the EU Commission argued this case supports their judgment that it is for the UK only about Scotland being dragged out the EU, not a matter of EU law ( such as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights):

    Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 469

    A pdf summary can be found here:

  74. John Jones says:

    Back in medieval times the allocation was 1 idiot per village, has this changed? If London has a population of 5 million then they should only be 2500 there. Why have they got more than their share? Is this the Londoncentric thing working again? Or are the ones from here migrating?

  75. Famous15 says:

    This is a once in a generation opportunity to meet meet a Prime Minister of the UK of the quality and abilities and personality of Boris Johnson.

    When will we we see his like again.

    Not in my lifetime I hope.

    However, democracy is not restricted to a once in a lifetime vote ,thank goodness, but we get to vote as issues change and particularly when we are being taken for a ride over a cliff.


  76. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “The blinkered über BritNat worldview where a ‘socialist’ would rather support a far right hooligan with no democratic mandate..” @galamcennalath says at 3:51 pm

    Aye in the worldview of these folk it is OK for the PM to be a Fascist because at least he is a British Fascist.

  77. bobajock says:

    No wonder I quit Labour for the SNP and independence.

    Labour – their English Rose Logo, and their devotion to the Tories running Scotland.

  78. CameronB Brodie says:

    One for those who are afflicted with the “cringe” and who, subsequently, know there place. The same applies to the woke crew who feel the indy movement must play by London rules. All of them have had their minds colonised by power, to varying extents.

    Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.


    · Background
    · Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    · International Covenants on Human Rights
    · Worldwide influence of the International Bill of Human Rights

    · Annex: The International Bill of Human Rights
    – Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    – International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
    – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    – Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
    – Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty

  79. CameronB Brodie says:

    And here’s another.

    Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination:
    The Meaning of International Law


    This Essay contends that popular sovereignty and the other rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are inextricably linked. When popular sovereignty is criticized, what will become of the other rights?

    The principal goal of this Essay, then, is to examine the concept of sovereignty as it relates to the practice and protection of human rights issues grounded in international law. This examination should reveal the existence of more than one kind of sovereignty: that of the State and that of the people (the nation or nations). This

    Essay’s goal is to demonstrate that a State is not the sole possessor of sovereignty under international and domestic law. To be properly understood within the framework of international law, sovereignty is a compound doctrine that is best understood by examining the relationship between the sovereignty of a State and the sovereignty of peoples, i.e., the sovereignty of nations. While a sovereignty-exercising State can be a totalitarian regime, it can also be a democratic one in which the sovereignty of the people confers and controls the sovereignty of the State. And, these people exercise their sovereignty in the implementation of their basic human rights.

    Unfortunately, as this Essay shall demonstrate, the sovereignty of peoples is being challenged in a particular exercise of “human rights” that disregards and compromises the role of families in rearing their children – a subject with which the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic Social, and Cultural Rights are concerned.

  80. geeo says:


    Brilliant, simple, yet so true.

  81. geeo says:

    Comedy Gold over at Sky News ..

    Last week the uk were begging someone to assist them in the Straits of Hormuz, today THIS:

  82. CameronB Brodie says:

    Here’s a snippet from the above, for those who don’t click links. Sorry for the length of this post but I’m trying to hit a number of targets with one shot.

    Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Self-Determination:
    The Meaning of International Law


    At this stage in human history – given the knowledge acquired about colonial domination by one people over another, by the genocide committed during the middle and at the end of the Twentieth Century, by the other acts of one person or group denying others the dignities of human existence – it may come as a surprise that the denial of fundamental human rights, popular sovereignty, and self-determination is going on in unexpected places. Yet, evidence from very recent times presents a case that such astonishing occurrences are taking place.

    The source of the assault on these rights recognized by indisputable provisions of international law [the popular sovereignty and exercise of self-determination which have given these rights reality] is a kind of neo-colonial or totalitarian authority. This imposition comes from official U.N. organs and influential Non-Government Organizations [“NGOs”] and interferes with the legitimate exercise of popular sovereignty and self-determination by peoples thereby contravening the most basic of international legal norms.

    This section will illustrate this point by focusing on challenges to the rights of families and their members recognized and protected under international law. Examples of these rights include the internationally recognized rights of parents to educate their children in the ways they see fit and proper and in accordance with the parent’s moral and religious convictions.98

    One particular conviction is the parental promotion of abstinence from sexual relations until the child enters adulthood and marriage. The challenges to these rights question the history, the traditions, the culture, and the matters of greatest importance to families, communities, and nations that are protected under international legal instruments.99 The significance of these rights increases when one takes account of the fact that these traditional influences of family life are where children learn the importance of virtue, civility, respect and love for others, compassion, selflessness, and cooperation, to mention
    but a few of the important lessons essential to a flourishing human existence.

    When parental and family rights recognized by multi-national and regional treaties, as well as the UDHR, are interfered with, other rights concerning traditions, religion, customs, and culture cherished by many throughout the world are also open to challenge and even eradication. International human rights law strongly supports and protects belief in and practice of religious faith. 100 Yet, the Committee on the Rights of the Child [“CRC”] and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women [“CEDAW”] have been critical of “harmful traditions and beliefs” and “prejudices” that emerge from religious traditions.101

    Moreover, these same Committees have advanced the argument that children should have the right of privacy that can insulate them from the benefits that parents and elders wish to pass on to them about a civil, responsible, and loving married life. 102 It appears the CRC assumes that the child is an equal partner in the family because it is presupposed that the child has attained the same stage in human development and needs no parental instruction on life and how it is to be lived. These assumptions and presuppositions are plainly wrong and without factual basis.

    In other areas, CEDAW has argued in its reports about the existence of evidence showing that “church-related organizations adversely influence the Government’s policies concerning women and thereby impede full implementation of the Convention [on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women] .103 This same Committee has advocated the need for the State to provide “sex education and practical family planning” to children regardless of the type and content of education parents wish for their offspring.104 Although the core international legal instruments protect the rights of culture, families, religious belief, and other matters essential to human rights, the work of “experts” associated with the United Nations and NGOs have, as has been pointed out, eroded these rights through the programs and approaches they have urged on governments and U.N. bodies.

    To illustrate and verify my contention, I shall use the recent developments of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development [“ICPD”] and the Cairo+5 meetings, which were convened in March and June of 1999. As will be demonstrated, the Cairo+5 developments reflect views of influential NGOs and “experts” assigned to U.N. Committees rather than perspectives of member States. Moreover, it is the interests of the citizens of the member States rather than those of the experts and NGOs that are subject to the protection of these key international legal instruments.

    Additionally, these recent developments of Cairo+5 have threatened fundamental principles of human rights law, which emphasize the family, as understood and implemented by the legitimate exercise of popular sovereignty. Indeed, aspects of Cairo+5 constituted an unwarranted assault on the principle of self-determination, which is at the root of the basic universal human rights as articulated by international law [especially the ICCPR and the ICESCR].

    In explaining these points, I shall first identify some basic principles that constitute the delicate compromise of the ICPD of 1994. In this context, I shall elucidate the basic human rights involving the family that are protected under international law. Second, I shall demonstrate how Cairo+5 undermined fundamental human rights protections involving family issues. In doing this two-prong investigation, I shall establish the foundation of my further thesis. The additional thesis is that such attacks on this particular human rights issue, the family, set a precedent for further attacks on other human rights as will be explained in Part V. These additional challenges would also adversely affect the exercise of popular sovereignty that is essential to defining
    these rights and on self-determination, which is the basic guarantor of these rights.

  83. hackalumpoff says:

    Robert Louis 30 July, 2019 at 4:11 pm
    Sassenach at 3:55pm, and any others who use Nana’s links:

    Nana’s links are available on Scotsrenewables website at

    The link is posted by me on whatever the current thread is on Wings each weekday morning. I also post it on Twitter.

    For us, posting them to a specific page with less traffic is much easier than trying to post on Wings. The difficulty with Wings was that many posts were caught in the site filters and never appeared or were held in moderation and with threads moving on were being lost to BTL readers.

    For the avoidance of any doubt, Nana has not ‘fallen out’ with Rev Stu, but spending time gathering, archiving and posting links only for them to disappear was becoming frustrating and difficult, with little support available.

    Should anyone here want to contact her, there is a contact form available on this page

  84. CameronB Brodie says:

    And a bit more.


  85. galamcennalath says:

    Scotland in the Union, charting its demise …

    1955 Four year of Tory government we actually voted for!

    1959 Five years of Tory government we rejected.

    1964 Six years of Labour we did vote for.

    1970 Another four years of Tories we had rejected.

    1974 Five years of Labour. Obsessed with centralisation and would do anything to prevent Scottish autonomy.

    1979 Eighteen years of Tories we didn’t want who embarked on a deindustrialisation and social engineering experiments. They would have ruined the UK if it wasn’t for our oil bailing them out.

    1997 Thirteen years of New Labour when inequality continued to grow. Pensions and savings were trashed. Lots of brown people were killed.

    2010 Nine more years of Tories (partly with LibDems) we didn’t want who pushed unnecessary austerity measures for ideological reasons. Widespread suffering by the poorest and weakest. Then they gave us Brexit.

    Really has been a shitty time for Scotland stuck in the UK!

  86. Ken500 says:

    Dugdale failure

    Owen Smith failure

    Gordon McKee fail

  87. Capella says:

    Re speculators – George Kerevan wrote a two part article in Bellacaledonia on Boris and the hedge funds:

    Part two deals with the charming individuals such as Crispin Odey:

  88. CameronB Brodie says:

    And a smidgen more.

    Do Human Rights Guarantee Autonomy?


    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified in 1948 after World War II, laid the foundation of international human rights law. It was the first universal statement on the basic principles of inalienable human rights, and created
    a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.

    The principles laid down in the Universal Declaration are echoed in the laws of more than 90 countries around the world. A number of mechanisms have been established to monitor, promote, protect and develop human rights. However, for many people around the world the protection of human rights remains an unfulfilled promise. While it seems that human rights have triumphed globally, no other historical period has witnessed greater violations of these rights.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become a major tool for legitimating the post-World War II order both nationally and internationally, but is this document adequate and coherent for addressing the complexities of contemporary life?

    Ubi societas, ibi Jus. Law is supposed to have a function of control, to maintain a particular order in the community established on certain grounds, and also to guarantee the protection of human rights. Does it mean that a person has only those rights that have been enacted? In the context of the 60th anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this idea seems no longer to be valid. Law is not a divine instrument to universalize social values. An individual possesses a more extensive range of rights than any written legal act could encompass.

    The fact that a person has rights has nothing to do with enacting these rights in legal documents. Does a person have rights even if they are not enacted? An essential part of contemporary human rights is the concept of personal autonomy. Every person has to have autonomy so that he/she can feel free to make decisions. A person who feels free to make decisions will feel secure and happy. The human being is understood to be an essentially independent and individually developing entity. Of course, we cannot underestimate the role of society. Because the individual’s life is not isolated and always influenced by many external factors, the intrinsic need to attain happiness and harmony often collides with obstacles. The individual often encounters the power of state control….


    “December 10 marks the 60th anniversary of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a single short document of 30 articles that has probably had more impact on mankind than any other document in modern history”,

    declared The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay. The Declaration was envisioned and adopted in response to the failures of the League of Nations and the atrocities of World War II. Many believed that a third world war was imminent. Lessons and insights after the Nuremberg process resulted in the recognition of a new status for individuals. The international community presented this declaration to the world as a helpful guide for societies in transition. It became a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations. 1

    In the sixty years that have passed since The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms was agreed, this document has promoted the creation of a global institutional mechanism comprised of legislative, monitoring, educative, and other multifunctional bodies. The system itself serves as specified and intrinsically dynamic virtues, written mediators, moral guidelines for humanity.

    “Tens of millions of people around the world are still unaware that they have rights that they can demand, and that their governments are accountable to them, and to a wideranging body of rights-based national and international law. Despite all our efforts over the past 60 years, this anniversary will pass many people by, and it is essential that we keep up the momentum, thereby enabling more and more people to stand up and claim their rights”


    stated the High Human Rights Commissioner.2 Human rights and freedoms have been defined in different terms and dimensions, by different schools and cultures. In other words, countless criteria are involved in delineating the content of rights universally or ad hoc. Despite this variety of approaches based on different theories, most definitions refer to the individual’s personality and his/her abilities to exercise certain rights and freedoms in particular situations.

    Human rights are not just a doctrine formulated in documents. They rest on a common disposition towards other people and a set of convictions about what people are like. It is only up to personal discretion (autonomy) and compatible public good as to how extensively and productively a human being can fulfill his/her preferences pursuing maximum happiness. As all authentic forms of rights and liberties, autonomy itself can also be characterized as the unity of differentiated types and degrees of internal and external factors for a
    given individual at a given time and upon particular circumstances.

    There are several definitions of autonomy. The term autonomy originates from ancient Greek. It consists of two words: autos (his/her own) and nomos (rule). This term describes a person’s ability to make his or her own rules in life and to
    make decisions independently. The idea that people must be free to shape their own lives is central to most accounts of autonomy.

    In general, autonomy means that a subject is the best expert on his/her interests. It is the reason why this subject should be able to make his/her own laws, particular rules of conduct or follow the values that are acceptable to him/her in practice. In general, any action or act can be described as autonomous only if the agent gives preference to this action, and this decision is independent and corresponds with his/her plan of action. In other words, we can talk about autonomy only when the freedom to choose and to make ethical decisions is guaranteed. “Autonomy […] is the acknowledgement of a person’s right to hold views, to make choices and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs”.3

    If the state were to interfere in matters of personal morality, it would be treating the plans and values of some as superior to those of others.4 This applies also to other members of society: no member of the society has the right to
    violate someone’s personal autonomy without a reasonable basis. This reasonable basis is the autonomy of another person, another member of society. In the sphere of personal autonomy, a person has rights and only one duty: not to violate the autonomy of other individuals.

    Most commonly, autonomy can be understood as “the right to be left alone” and as a right to control certain kinds of information about oneself.5 In its maximal form it entails complete rationality, self-control, knowledge of relevant
    facts, and other demanding conditions internal to the agent, as well as freedom and recourses to act.6

  89. TJenny says:

    That wee video clip of Nicola batting away Boris Johnsn’s hand as she waves him in to Bute House, has been viewed so far 2.3 million times and has been retweeted by CNN. 🙂

  90. Hamish100 says:

    Nae point going to Nos 10. There wiz nae body in.

    Ye would think he would have worked that oot!

  91. ahundredthidiot says:

    ……which is why labour is deid

    as a fuckin dodo……

  92. geeo says:

    Four ‘drug-related deaths’ in 48 hours in Essex

    Inagine if this had been Scotland, hmm ?

  93. Jason Smoothpiece says:

    galamcennalath @ 7.08

    Yes very well said.

    Independence is the only option even if you are a nutter, you owe it to yourself and your family, Labour who actually supports them now apart from some oo types.

  94. manandboy says:

    The Tory government under both David Cameron and then Theresa May has close links to Cambridge Analytica. But they are keeping it secret, along with Jeremy Corbyn.

    “In the meantime, while Robert Mueller in the US painstakingly sets out the evidence of how Russia subverted Facebook during the presidential election, we know almost nothing about what happened in Britain. Collins’s parliamentary committee – citing Arron Banks’s covert meetings with Russian embassy staff that were first revealed in the Observer, and the role of Russian paid-for propaganda – has called for an independent investigation into foreign interference, but it’s a call both the government and the leader of the opposition have utterly ignored.”

  95. Willie says:

    Gordon McKee. Is it a brand of British toilet paper?

  96. manandboy says:

    A hint that the rest of the world is not on England’s side. They much prefer the Celtic Nations.

    “Ireland is not just mammothly pro-European, and deeply invested in the Northern Irish peace process, it is aghast at the cohort of charlatans that have seized power in Britain. Johnson and his new administration haven’t fully realised just how vile they appear to the rest of the world – and Ireland especially.

  97. Fraser MacKintosh says:

    An Alloa man told me his grandfather voted labour. His father voted Labour and he would never vote any other way. However last November he met the grim reaper and circle is broken as his son is a member of the SNP.

  98. Legerwood says:

    Adam Price, leader of Plaid, interviewed on CH4 news tonight about Welsh independence.

    The questions he is asked are so, so familiar – borders, trade, deficits etc.

    Worth a watch

  99. manandboy says:

    There can be little doubt that over the past three years, England has changed almost beyond recognition. But it is not for the better. In fact it is the complete opposite – with no indication that things are going to get better any time in the foreseeable future.

  100. manandboy says:

    English propaganda is the biggest single obstacle to Scottish Independence. That and the already deep BritNat brainwashing present in so many of Scotland’s population.

  101. TheItalianJob says:

    @manandboy at 9.44pm

    Just watched (briefly) a BBC news article with a Ukraine news reporter on Russian influence in Eastern Ukraine.

    She said that as 70% of the population get their news from TV and the TV news is Russian as no Ukraine TV transmitters can reach they get biased news propaganda from Russia.

    Oh dear replied the BBC newscaster how unfortunate for the Eastern Ukrainians.

    Sounds familiar!!!

  102. T Jenny @8.09

    I had to watch the clip again after reading your post. It’s still on the BBC website and it just makes me laugh. Brilliant.

    Boris is getting into traffic directing mode with his right arm extended and Nicola just totally dismisses it with one wave – just like yir granny as she says
    ‘och, jist you get right inside there, ya wee b***er or I’ll leather you.”

  103. TJenny says:

    Meg merrilees – I know, as many have tweeted, it’s like yer mum waiting on you when you’ve overstepped your curfew deadlne and you get telt, ‘right you, inside now!’ Dinnae mess wi the Sturgeonator. 😉

  104. Scott D says:

    I think the main issue for the likes of Mr McKee is that yesterday’s visit by Johnson to Edinburgh had all the hallmarks of a foreign visit by a UK PM. The normalising of Scotland being ‘different’ is something they find hard to handle.

  105. silverbuick says:

    Nicola should have given him a skelpit lug. Bloody cheek of him

  106. Colin Alexander says:

    Hasn’t the weather been rubbish these last few days.

    It was even very frosty at Bute House in Edinburgh yesterday.

    The good news is the bogs at Largs are open again.

  107. Robert Louis says:

    Legerwood at 930pm,

    Yes the same old colonial trope, of ‘..but how could you possibly survive without England?’.

    Now the same idiotic so-called journalists are suing the same nonsense about Wales.

    All through history,

    America : ‘but how could you survive without Britain etc.. etc…’

    Africa: ‘but how could you possibly survive without Britain etc… etc..’

    Ireland : ‘but how could you possibly survive without Britain…etc…etc…’

    Scotland : ‘but how could you possibly survive without Britain…etc…etc…’

    And now ;

    Wales: ‘but how could you possibly survive without Britain…etc…etc…’

    Every single country wanting to be rid of English rule, has had the same old nonsense fired at it, about deficits, and money from England, and so on. It was lies back then, and it is lies now.

    Why can no journalists actually see this???

  108. Breeks says:

    manandboy says:
    30 July, 2019 at 9:44 pm
    English propaganda is the biggest single obstacle to Scottish Independence. That and the already deep BritNat brainwashing present in so many of Scotland’s population.

    You’re right.

    McKee isn’t a one-off. There was that snivelling toady “Regan” saying on the Shelagh Fogarty LBC show, saying how Scotland would beg to stay part of the Union. He loved himself to death too if I remember right… How can somebody love themselves so much and loath the country they come from? It just doesn’t compute.

  109. AndyMcKangry says:

    I’ve fallen out with many friends over this.
    Scotland is a country, not a fuckin region.
    How many COUNTRIES in this world let other countries rule them and take all their recourses for their benefit?
    How Fukin stupid are my fellow country men.

  110. Heart of Galloway says:

    Stewart Hosie telling it straight. Power lies with the Scottish people.

  111. jfngw says:

    When the broadcasters ask Scottish and Welsh politicians about trade, etc if they choose independence, what they are really saying is how will you survive without England. The simple answer is just like every other country in the world, England is not that important compared to the EU and the rest of the world.

    Their role is to tell these nations that they are not good enough to run their own country and we need the super brains of politicians from England (e.g Johnson, Cameron, Osborne, Raab for a few examples) for us to survive.

    It time for these nations to discard this message and tell these broadcasters to bugger off with their condescension.

  112. AndyMcKangry says:

    Gordon McKee= perfect example of fuckin house slave
    Get a fuckin grip man and stand up for your self!!

  113. AndyMcKangry says:

    England is a busted flush. It’s taken hundred of years to see the inevitable, but it’s now obvious. How much of a complete knob must you be not to see it.

  114. Dunx says:

    @ galamcmcennalath
    I know you’re technically correct that it was a majority vote for Tories in Scotland in 1955( Tories in all but name) but also technically ( in purely anorak/pedantic terms) the Tories didn’t win any seats in Scotland at that election.

    Throughout the UK there was an electoral pact between the Tories and the National liberals to keep labour out. The National liberals were an off-shoot of the old liberal party that supported the Irish union of 1801 (and therefore voted with and took the Tory whip at Westminster, but had split because of Ireland in 1912).

    Complicated further by the fact of a previous liberal split in 1886 ( Chamberlain’s Liberal unionists of that year) The Scottish unionist party was a Scottish version of that (yes Tories in all but name but didn’t call themselves Tories’cos Tories had been toxic up here since at least 1832) And there was a residual “goodwill” factor attached to the Liberals in Highland and island areas because of the Napier comission, which would have been lost with any overt union with the Tories.

    So back to that electoral pact….
    In 1955 the National liberals didn’t run against Scottish unionists and vice versa but 6 National liberals won seats in Scotland, giving a combined total of 35 seats ( Labour in Scotland also won 35 seats)
    Out of total of 71 seats ( Jo Grimond of the “proper”(?) residual rump of the old Liberal party won Orkney and Shetland)
    In England National Liberals and Tories didn’t compete in seats where it might split the anti labour vote.

    To illustrate,…
    We think of Andrew Bonar Law, Alick Douglas Home and even Heseltine as Tories but they were all part of that Liberal unionist (Tory) cabal that only later merged with total full fat Tories in 1964/5.

    So, apologies for being pedantic about one particular year.
    Probably Wiki explains it better than me (hereafter)

  115. Bobp says:

    Gordon McKee, can anyone imagine an Englishman/woman running down England and subjugating themselves like this?. This POS has’nt even got a spine.

  116. dakk says:

    Mordon GcKee will deserve to cuck socks in hell for his treachery to Scotland.

    Great spot Stuart,and a perfect illustration of ‘Scottish’ Labour’s core purpose.

  117. robbo says:

    Robert P or any others on constitution things

    I think ur domain

    Something to get ur teeth into

  118. Hamish100 says:

    Tory papers in full diversion mode not to talk about Johnson and Brexit thanks to the impartiality of the royals.

    Prince Harry only to have 2 children in order to save the planet. That’s nice of him. So we didn’t need to spend £millions in upgrading his pad. What a waste.

    Mind you I thought it was his wife that bore children

    Still saves us talking about the falling £, Brexit mess and Johnson. Free press? Where?

  119. ephemeraldeception says:

    Not posted for a while but just wanted to add in case of doubt that the UK is a signatorty to the right of self determination. We can speak of UN rules/declarations but the UK must be signed up for them to be in any way enforcible.

    Evidenece from 1966

    Article 1

    1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

    2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

    3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.


    What is all this ping-pong with BBC
    The SNP need to get a grip and stop answering straw man questions. Is the UK going to honour their UN commitments or NOT?
    If not why not and take the case to the UN and EU already and in //!

    The UN, as we all know just love England – chortle.

  120. CameronB Brodie says:

    No law is ever “forever after”, as life is not set in aspic. The law evolves in response to changing social needs. Only a totalitarian would use “forever after”, as justification for political union enforced through immutable law.

  121. Clapper57 says:

    Made the mistake of watching Sky press preview at 10.30pm aka propaganda on steroids…guest reviewer a special kind of twat Benedict Spence…they were talking about reception Boris got in Wales and Scotland.

    Benedict stated ” They should stop going to ‘these places’….hmm did he mean parts of the ‘awesome foursome’ aka parts of his UKOK aka England’s colonies ?

    Also he said 38% of Scots voted for Leave …and he said ” they didn’t even run a Leave campaign there”…Wahahaha

    Somebody better tell Tom Harris ( Head of Scotland Campaign for Leave) and David Coburn ( UKIP MEP and non selected Brexit party candidate)…Lol….course Benedict knows diddly squat about Scotland or it’s politics…like most London centric posh twats he just spouts , unchallenged, any old sheeite that suits his agenda….blah blah blah….he cares not a jot gives not a damn he just spews out nonsense upon nonsense…facts ?…what speak the truth about the Jocks….no way not while I have Tory Brexit pro English anti Scottish propaganda to spew out….blah blah bloody blah etc etc

    Please note normal service was resumed by Benedict as he started to talk about the UK..or rather the UKOK…though obvs for Benny the UKOK is synonymous with England .

    What a Jeremy Hunt he is….another one to add to the list.

  122. Dave McEwan Hill says:


    Went to “Robert The Bruce” in Dunoon tonight. Film and cinema hired by Dunoon SNP. Full house virtually.

    Some good bits in the film but I can see why they don’t want us to see it. Relentless support for a free Scotland.

  123. CameronB Brodie says:

    As I said, law changes as society evolves, or it should if it aims to serve justice.


    THE relationship of the law, in its many aspects, to a social situation, should be considered a necessary part of the understanding of that situation. The development of forms of analysis which allow for such interrelated understanding are therefore required.

    According to a socio-legal approach, analysis of law is directly linked to the analysis of the social situation to which the law applies, and should be put into the perspective of that situation by seeing the part the law plays in the creation, maintenance and/or change of the situation. It has been argued that the legal structure, because of its nature and the social functions it serves, requires a different form of analysis from other social institutions.

    However, it is not thereby removed from the analysis, despite the often abused distinction of laws as normative, and of social science method being therefore inapplicable. The requirement is simply a different approach, based on the need to ask different questions. The most advanced example of this is perhaps the Scandinavian “Law as Fact” Schoo1.l The normative being treated “as a distinct kind of ‘is'” for research purposes.

    One of the many problems in this area is that of coherent theory. This article argues that it is traditional legal science which, by continued adoption of false starting points, has caused this theoretical study to remain under-developed. As such the reasoning on which this paper is based is epistemological, and whereas positivist functional models will be used as illustrations of the various approaches analysed, it is a phenomenological understanding of the study of law in society that is being developed….

  124. Cactus says:

    Whom y’all dressing up as for Halloween 2019?

    Ahm gonna go as and give E.T. ah shot

    Oh My Dear Fucking Brexit

  125. CameronB Brodie says:

    And a bit more. Full text, including a bit on Feminist Jurisprudence and Gendered Reality.

    Feminist Theory And The Law

  126. CameronB Brodie says:

    And a little bit more on why it is good that law changes to reflect social reality.



    A number of radical eco-feminists have argued patriarchal discourses carry gender dichotomous norms and values which feminize the environment and animalize wimmin, constructing a dichotomy between wimmin and ‘nature’, and male dominated human culture. The gender roles constituted through such discourses render wimmin in closer material proximity and relation to the environment than men, with greater potential to develop an ecologically sensitive value system. These theorists further contend a new culture based on re-valuation and radicalization of certain ‘feminine’ qualities, can contest the ecologically destructive system of patriarchy.

    Patriarchal discourses of gender and nature

    Radical eco-feminists (Griffin, 1984; Collard, 1988; Eisler, 1989; Starhawk, 1989, 1990a; Daly, 1988) tend to argue contemporary patriarchy deploys different discourses of masculinity and femininity which associate wimmin with ‘nature’ and men with ‘culture’. Patriarchal culture venerates ‘masculine’ ideals of virility, strength, self-control, emotional reserve, competence, rationality, aggression, etc; and devalues ‘feminine’ qualities of motherhood, caring, sensitivity, fastidiousness, fragility, dependence, emotionality, timidity, tenderness, sensuality, non-violence etc. (Ruth, 1981, p.5-7; Lowe and Hubbard, 1983, p.2-3).

    Some of these ‘wimmin’s values’ are seen by radical eco-feminists as positive and patriarchally contesting; the most significant being ‘peace’, ‘connectedness’, and ‘nurturance’. Patriarchal society, these feminists argue, fosters in wimmin the value of peace, non-violence and respect for life (Freer, 1983; Elshtain, 1985, 1989; Ruddick, 1990) to which Daly (1988) refers as a ‘biophillic’ (life-loving) capacity (also Collard, 1988).

    By contrast, according to Griffin (1984, 1992) and Daly (1979, 1988), patriarchal culture venerates death and violence, and encourages a male preoccupation with dominance and control over wimmin and nature. King contends eco-feminism is about the ‘connectedness and wholeness’ and integrity of living things (1983, p. 10). Patriarchy, by contrast, enshrines a hatred of wimmin and nature, and this ‘masculinist mentality’ is responsible for environmental devastation (p. 11).

    Wimmin, many eco-feminists argue, must articulate the interests of the oppressed and excluded, such as animals, for patriarchal society allows them to think connectively, and empathize with others due to their nurturing role (Griffin, 1984; Freer, 1983; Eisler, 1988). This is more difficult for men, as discourses of patriarchal masculinity construct men as separate from ‘nature’ and inculcate hierarchical intellectual structures justifying exploitation (Warren, 1993, 1994).

  127. Liz g says:

    The Revs Twitter has some fantastic examples of the British/EU border on the Island of Ireland…
    I wish I knew how to show the Simplicity of the EU/English border on the Big Island..
    All this is so simple..
    Leave Ireland in the EU just like it voted for and draw that border between the Scotland and England!!
    Scotland wants to stay in the EU… But won’t hold England & Wales where it doesn’t want to be
    Everybody gets what Democracy demands and no one can seriously argue with Democracy!

    There’s a Brexit awaiting for England they shouldn’t let their Westminster Politicians deny it to them!
    There is no real reason why England can’t have everything it was promised…. It’s fake news to say so…. Of course it can..
    All it has to do is get rid of some old Treaties… How difficult is that??
    Don’t let the Westminster elite say it can’t be done.
    True Independence for England.. Huzza…
    There might even be some money for NHS England,after Westminster stops sending money to Scotland and N.Ireland..
    It’s all good….every VOW made to England delivered..
    Just dissolve the 1707 Treaty and bish, bash, bosh job done!
    The P.M. would be home in time for tea.

  128. Mary Miles says:

    Hi from Tassie:

    What a wonderful idea Liz! Only thing is Wales now wants to be free as well!! Any ideas?

  129. manandboy says:

    Kirstene Hair is at it again.

    Kirstene Hair, with no experience of politics whatsoever, was persuaded to stand when the existing Tory candidate withdrew. In a safe Tory seat, she was then elected MP for Angus in June 2017. Everything she has said or done since has been, well – embarrassing. She is utterly out of her depth and absolutely in the wrong job. But that’s the Tories for you.

  130. Dorothy Devine says:

    Haven’t had time to read all contributions and I am starting to work through Nana’s links – housework gone for a burton and for some time!

    Nana , hope you are well and thanks again.

  131. Terry callachan says:

    Dunx…1115 30th July , great report, well explained , thanks

  132. Hamish100 says:

    BBC TV.

    Arlene Foster DUP smiling all the way to the bank.


    A light weight tv interview from outside Stormont to deliver “what NI wants.. despite the fact that NI voted to remain. A full 9 minutes interview reinforcing No Surrender

    Better than a 30 second one liner which is the usual for our FM.

  133. sassenach says:


    Just in case anyone in Scotland doesn’t yet know (!!!), the next three months are going to be the biggest BBC propaganda exercise ever mounted. It will make 2014 look insignificant.

    We can only hope that enough people have had the ‘scales lifted’ and will ignore their bullshit.

  134. Footsoldier says:

    Mary Miles 05:32. I think perspective is required. In the UK we are all already free we are not oppressed at all but a majority voted in 2014 voted to remain in the UK and it was a free vote.

    Next time we will hopefully be wiser as to how to conduct the campaign and expose the lies of the MSM who completely ranged against us.

  135. manandboy says:

    Self-identification is high on the Scottish government’s agenda. But politically, it’s not at all clever. In fact, it’s not that clever, period.

  136. cyril mitchell says:

    He seemsto struggle to diferentiate between a city and a country

  137. Golfnut says:

    @ Robbo.

    ‘ the Treaty was dissolved by the Act of Union ‘
    Dire stuff indeed.

    The Treaty of Union is a bipartite treaty between two Sovereiegn states, it adheres to convention and therefore recognized in International law. The Acts of Union, are the the internal legislative mechanism for bringing into law the Articles of Union, agreed and authorised by Queen Anne. The Acts of Union were passed separately by both the Scottish and English Parliament and are now part of both Kingdoms independent Constitutional law. Westminster is bound and constrained by both these separate legal systems.
    The People of Scotland’s Sovereign Rights are enshrined in Scots Constitutional law, and the English Parliament of 1707 signed Westminster up to them, no matter how inconvenient that is for the current uk gov.

  138. manandboy says:

    In a world of data harvesting, micro-targetting, unlawful campaigns, dark money and brainwashing via the telly, in which voters can be ‘persuaded’ to change their minds without their knowledge or consent, another Independence Referendum is a high risk strategy. Ending the Treaty of Union after Brexit is looking like a safer bet.

  139. hackalumpoff says:

    See Nana’s links here:

    Additional links added just now if you started reading earlier.

  140. stu mac says:

    @TheItalianJob says:
    30 July, 2019 at 9:51 pm
    @manandboy at 9.44pm

    Just watched (briefly) a BBC news article with a Ukraine news reporter on Russian influence in Eastern Ukraine. She said that as 70% of the population get their news from TV and the TV news is Russian as no Ukraine TV transmitters can reach they get biased news propaganda from Russia. Oh dear replied the BBC newscaster how unfortunate for the Eastern Ukrainians.

    I doubt that’s completely true. It’s more likely due to the fact that a majority of that area are Russian-speakers of Russian descent whose language and culture been under pressure from the Ukrainian government. That’s part of the reason for the trouble there and no doubt they listen to Russian news because they feel it’s “their news”. Of course a lot of it will be propaganda, just as any west Ukraine stations which try to reach them will be spouting government propaganda. It’s a mistake to think there is a “good-guy” side here, except maybe the ordinary man in the street being used by either side.

  141. Colin Alexander says:

    I am not “British”: I am Scottish.

    A citizen of the kingdom and nation of Scotland.

    Scots should be allowed to identify as Scottish on electoral and other forms. Not forced to answer to the colonial identity forced upon us by our Imperial rulers.

  142. Bobp says:

    Manandboy 8.40am. Exactly my thoughts. When all those other countries sought their independence from england ireland, india, canada, america, etc,etc, there was no internet , social media, brainwashing, cambridge analytica etc, telling the plebs and those whose only interest in life is ‘strictly or , BGT, or the x factor, how to vote. So yeah a safer bet is the Scottish government just ending the union by mandate.

  143. Clydebuilt says:

    Call Kaye ” Is Climate Change keeping you up at night ”

    Me “is Climate Change going to keep the UK intact”

    Greens made big gains in recent EU elections in Germany. Credit was given to school kids going on strikes, (egged on by parents?)

    On Radio Scotland Between 7.55am and 9am (excluding the 9am news) there were 3 articles on Climate Change

  144. IZZIE says:

    5 live discussion on the break up of the UK the future of the union. snp spokesperson making good points

  145. galamcennalath says:

    manandboy says:

    another Independence Referendum is a high risk strategy. Ending the Treaty of Union after Brexit is looking like a safer bet.

    There is political mandate to hold IndyRef2. There is currently no mandate to end the Union. Trying to do so would go down well.

    There would need to be a democratic mandate by some means, referendum or perhaps election.

    And when any democratic mandate is sought, we can expect every dark force to be brought to bear. That’s the way of the world now. Evil fears democracy and tries to undermine it.

    Education, information, and awareness are the counters to the dark arts.

  146. Abulhaq says:

    @Manandboy 08:30
    As soon as you concede that the term ‘gender’ has a life beyond the confines of linguistics you’re effectively losing your grip on objective reality.

  147. call me dave says:


    Heard the first few minutes and it’s all going well, a sensible discussion so far.
    Had to go out so I’ll catch it up later. 🙂

  148. Breeks says:

    Footsoldier says:
    31 July, 2019 at 8:14 am
    Mary Miles 05:32. I think perspective is required. In the UK we are all already free we are not oppressed at all but a majority voted in 2014 voted to remain in the UK and it was a free vote.

    Next time we will hopefully be wiser as to how to conduct the campaign and expose the lies of the MSM who completely ranged against us.

    I think it was Channel 4 News last night, had a feature on Wales being increasingly “Indy-curious” I think the expression was. I was struck by somebody saying that if Ireland reunited, and Scotland secured Independence, Wales didn’t want to risk being left behind.

    It occurred to me opting for Independence just because someone else does is not the most robust argument to build a campaign on, but then I remember how “selective” the British media is when selecting arguments it’s prepared to broadcast.

    I think it’s safe to say however that the breakup of the UK will have profound ramifications for all component parts of the UK, and life will different afterwards. All things are possible.

    I think however, we are still missing a trick.

    I sincerely believe when you have the existing UK Union under imminent pressure of collapse; you have Scotland and Ireland with compelling reasons and desire to stay in Europe, and you have England with it’s equally compelling desire to leave, and Wales unsettled and unsure about what it wants. A solution MUST either change peoples’ minds, or, give them what they want, or, not be a lasting solution at all.

    I cannot “unsee” a solution where an England and Wales determined to sit outside the EU, and a Scotland and Ireland inside the EU, could not engineer a “British Benelux” type arrangement, where Scotland, and maybe Ireland too, are fully paid up members of the EU, but have licence so to speak to accommodate some trade links with England and Wales.

    Provided England adopted a more mature attitude towards Scotland’s Independence and moved its position and attitude to respect Scotland’s status as a sovereign nation as a positive opportunity for a new relationship, rather than an acrimonious and begrudging disaster, then there is I think a possible panacea to suit everybody’s ills.

    Scotland gets full Indy in Europe, but also a UK ‘Trade’ Kingdom will still exist to ameliorate those amongst us with Unionist sensibilities.

    Ireland possibly elects reunification, or, Northern Ireland becomes a transitional zone for Trade under EU jurisdiction, but there is no hard border or resumption of the Troubles.

    England gets cut loose to indulge it’s Brexit misadventure to the max, but the sensible voices in England currently being drowned out by the bampots, have a lifeline to keep essential trade and even more essential lines of communication open.

    Europe secures what Europe likes to secure, a de facto Trade Agreement with England where Europe is in charge of the details, but has Scotland and NI as, forgive the expression, “quarantine” zones to filter out English trade that has deregulated itself away from EU standards.

    England wouldn’t deal with Europe, but Scotland, as Europe’s envoy, but an envoy sympathetic to the notion that England might seek to rejoin the EU without such a massive loss of face.

    We become more, when we work together. The UK Union has lost it’s way and will perish because it cannot be repaired. But disassembling the United Kingdom to its factory settings does not preclude a new “British Islands” English speaking trade phenomenon with one foot firmly in Europe, and one foot in the Commonwealth/ Americas.

    The critical issue to achieving this is doing it without coercion or subjugation, but respecting each other and a maintaining bullshit-free appreciation of true and objective common purpose.

    It could work, and settle the UK and UK-Europe “tensions” by unforced voluntary consensus, and thus be a stable and constructive arrangement for a long time thereafter.

    What is the alternative? Acrimonious bitterness, direct trade competition, lower standards and regulations and subjugated aspirations? How many years will that be a stable arrangement? We’ll be at each other’s throats for decades.

    I know Boris Johnson is a f—kwit, and should not be trusted, but he is also in a bear pit where he cannot get out, and his only available solution is to dig it even deeper. If he is like Trump however, maybe unlike the rest of the British Establishment, he is also prepared to think the unthinkable if only for Brexit to succeed in England, at whatever cost it will cost. Maybe, providence has delivered us Boris not to try us, but because he is the one element in the whole British Establishment who can actually think outside the box.

    What say you Boris? Help Scotland secure Independence and stay in Europe, and let Scotland reciprocate by helping make your Brexit conundrum a less destructive reality for the England that demands it.

    It isn’t the British Empire which is the ‘out of its time’ anachronistim which holds back and blinkers Olde England. It’s the UK Union which needs the root and branch overhaul. Let England free to be England.

  149. CameronB Brodie says:


    Chapter Eleven
    Gender and Sexuality in the Social Studies


    Over the last twenty years, academic discourse changed the vocabulary it used to talk about men and women as subjects for study. “Gender” replaced “sex” as the way to describe differences and similarities between men and women, reflecting new notions concerning the social and cultural construction of physical and psychological attributes.

    The old lexicon of “sex differences,” “sex discrimination” and “sex equity” gave way to consideration of inter- and intra-cultural variation; a new emphasis emerged concerning the historicity of what earlier had been labeled “sex roles” and “sexual identity.” These shifts produced a focus on elasticity in considering what it means to be a man or woman, with repeated reminders by feminist academics to avoid “essentialism” (that is, seeing men or women as inherently and universally possessing a specified set of attributes).1

    As postmodernism, poststructuralism, and postcolonialis – three distinct intellectual developments with different trajectories and markedly different consequences – spread within the academy, debates have emerged about whether any stable meaning could be attributed to the words “female” and “male.” At the same time, scholars introduced new fields of study around human sexuality. Changing perspectives on gender and sexuality resulted in masculinity studies, along with more widespread research and teaching about gay and lesbian history and literature.

    This movement, which was fueled by societal efforts to gain equity for women, gays, lesbians, trans-sexual and trans-gendered individuals, led to new college courses, concentrations, and majors and, at some institutions, the reconstitution of women’s studies programs as gender studies or gender and sexuality programs. Within the humanities, a “linguistic turn” characterized the academic field of history, and an “historical turn,” language and literature.

    Within the social sciences, these changes were more muted but gradually made inroads, especially in marking the salience of language and ideology to human activity. This is not to say that these trends came to dominate these fields. They were, and remain, highly contested in many respects….

  150. robbo says:

    CameronB Brodie and Golfnut

    Thanks 4 input on that subject of treaty of union blah blah confusing area.

    I must admit this treaty/acts of union is a Minefield for me too,so understand why people get into arguments with it.

    I don’t remember my marriage being forever. No one would ever get divorced in that case would they. Lol

  151. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “Johnson adviser said Tories do not care about poor people or NHS.”

    “Voters are right to think Tory MPs largely do not care about poorer people or the NHS, according to Dominic Cummings in comments that have emerged from two years ago.”

  152. Bill Hume says:

    I have just had a strange and horrible thought.

    Has Boris been installed in number 10 just to be the patsy….the fall guy….when the shit hits the fan?

  153. Abulhaq says:

    The ideal of Scottish independence has become enmeshed with arguments for and against of the British state’s ‘adhesion’ to the European Union.
    Scottish sovereignty is a stand alone, it must be freed from the alien Brexit bind and its seeming eternal discourse.
    We end the Scoto-English political union, unconditionally.

  154. CameronB Brodie says:

    That’s the perfect way to look at it. IMHO. The union of the nations is like a marriage. Unfortunately the husband turned out to me a narcissistic misogynist. Plenty more fish in the sea though. 😉

  155. defo says:

    McKee displays what an unedifying spectacle some of us make of themselves.
    Beyond the cringe!

  156. robertknight says:

    “Independence for England!”

    England can get out of the UK and EU, tell the Celts and Continentals where to go and finally be happy. Problem solved 🙂

    Come on Boris, you know it makes sense…

    Make England Great Again

  157. Ken500 says:

    Thanks for the links Nana. A perfect solution.

  158. Jockanese Wind Talker says:


    Take away from your link of 30 July, 2019 at 11:53 pm @robbo says is that the person posting the comment believes that the UK can never be broken up legally.

    “….the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain”

    As @ ephemeraldeception rightly says 31 July, 2019 at 12:15 am

    “The UK is a signatorty to the right of selfdetermination…..Evidenece from 1966”

    More important is Articles 6, 60 and 62 of the Vienna Convention (and this is where I’ve been thinking of when reading between the line of speeches by the FM and I Blackford et al):

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969:

    Article 6 Capacity of States to conclude treaties:

    Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.


    Article 60 – Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach.

    1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

    2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

    (a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either:

    (i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State;


    (ii) as between all the parties;

    (b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;

    (c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

    3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

    (a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention;


    (b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

    4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

    5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.


    Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances

    1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

    (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

    (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

    2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:

    (a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or

    (b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

    3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

  159. Dan says:

    Liz g says at 3:54 am

    The Revs Twitter has some fantastic examples of the British/EU border on the Island of Ireland…

    Aye, there’s some crackers there. Looks like the border was drawn back in the day by a drunk with an Etch a Sketch pad!

    Link to twitter thread with pics.

    galamcennalath says at 9:22 am

    There is political mandate to hold IndyRef2. There is currently no mandate to end the Union. Trying to do so would go down well.

    There would need to be a democratic mandate by some means, referendum or perhaps election.

    And when any democratic mandate is sought, we can expect every dark force to be brought to bear. That’s the way of the world now. Evil fears democracy and tries to undermine it.

    Education, information, and awareness are the counters to the dark arts.

    I’ll give another plug for the Netflix documentary “The Great Hack” which was released last week.
    It’s a good watch and shows just how powerful “the dark arts” have become, and thus how democracy has effectively been corrupted.

  160. Capella says:

    OT – Mr Ethical (Nicholas Wilson), the Integrity Initiative and the HSBC connection.

    In this first of several new interviews for Real Media, he connects Government funding and the security services to the recently revealed psyops outfit, Institute for Statecraft and its ‘integrity initiative’.

    The same outfit which has a false address in a disused mill in Scotland. If only we had some journalists in Scotland who could follow up the connection to the Indyref1 in 2014.

  161. cirsium says:

    @Capella, 10.37am

    Thanks for that very interesting link.

  162. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    For me the Sovereignty of Scots Electorate via the EU Referendum Vote 2016 is covered under The Vienna Convention, Article 60

    3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

    (b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

  163. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    UK adherence to the provisions of The Good Friday Agreement;

    The Vienna Convention:

    Article 26 – “Pacta sunt servanda”

    Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good


    Article 27 – Internal law and observance of treaties

    A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

  164. DerekM says:

    He is a sniveling little red tory wretch,got to admit its been real funny watching the yoons try and defend their new tory master.

    Great work all you cybernats out there awesome job 🙂

  165. Marcia says:

    In the latest YouGov poll issued today. Labour are 4th in Scotland at 11%. Just a sub-sample but a straw in the wind.

  166. Marcia says:

    Sorry – Labour are 5th!

  167. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Also worth a dig by an Investigative Journalist @Capella says at 10:37 am, would be “The Media Operations Group” rebranded the “Security Assistance Group” now the 77th Brigade which is described by the MOD as “an agent of change”

    The 77 Brigade is split into six ‘Columns’:

    No.1 Column – Planning support focusing on the behavioural analysis of actors, audiences and adversaries

    No.2 Column – Provides the detail synchronisation and delivery of effect

    No.3 Column – Provides highly deployable specialists to other parts of the Armed Forces and other Government organisations

    No.4 Column – Provides professional specialists in Security Capacity Building in Defence

    No.5 Column – Media operations and Civil Affairs

    No.7 Column – Engineer and Logistics Staff Corps

    Bit of Trolling that “the fifth column” has been designated as the Media Operations Unit.

    Origin of 5th Column General Emilio Mola, Francoist General in the Spanish Civil War:

    I have a strong suspicion that Colonel Yadaftie worked her way up the BritNat greasy pole via MOG as a ‘journalist’, her minimal time as an Army Reservist, her ‘extra-curricular’ work for Fluffy whilst still employed as a BBC Journalist and now as a constructed media puff piece front woman for the ‘Scottish’ Tories and the ‘Precious Union’.

    I have no doubt members of the UK Civil Service in Scotland are fully paid up members of No.3 Column, 77th Brigade defending the Union.

  168. galamcennalath says:

    @Jockanese Wind Talker

    BritNat dark forces will be fully deployed come IndyRef2, if not already.

    However, something which gives me hope is the simple fact that there are far more of us, than them.

    At best, their efforts will be astro turfing, social media advertising, and fake postings. We will be using face to face discussion in 1000s of places, they can never do that. Also, our online activity is based on 1000s of real people, not bots.

    With WBB and other efforts, we can go head to head on ‘advertising’.

  169. jfngw says:

    I don’t think I want the same question on the independence ballot paper next time, it is too vague and doesn’t spell out the reality you are voting for.

    Which box would you tick in these questions?

    Scotland should be run by politicians elected by the people of Scotland from the parliament at Holyrood

    Scotland should be run by politicians elected by another country from a parliament at Westminster.

    The electoral commission won’t like it because they like vague questions that can be fudged afterwards, look at the Brexit question, no actual detail about what we were voting for.

  170. Dan says:

    BBC Radio 4 Today / Steve Bannon interview.

  171. mike cassidy says:

    Surely those examples of the Irish border were drawn up by our very own ‘Cactus’ during one of his allnighters.

  172. Colin Alexander says:

    The UK’s Electoral Commission have lost all credibility by allowing flagrant cheating and lying to be treated as minor transgressions.

    They are also an agent of the UK State.

    Following their guidance is surely one of the mistakes from 2014 that we must correct. The Electoral Commission should not even be consulted for an opinion.

    The Scottish Parliament should use their own judgment and make the decision.

  173. CameronB Brodie says:

    Scots should vote to assert their embodied sovereignty and to protect their human rights.

    Scots should vote to reject their embodied sovereignty and renounce their human rights*.

    I’m sure the Electoral Commission would like to be seen supporting global human rights, such as the right to an identity and the right to development. Then again, they are part of the BritNat Establishment, and about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

    * this is an impossible task, it can’t be done. An individual may wish to reject their inalienable rights, but they are embodied within the individual. Westminster is a medievalist patriarchy and wishes to nullify the popular sovereignty of Scots, despite previously legislating the Claim of Rights as constitutional law. Such constitutional practice clearly lacks coherence and so is incapable of producing natural justice.

  174. Ghillie says:

    Umm. I got the impression that Boris had invited himself.

  175. Robert Louis says:

    Jockanese windtalker,

    Ending the treaty is as you point out, perfectly feasible, and indeed can be done by either signatory. A treaty is just an agreement between two or more countries. ~It is nothing more. So, for example, we could have a treaty between Canada and the USA, to say, reduce greenhouse emissions by 60% in two years. If a new US government is elected, which sees no point in such a reduction, it can end the treaty. It is is really straightforward.

    It matters not one jot, that the first article of the union treaty says the two countries united forever (I paraphrase) etc…. It is still only the case while the treaty is valid, or in force. The 1707 treaty of union is not magic. It doesn’t have special authority which no other treaty has. Unionists like to make out the union treaty IS special, because it suits them to have Scots thinking they need ‘permission’ in order to end it. But it is bunkum.

    Of course unilateral ending of a treaty may make another signatory unhappy, but that doesn’t mean they then have magic powers to say ‘No, you can’t end the treaty’. Only loony Scottish unionists try to argue otherwise, such is their cringing subservience to London.

    A treaty is just an agreement, it can be ended by either signatory, in this case, Scotland or England.

  176. Dan says:

    @Colin Alexander

    Tend to agree re. Electoral Commission.

    From April.

    I didn’t see mention on here last month of Darren Grimes winning his appeal against his 20k fine from the Electoral Commission for the 500k overspend of the VoteLeave campaign.
    How much did that cost the Electoral Commission to reach an unsound decision? Presumably the tax payers will pick up the tab…

    Is anyone aware of further information of those denied the vote in the recent EU Elections?

  177. CameronB Brodie says:

    In not havering mince when I suggest the full-English Brexit is as close to fascism as I want to get.

    Human Rights, Legal Personhood and the Impersonality of Embodied Life


    Since Locke, the concept of person has been closely linked to the idea of a subjective natural right and, later, to the concept of human rights. In this article we attempt to trouble this connection between humanity and personhood. For personhood is also an apparatus or dispositive of power. In the first half of the article, we identify a fundamental problem in the usual way human rights are connected to legal personhood by making use of insights drawn from Roberto Esposito’s discourse on biopolitics and critical race theory.

    While human rights are intended to offer protection to the “precarious” reality of human embodied life, we hypothesize that the fiction of legal personality generates a dis-embodiment whereby this human life is left exposed and defenseless. In the second half, we propose reconstructing the idea of legal personhood so that it may be more adequate to the required conception of human rights with insights drawn from Helmuth Plessner’s political anthropology of embodied life and from the analysis of disembodiment recently articulated by Ta-Nehisi Coates.

  178. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Normalising the Far Right on behalf of the Neo-Fascist UK Government via the British Nationalist Broadcaster BBC R4 @Dan says at 11:54 am

    BBC Radio 4 Today interview of Steve Bannon.

    Bannon is an ally of Trump.

    Bannon is a cheerleader for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka ‘Tommy Robinson’ and the Far Right in general across Europe.

    Bannon is an ally of BoJo.

    The dark clouds of fascism roll across Europe once again and the UK is in the vanguard this time!


  179. CameronB Brodie says:

    Re. BoJo’s and Farage’s ally, Steve Bannon. The man is an racist and a fascist.

    Factsheet: Steve Bannon

    IMPACT: As the head of Breitbart, Steve Bannon provided a platform for stereotypes and falsified information about Muslims. Bannon’s appointment to chief strategist in the Trump administration resulted in the promotion of anti-Muslim policies, most notably the Muslim Ban.

    Steve Bannon is the former Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor for President Donald Trump and the former executive chairman of Breitbart. Bannon had a key role in writing the Executive Order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries that many have called a “Muslim Ban.”

    Breitbart is described as a “far-right” media establishment that provides a platform for the “alt-right.” A 2016 Time article found that the site “pushed racist, sexist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic material into the vein of the alternative right.” Bannon served as it’s executive chairman from 2012 until August 2016, when he joined the Trump campaign. He went on to join the Trump administration as Chief Strategist. This appointment was celebrated by the American Nazi Party and the Klu Klux Klan (KKK).

    Numerous religious and civil rights groups, along with elected officials, criticized Bannon’s appointment in the administration because of his role at Breitbart, which provided a platform for views they consider racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, and misogynistic….

  180. Dan says:

    mike cassidy says at 11:58 am

    Surely those examples of the Irish border were drawn up by our very own ‘Cactus’ during one of his allnighters.

    I have Cactus down as a more artistic entity and believe they would use Spirograph over Etch a Sketch.

    Or maybe both the Irish border lines, and the stravaiging of Cactus are merely the work of Strava artists!

    Worth checking out the pics of the amazing work some have produced.

  181. Abulhaq says:

    From today’s Guardian, an article on Lyme disease.
    [The research, published in the journal BMJ Open, found that half of cases occurred between June and August. Although there were diagnoses across all regions of the UK during the period studied, Scotland had the highest number of cases, at 27% of the total. The authors suggest this could be due to the REGION’s wetter climate and popularity with hikers. The south-west and south of England also recorded a higher than average number of cases.]
    Well, just another reason why living in the Scotland region of Ukania is so awful!

  182. Abulhaq says:

    As much as one may balk at aspects of the new Brit régime and populist and new-right thinking I admit to believing that Scotland might well be much further on the highway to independence were the leadership to climb off their high horses of politically correct purity and self-righteousness and get down and dirty in the ideological scrum.

    Whosoever desires constant success must change conduct according to the times.
    Niccolò Machiavelli.

  183. Brian Lucey says:

    “I cannot “unsee” a solution where an England and Wales determined to sit outside the EU, and a Scotland and Ireland inside the EU, could not engineer a “British Benelux” type arrangement, where Scotland, and maybe Ireland too, are fully paid up members of the EU, but have licence so to speak to accommodate some trade links with England and Wales.”
    Err no. Thanks. Look up Irish trade with the UK vs …well, not.

  184. CameronB Brodie says:

    Some has-been twat talking sense, for a change, but failing to connect the dots. It is English/British nationalism that has a problem with the far-right and racism, not Scottish ‘nationalism’. Scotland didn’t vote to restrict immigration and abandon freedom of movement. Get this, he’s moaning about Scotland now turning towards a ‘hard’ separation by rejecting currency union.

    This arsehole simply won’t admit his ideology doesn’t match up with reality. He’s simply an unimaginative and somewhat totalitarian FUD.

    Fabian Society speech: Gordon Brown on combatting the far-right

  185. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Cameron B Brodie

    A wee confession, I normally skip past your thorough, but dull and academic posts. However, a few more lines such as your comments on Gordon Brown:

    “This arsehole simply won’t admit his ideology doesn’t match up with reality. He’s simply an unimaginative and somewhat totalitarian FUD.

    and I would read more of your posts. That’s the stuff to give the troops; well said.

  186. CameronB Brodie says:

    Socrates MacSporran
    Lets see you try to make post-modern critical social theory interesting. 🙂

  187. galamcennalath says:

    Dunx says
    At 11:15pm

    @ galamcmcennalath
    I know you’re technically correct that it was a majority vote for Tories in Scotland in 1955( Tories in all but name) but also technically ( in purely anorak/pedantic terms) the Tories didn’t win any seats in Scotland at that election.

    This is true, the Conservatives didn’t actually win any seats in Scotland because they didn’t stand. Their allies, Nat Libs and Scot Unionists, were the parties which took seats.

    By Tories, we generally mean those parties too.

    However, this does bring up an interesting point. We can justifiably claim that the Conservative Party have not won in Scotland in living memory.

    In fact, I’m really not quite sure the the current entity known as the Conservative Party has ever won in Scotland!

  188. CameronB Brodie says:

    Socrates MacSporran
    Apparently I’m failing to do so and I’ve had a formal introduction to this stuff. 😉

  189. Petra says:

    Every element of the Establishment just stinks to high heaven, including of course the Electoral Commission. They have proof positive that Vote Leave broke the law, in a multitude of ways, and yet this Brexit fiasco continues. The EUref results (and the last GE) should have been declared null and void and that probably applies to Indyref1 too. I don’t see the main, dirty dealing, players just emerging from the woodwork in 2016. We know for a fact now that they were all “beavering away” well before then.


    @ Breeks says at 9:53am ….. “the critical issue to achieving this is.”……

    The flaw in your latest argument Breeks is that, “the critical issue to achieving this is” that England can’t AFFORD to let Scotland go, cash cow, Faslane, etc, etc, and will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening.


    @ Mike at 11:58am …….

    Ha, ha, ha. Good one.

    Mike I think you”ll find that it was Stu that came up with the Irish border solution and outlined it on here quite some time ago. On my IPad so can’t find or copy/paste it.


  190. Petra says:

    @ galamcennalath …… It would be good to know one way or another if the Tories have ever won in Scotland. If not it keeps the debate with others simple and that is that the Scots have never been stupid enough to vote for the Tories at any time historically.

  191. CameronB Brodie says:

    Some insight into the Prime Minister’s role in promoting the Eurosceptiscism that has empowered the far-right, who are now in cabinet.

    Boris Johnson: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

  192. Sarah says:

    O/T re iScot and Phantom Power fundraisers. The Rev alerted us 28 days ago to four fundraisers – the two with targets of £8000 have been met [Ayemail and Wee GD – and Scot goes Pop too]

    BUT iScot’s target is £60,000 of which £6,429 raised.

    And Phantom has got £3,219 of its £20,000 target.

    Just saying…

  193. gus1940 says:

    It’s only a week since Johnson was ‘elected’ and we already have Bannon interviewed on The EBC.

    Be Scared – very scared.

    Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Johnson.

  194. galamcennalath says:

    Petra says:

    It would be good to know one way or another if the Tories have ever won in Scotland.

    Depends what you mean by Tories.

    If you mean the wider alliance of right wing parties which formed governments together, then the answer is 1955.

    If you mean strictly the Conservative Party itself, then the answer seems to be never.

    “The origins of the Scottish Unionist Party lie in the 1886 split of the British Liberal Party with the emergence of the Liberal Unionists under Joseph Chamberlain. The Union in question was the 1800 Irish Union, not that of 1707. Prior to this, the only Tory/Conservative party in Scotland was the official Conservative Party, which had never achieved parity with the dominant Whig and Scottish Liberal Party ascendancy since the election reforms of 1832. The new Liberal Unionists quickly agreed to an electoral pact with the Conservative Party in Britain, and in Scotland this pact overcame the former electoral dominance of the Scottish Liberals.”

    So prior to 1886 the UK Conservatives did stand in Scotland but never beat Whigs/Liberals.

    So, 1886 to 1965, The English Conservatives didn’t stand in Scotland.

    I have read in umpteen places that the demise of the right in Scotland dates back to the merger of Scot Unionist and Conservatives in 1965. The ‘English’ Conservative Party never had the appeal of a genuine Scottish party.

    This lesson is perhaps why the BritNats like to stick Scottish in front of their real names. A vain hope that branch offices can gain traction as Scottish.

  195. Robert Kerr says:

    @Petra 2.08

    Well done with

    “The EUref results (and the last GE) should have been declared null and void and that probably applies to Indyref1 too”

    Indeed Indiref1 is totally compromised in my opinion.

  196. manandboy says:

    Sorry, no link.

    The Bloomberg Bulletin this morning points to the Foreign Exchange markets, which is not in my wing mirror, and the potential for very significant disruption to the Johnson Plan.

    “The foreign-exchange market is a fiercer opponent than Johnson has had to take on so far. Investors are already talking about the prospect that market pressure will force him to change tack – and debating how high his pain threshold is.

    “We have seen from time to time that the market is able to put pressure on governments,” said Thu Lan Nguyen, a currency strategist at Commerzbank AG

    “Increasing market turmoil could put the government under pressure to refrain from a no-deal Brexit.

    As a pain threshold, I could imagine a depreciation just above 10% in a short time that takes the currency close to parity against euro.”

    The Brexit avalanche continues, at its own pace, to forge its destructive path down the UK hillside.

  197. kapelmeister says:

    The Hootsman quotes Alister Jack. Apparently he’s going to oppose an indyref2 “with all of my being”.

    Playing the ontological card eh? And we thought he was going to be dull.

  198. galamcennalath says:


    This seem to be the article.

    Yes, very interesting. The pound will drop further. Then the markets will bring Johnson to heel insisting ‘no deal’ is not on.

  199. galamcennalath says:

    kapelmeister says:

    Alister Jack. Apparently he’s going to oppose an indyref2 “with all of my being”.

    As a Scot, he has that democratic right. Seems increasingly likely he’s in the minority, though.

    This English sidekick, Robin Walker, on the other hand should mind his own business. The Scots will decide. That’s the way it should be, however we know non-Scots like Johnson will feel entitled to get involved.

  200. Jedburgh says:

    Good Lord is this what Scottish Labour has become? Standing bareheaded; eyes averted; wringing their Bunnet in their hands while this unelected oaf tours the ‘regions’.

  201. Petra says:

    @ Gus at 2:33pm …”Bannon.”…

    You just wonder if anything can be done about this cabal, and Facebook, etc, now? Farage shot off to see Trump immediately after the EUref results. How much contact had he had with Trump, Bannon and so on beforehand? He was also in a Trump audience (Trump pointed it out) following the Clown being elected. They are all mooching around Europe too stirring things up. Surely someone can get enough on Farage, for starters, to get him locked up?

  202. Petra says:

    Thanks for the info galamcennalath. Interesting.

  203. Dr Jim says:

    Maybe I’m being a bit pedantic here but this Alister Jack stuff about being born and brought up in Scotland is absolute tosh
    Anybody born and brought up in Scotland who speaks with an English accent is English or wants to be
    Has anybody ever heard of anyone born and brought up in England who speaks with a Scottish accent

    I don’t think so

  204. Dr Jim says:

    This morning I’ve heard the FM of Scotland, the Leader of Sinn fein and others in Northern Ireland, the FM of Wales and leaders in the Irish Republic and nobody wants anything to do with England’s Brexit except England

    This is dicatatorship by a country nobody wants anything to do with

  205. Robert Peffers says:

    @Jockanese Wind Talker says: 31 July, 2019 at 10:32 am:

    ” … Take away from your link of 30 July, 2019 at 11:53 pm @robbo says is that the person posting the comment believes that the UK can never be broken up legally.”

    There is the one wee problem I’ve been harping on about for what seems like forever, Jockanese Wind Talker. That is the one about the people of Scotland’s legal sovereignty. It means that neither Westminster or Holyrood are legally sovereign under Scottish law and Scottish law is sacrosanct under the Treaty of Union.

    It means that neither the Holyrood parliament, Nicola Sturgeon or Westminster can over rule the people of Scotland’s wishes. Nicola thus requires a specific mandate to declare the majority of the people of Scotland want Scotland to reclaim their independence.

    To put that into perspective it is not either Westminster, Holyrood or the ruling Holyrood party that has the sovereign right to reclaim Scottish independence for only a majority of the people of Scotland have that legal right. To date that majority has never been proven to exist.

    When it does then there are several different doors that will swing wide open for Scots to walk through on their way to independence. The worst possible thing that could happen is for Nicola to call Indyref2 — and lose it.

  206. galamcennalath says:

    Dr Jim says

    Alister Jack ….Anybody born and brought up in Scotland who speaks with an English accent is English or wants to be

    Thing is, it’s not really an accent from the country of England …. it’s Received English accent which in not, and never was, spoken in any region of England. It’s fabricated. Created in the private school and Oxbridge education system.

    Jack went Glenalmond College in Perthshire (I believe) which operates like an English private school, including instilling the RE accent!

    I suppose the RE accent is an attempt by the elite to stand apart from commoners who have regional accepts. It allows them to recognise one another on meeting. PLUs as they say, People Like Us.

    For me, it’s a sign of an upbringing gone wrong.

  207. call me dave says:

    @Dr Jim

    Well I had similar thoughts about all these voices we have heard this morning and some yesterday and I thought it had been a wee while since all our Aunties had allowed such a thing.

    Indeed I have seen big Brian on shortbread (with a variety of voluminous self coloured ties on) giving worried reports on the consequences of Brexit.
    Even the FM actually speaking for once.

    It flitted into my brain that there might have be a slight mood change in the reporting and apart from Arlene accusing the ‘belligerent EU’ of diabolical deeds it had been , on the whole, pretty good for the remainers.

    Not buying anymore popcorn yet though as I have quite a large stock not opened yet…waiting patiently. 🙂

  208. Breeks says:

    Petra says:
    31 July, 2019 at 2:08 pm

    @ Breeks says at 9:53am ….. “the critical issue to achieving this is.”……

    The flaw in your latest argument Breeks is that, “the critical issue to achieving this is” that England can’t AFFORD to let Scotland go, cash cow, Faslane, etc, etc, and will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening.

    Then please explain why it’s SNP policy to stop Brexit and save the whole UK from itself, rather merely saving Scotland through our sovereign absolute No to Brexit.

    We’ll apparently compromise on Scotland’s interests to prevent Brexit, but we won’t offer the English an economic lifeline which might soften their resistance to Scotland’s Independence and perhaps even give them cause to support it? Hmmm… how does that work? Are we sure we’ve thought it through?

    Forget the bluster and bravado, I don’t think we should underestimate how exposed and vulnerable England is going to feel stepping outside of the European umbrella. If Scotland has the maturity and confidence to make itself safe in Europe, but also has the magnanimity to extend an umbilical cord for essential trade between England and Europe, then I believe the reasonable people of England will deeply appreciate it, and we perhaps have the foundations laid for something much stronger beyond. In the short term, it will greatly ease the pain of our departure.

    “We’re not coming with you England. We think you’re making a dreadful mistake, but we respect it’s your choice. But now you must let us go and respect ours. But let us use the time that’s left to prepare. Help us embed our country solidly in the heart of Europe. Help us secure the anchorage point that will allow us keep firm hold of your economic lifeline… and a way back, just in case you ever need it.

    We’ll see you won’t starve, or want for the lack of medicine. Your planes can use our airspace and your ships our waters, (ships, not subs mind), and we’ll be your respectful intermediary if you find it too humbling to ask Europe for help or admit you’ve made a big mistake.

    We will save you and the Irish from the awkward conundrum of the Irish Backstop… or at least you’ll have a workaround instead of the bloodshed and rogue nation status that beckons.

    But we can only promise these things if Scotland is a sovereign member state secure inside the European Union. It’s the price for making it happen. It’s not our price, it is THE price. Being a sovereign Nation is the leverage we need to make the bargains that need to be made with Europe. It is simply what has to happen by Constitutional necessity.

    Think about it England. We are leaving the UK. The rest is up to you.

  209. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Good to see you back Robert Peffers says at 3:40 pm and you are correct about our Popular Sovereignty.

    The poor soul commenting in the link @robbo supplied last night at 11:53 pm doesn’t understand this.

    However thanks to many on here (and you in particular Mr P) most of us BTL on WoS do understand it.

    Stay healthy Robert.


  210. Legerwood says:

    Below are the first two paragraphs from an article in the on-line Daily Telegraph. The whole article is behind a paywall but the first two paragraphs and the headline give you a pretty good idea of the tenor and direction of the article. I just had to share this:

    “”Bought by Brussels, little Ireland’s ridiculous leaders have landed it in a Brexit crisis””
    “”This is tough right now, being a proud and loyal British subject who has lived in, and loved, Ireland for more than 60 years. What is tough is watching the ridiculous behaviour of the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and his foreign minister, Simon Coveney, trying to destroy, like wilful children, relations with an ancient and friendly neighbour.

    Whatever faults the British may have, they understand independence and freedom. I can understand why they mock the ridiculous behaviour of these two men. Varadkar and Coveney are both members of Fine Gael, a party that has its roots in the fight 100 years ago to secure independence and freedom for Ireland. Yet now here they are trying to block the UK’s path to…””

  211. Capella says:

    @ cirsium @ Jockanese Wind Talker @ Dan – there’s a very dark and dangerous group of players manipulating public opinion. The BBC Trust was, until very recently, chaired by Rona Fairhead of HSBC and Roger Carr, Chair of BAE systems. Why? Are they just very clever, or does a background in banking and weapons manufacturing qualify you for public sector broadcasting oversight?

    The Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, Chris Wylie, mentioned that there was work undertaken in Scotland prior to 2015 but no Scottish journalist seems to be in the slightest bit curious to know what that was.

    Can’t have been anything important.

    I hope Mr Ethical carries on digging.

  212. Liz g says:

    Ledgerwood @ 4.20
    To my dying day I’ll never understand why anyone absolutely anyone would consider themselves “a subject” …
    That one statement says it all about the mind set that could ever view the British behaviour toward Ireland as in any way benign.
    An ancient and friendly neighbour… Oh my giddy aunt…
    This is the mind of a world view that reads chapter Two of Exodus and claims the Bible to be the ” good ” book!!!!

  213. Bob Mack says:

    The American Congressional Committee which approves all trade deals and is comprised of Democrats and Republicans have stated there will be NO trade deal if the Irish border is affected in any way. They have the power to delay a trade deal by up to five years , or permanently if they wish, in spite of what Trump says.

    54 Congressmen who sit on the Congressional Friends of Ireland Committee which is again bi partisan have stated they will not allow Ireland to be affected by Brexit.

    Game on for Johnson.

  214. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Robert Louis @ 12:20,

    I’ve been struggling (likely through ignorance) to think of any examples of the unilateral revocation of an international treaty. Although it is theoretically possible, it generally isn’t done by stable regimes because of the serious repercussions for confidence that follow. The Treaty of Rapallo (1922) – mutual recognition between Weimar Germany and the nascent Soviet Union – was unilaterally revoked by Hitler in spectacular fashion in 1944, but anything involving the Great Dictator isn’t a great guide, more a counterexample in fact. The odious fascistoid Trump has just reneged on the Iran Nuclear Deal, and that’s not going too well either.

    What seems to happen instead is that periods of extreme instability unhinge everything, one consequence being that pre-existing treaties in effect become irrelevant or moribund. BoJo appears to positively subscribe to this kind of societal disruption as a policy, and that a period of extreme UK trauma is in fact (for him) necessary for a “national” resurgence. We might hope that he gets more than he bargained for from his northern colony, but that may be no more than wishful thinking. He’s gambling that innate Scots caution will successfully defuse any significant rebellion, and he could well be right. Suffocation by re-normalisation in a new right-wing polity.

    Thinking on, however, here’s the real fly-in-the-ointment (and death-knell) of the “treaty revocation” strategy: by the terms of The Treaty of Union, the states of Scotland and England formally ceased to exist, and were replaced by the (then) state of Great Britain. So whatever the internal constitution of the UK may now be, there are no internationally-recognised independent governments left who possess the necessary sovereignty to declare a revocation. It’s the damn chicken-and-egg conundrum again.

    There’s no successful way out of this without widespread public support. And that has to be positively won with loud-and-proud advocacy of a plausible alternative way forward, not merely leaving everything to circumstances. The new UKGov at least realises this fundamental fact, and is evidently currently preparing a massive propaganda exercise under the guise of “crisis management” to re-cast everything. And more than a little of it is intended to head our way, so we had better do more than passively hope that “circumstances” are somehow going to win this imminent existential struggle for us for free.

    We’re heading for a hard-right BritNat New Order unless we extract ourselves from the UK in a very timely manner. We can’t afford to wait much longer.

  215. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    me @ 16:59.

    Oops, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was of course in 1941, not 1944. Duh.

  216. Legerwood says:

    Liz g @ 4:52 pm

    It really was quite gobsmacking wasn’t it and that was just the headline and two paragraphs!

    English exceptionalism to the nth degree drips from every word, comma and double space between sentences.**

    What is equally gobsmacking is that the Telegraph is printing stuff like this almost every day and people, at least their readership, seem to be swallowing it hook, line and sinker!

    ** see Rees-Mogg’s instructions the other day to Civil servants on correct punctuation etc

  217. Maria F says:


    “Then please explain why it’s SNP policy to stop Brexit”

    I could think a couple of reasons for this:

    1. Scotland never gave consent for the UK to give up its EU membership. If this is truly a union of equals as many no voters think it is, then the Kingdom of England has as much right to drag Scotland out of the EU as Scotland has to force the Kingdom of England to remain in the EU. In a proper union of equals, without explicit Scotland’s consent the triggering of A50 by England MPs on behalf of Scotland may well be unconstitutional because it goes against our Claim of Right and own principle of popular sovereignty. England Mps cannot trigger A50 on behalf of Scotland – they have never been given a mandate for it. I think the SnP may well be, subtly, very subtly, attempting to force England MPs to revoke A50 to re-establish the status quo Scotland voted for. And why not? I can see why as this will drive the VIP taxdodgers, tax havens, neocons and American interests behind brexit absolutely insane – the EU is not going to wait forever for the Uk to implement the tax evasion laws if Brexit continues to be delayed and usa is not going to wait forever for a deal.

    2. It is crystal clear that there is perhaps still a majority among the electorate in England and Wales that pursues leaving the EU. But what is even more clear is that strange colluding forces (some of them geopolitical and foreign by the look of it) fronted by ERG, CRC, Cambridge Analytica, the Brexit Party and other strange characters are determined to escape those EU regulations what come may. The way the no deal nonsense has been ramped up in the last few months, the catapulting of de Pfeffel to the seat and a man like Cummings who was found to be in contempt of parliament as advisor, and the BBC extending the red carpet to extreme right wing individuals like Farage, Bannon etc says a great deal.

    The proper democratic procedure when there has been no consensus among the 4 nations of the UK and more importantly among the only 2 equal partners, is for the England MPs to call a referendum in the Kingdom of England, which is the partner who voted against the status quo, to let the people decide if they rather preserve the union by remaining in the EU or they rather dissolve the union to leave the EU.

    I would like to think that something down this lines is what the SNP is pursuing as that is precisely what I would be pursuing. Why? Because that is the best way to call the bluff of the English establishment, test where its real loyalties lie and determine just how important the UK is considered when its juicy Tax havens are at risk.

    I must say that I support an Scottish referendum because the people of Scotland has given a mandate for it and therefore no England MPs or minion in the tory, labour and libdem party should have a say in the matter. But if I have to be 100% honest, I do not see why on earth Scotland is the one that has to end up cleaning the mess the Kingdom of England has caused.

    It was not Scotland who voted against the Status Quo, it was the Kingdom of England. It should be therefore the Kingdom of England who now cleans its own mess. It is therefore my opinion that the referendum to decide about dissolving the Uk should happen in England and Wales, not in Scotland.

    Also, there is a part of me that sees the referendum as a red herring. Tories, libdems and labour have been parroting about the referendum since 2016 non-stop, far more than the SNP themselves and I feel there is an ulterior motive to this bombardment that is beyond simply wanting to stop it. I have wondered more than once if what these trojan horses of the English establishment are doing is to make the people of England think that the problem is in Scotland and not really in the Kingdom of England, which is who voted against the Status quo and who is more divided about brexit. I am beginning to think it is a distracting tool, a defusing mechanism for the divisions in England, not Scotland.

    Why could those trojan horses do that? Because a little referendum in Scotland can easily be manipulated and interfered with as they did in 2014 to ensure no will win again. But such referendum will be much more difficult to control should it happen in England because whatever side wins, there will be far too much to lose.

    I like to think that this is perhaps what the SNP could be pushing for: a way to put all the meaningful forces that are so desperate to escape EU regulations firmly against the wall so this time they cannot escape making a decision: what is more important to them if escaping those EU regulations or keeping the UK intact.

    Scotland having the referendum is making it very easy for those manipulative forces that will be happily sneaking through the back door with the help of the biased broadcasters, civil service, MSM an toothless electoral commission and buckets of money at their disposal. In the same way they have manipulated the EU ref campaign with dark money, lack of transparency in the origin of CRC donations, Psypos and have allowed Vote Leave to get away with breaking electoral law I have not a shadow of a doubt that they will manipulate our referendum to get away with having both brexit and an intact (at least looking intact) UK.

    There is no escape route for those forces if the referendum takes place in the Kingdom of England. They would not be able to have their cake (brexit) and eat it too (an intact UK): or they get to escape the EU regulations or they get to preserve the UK. They cannot longer have both.

    I like to think this route is precisely what the SNP is pursuing or at least threatening those forces with pushing for. When you think of it, it is actually quite clever. If the SNP keeps strong in its position demanding brexit and hammering them with Scotland’s vote against brexit, perhaps by threatening them with stopping the whole thing in the courts because Scotland never gave consent for A50 to be triggered, the England MPs will soon be falling over themselves to sign a section 30 order and at least keep a chance “to control” that referendum and keep a chance to win. The alternative, which is a proper full blown referendum in England or simply the imminent demands by those pro brexit forces in the electorate and behind the shadows to dissolve the union cold turkey, are just too close for comfort.

  218. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    In his latest blog, Peter A. Bell has an interesting take on things that I hadn’t appreciated until now. He sets off by dismissing S.30 as merely a convenient means-to-an-end at the time:

    […] what [Alex Salmond] wanted was not the Section 30 order itself, but the Edinburgh Agreement that accompanied it.

    Eventually he gets to an original (well, to me anyway) inversion:

    Which does not mean that we should take the British government to court – whatever that may entail. What it means, and what Salmond no doubt intended, is that the British state is powerfully deterred from taking the Scottish Government to court. It is highly unlikely that any constitutional court, including the UK Supreme Court, would uphold the British government’s right to exercise what is effectively a veto over Scotland’s right of self-determination.

    PB’s personal focus is clearly in believing that the SG’s apparent slow-mo pursuit of an S.30 order is a strategic dead-end, but to me his point begs a more-important question: what could/should the SG be doing now to call Boris’ bluff, and snare the UKGov in that potential politico-legal dilemma?

    (Or, of course, proceed blithely onward as it wishes, unchallenged… =grin=)

  219. Col.Blimp IV says:

    Robert Peffers says – “The worst possible thing that could happen is for Nicola to call Indyref2 — and lose it.”

    I couldn’t agree more, which is why I believe that Westminster elections should be fought on the single issue of Independence for Scotland.

    preferably under the “YES” banner.

    Candidates could also declare that they will only ever cast their votes in a manner that they believe to be in the best interests of the people of Scotland and that they will endevour to do their utmost assist constituents with any problem they have, pertinent to the UK Parliament.

    …a risk free referendum every four years until we get the “right” result.

  220. Colin Alexander says:

    Robert J. Sutherland

    A recent example of unilaterally suspending / withdrawing from an international treaty is The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty).

    The USA accused Russia ( USSR originally signed in 1987) of breaking the terms of the treaty so said in Feb 2019 they were suspending the terms of the treaty and gave six months notice of withdrawing from the treaty.

  221. galamcennalath says:

    Bob Mack says

    The American Congressional Committee which approves all trade deals and is comprised of Democrats and Republicans have stated there will be NO trade deal if the Irish border is affected in any way.

    More infor …

    LLOOLL …. Brexitology revolves around free trade deals in low regulation, low standards, new Britannia. Especially with low regulations and standards US.

    Yet another Catch 22 hits them!

    NI (at least) needs to stay closely compliant with the EU. To ensure integrity of the UNion, the whole UK would need to be compliant. The Brexiteers don’t want that. But they have to do that to get a US trade deal past congress. But, how do they formulate a trade deal with the US, yet manage to maintain high EU standards?

    The circle won’t square.

    What a shite show!

  222. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Maria F @ 17:37:

    I like to think that this is perhaps what the SNP could be pushing for: a way to put all the meaningful forces that are so desperate to escape EU regulations firmly against the wall so this time they cannot escape making a decision: what is more important to them … escaping those EU regulations or keeping the UK intact.

    I see it in mirror-image, actually. Getting all those pro-EU forces in Scottish society (people like Kirsty Hughes, for example) to the point of recognising that their long-lingering hopes of a UK remaining in the EU have now turned to dust, and that they have to come to the very same definitive conclusion you mention: UK or indy?

    Post-Bozo [sic], the days of wishful fence-sitting are well and truly over.

    For everybody.

  223. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Colin Alexander @ 17:45,

    Ah, yes. Trump again, of course. Another breach that likely won’t end well, unless repaired by successor(s).

  224. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Example of “the unilateral revocation of an international treaty” @Robert J. Sutherland says at 4:59 pm

    Philippines withdrawing from the Rome Statues(which had created the International Criminal Court) On the 17th March 2018.

    Declared unilaterally by President Duerte.

  225. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    England should be looking to this model (not unilateral but in agreement with)

    It is the common sense approach so they won’t.

    The Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, which took effect on 1 January 1993 and saw the self-determined split of the federal state of Czechoslovakia into the independent countries of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

    Czechoslovakia was founded in October 1918, as one of the successor states of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I and as part of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

  226. Liz g says:

    Well as I see it….
    We are fighting to stop Brexit because we can.
    They wanted us to stay in this bloody Union and for now they’ve got us.
    What were we supposed to do sit back and suck it up?
    While we’re stuck with the Union we should involve ourselves when we feel like it….. To just say nothing and go along with what Westminster wants to do is no an option!
    It’s a price they pay ( for a change )for this bloody Union

  227. galamcennalath says:

    Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    England should be looking to this model (not unilateral but in agreement with)

    It is the common sense approach so they won’t.

    Yup! Referendums in NI and Scotland with no interference from London to decide if they want a different path, then do a Czechoslovak did – divorce amicably.

    Way too sensible!

    England needs to be seen as successor state to keep UN Security Council seat in the same way as Russia to the USSR seat. Perhaps that’s doable.

    Then there is the BIG issue of England’s prestige and assumed global status being diminished. Hey, a chaotic Brexit is doing that right now! Switching to a planned UK dissolution and exit would improve England’s standing.

    Let’s face it, English Nationalism is running rampant. Their sense of entitlement allows them to believe the UK is theirs forever. Common sense is out the window.

  228. Sarah @ 2.33pm

    Can you (or someone else) please repost the links to these fund raisers please.

    It’s the end of the month and folks have been paid so they may be able to contribute if we have the links.


  229. Robert Peffers says:

    @Colin Alexander says: 31 July, 2019 at 5:45 pm:

    ” … A recent example of unilaterally suspending / withdrawing from an international treaty is The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty).”

    Och! Colin, there is a more recent, although not completed yet, example of a suspension/withdrawal from an international treaty.

    Westminster’s withdrawing from the European Union. Which is really quite laughable as several members of the current Westminster government, including at least one former Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers, are on record in Hansard of stating catagorically that any nation in an international treaty has the inalienable right to withdraw from that international treaty – (except for viewers in Scotland).

  230. Col.Blimp IV says:

    WTF is all this obsession with allegedly mindbogglingly complex “Trade Deals” really about?

    Nations do not trade with each other in the real world, companies and individuals do.

    e.g.) The USA has long had divergent vehicle emissions regulations to the rest of the world … manufacturers who wished to sell cars there produced or adapted their export product to suit, those who didn’t didn’t sell any cars there … simples.

    The level of or absence of tariffs and confirming the mechanics of certification of compliance to relevant standards, which are (presumably) already in existence for locally produced goods, are pretty much all that is required and…

    …Could be settled with a wee bit of research, a couple of meetings and a dozen e-mails.

    Countries, Empires and Trading Blocks who’s Parliaments, Bureaucracies or Dictators refused to accept this would be told to go and fuck themselves … If I were King!

  231. Robert Peffers says:

    I posted this O/T this morning- Goodness knows where for I cannot find it now on this topic. So here it is again without other comment:-

    I’ll go mad because of these cataracts as they are telling me it will be September before I get the first operation. They have me down for more checks and more measurements before that though.

    I’m finding it hard to manage. I have a few woolly hats, including the Wings one, but for hot weather I have a very light one but I couldn’t find it for over a week. Found it this morning, on end of the coffee table next to the desk where my laptop is. I still don’t know how I missed it as I searched there for it among the other woolly hats on that table.

    Anyway I spend a while replying to the comments on the above Youtube article. Seems I stirred them up a bit. Quite funny really.

  232. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Jockanese Wind Talker @ 18:01,

    Ah, Duerte. Another example of the zeitgeist. How could I have overlooked him?!

    As to your later posting @ 18:03, the amicable dissolution of Czechoslovakia “by phone call” was a precedent that clearly worried Mundell far more in that notorious interview with STV’s John MacKay than the “extinguished” distraction. It could be as easy-peasy as that, were the willingness present. Unfortunately, English exceptionalists like Bozo would find that impossible to contemplate, even without the resource implications. (John Major was willing to concede NI, but that’s history.)

    If we had a better grip of the WM arithmetic, it might be possible to stall UKGov into a face-saving IR2 gamble/concession, as Maria F suggests @ 17:37. But I fear the numbers aren’t there – too many competing conflicts – and the ongoing stalemate is only allowing some people to wallow in false hope for an all-UK Brexit solution instead of facing up to harsh realities.

  233. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Col.Blimp IV @ 18:57,

    Tariffs, in a word. (And associated potential protectionism.)

    (You’ve not been paying near enough attention to the US Great Dealmaker, it seems!)

  234. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Robert Peffers @ 18:54,

    Well reminded there. (Not to forget the GFA as well.) Indeed, the very epitomy of UK hypocrisy.

    Though that’s all being neatly arranged by mutual agreement, isn’t it? =cough, cough, cough, aarrgle, gluggg…=

  235. Socrates MacSporran says:

    Robert Peffers @ 7.19pm

    Jings Auld Boab, but Sillars hasnae half lost it. He was myMp for a while in the 1970s, but, I was never all that impressed – in fact, when it came to the basic nuts and bolts of being a constituency MP, he wasnae even half the man George Foulkes was.

    It always was and still is, all aboot Jim. The trouble with Jim is, folk stopped listening a long time ago and he has never realised this. And, in that clip, he didnae half talk shite.

  236. geeo says:

    No deal brexit plan: We fuck it up big time, we fix it by fining hauliers for breaches of rules we introduce because of our cock-ups.

    What a shower !

  237. robbo says:

    Sillars ,aye remember him in South Ayrshire years ago. Ma faether said he wis a fud. I was was about 10. Pissed masel laughing.

    Still thinks he’s important. When indy comes we’ll have a ref on joining EU then so wits his problem?
    Can’t believe he would bring Ruth the mooth into backing his anti EU shite

  238. Dan says:

    Col.Blimp IV says at 5:39 pm

    …which is why I believe that Westminster elections should be fought on the single issue of Independence for Scotland.

    An issue with that is the UK General Election voter franchise eliminates 16 & 17 year olds, and EU Nationals from having a vote.

    Westminster chooses to deny the vote of certain sections of the people it governs over.
    Maybe 16 & 17 year olds, along with EU Nationals need to withhold paying all their direct and indirect taxes, and revive the old “No Taxation without Representation” slogan…

  239. Robert Louis says:

    Robert J. Sutherland at 459pm,

    Treaties are formed and ended all the time, for many, many reasons. Your lack of awareness, is indeed through ignorance.

    As regards the treaty of union ending, as you put it, the ‘states of England and Scotland’, sorry but it did no such thing.

    Article 1. “That the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the Ist day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain…”

    Although this states “..and for ever after..”, such a term is ONLY applicable when the treaty is functional. That is, end the treaty (or rather revoke the act of union), and the articles of the treaty of union become irrelevant.

    Indeed, neither the states or countries of England or Scotland are mentioned anyhwere in the articles of union. The word ‘country’ is not even present within the entire text, anywhere. The treaty of union explicitly talks of Kingdoms, but does not in any way, or via any text suggest that Scotland (or England) would cease to exist as either a country or a state, or indeed as a kingdom.

    It is astonishing what some folk THINK the treaty (and the two respective ACTS) of 1707 says. I guess such people have never read them.

  240. CameronB Brodie says:

    It’s not really a surprise that the second comment on that youtube clip from Robert Peffers, is an expression of Islamophobia. Along with Euroscepticism, hostility towards Muslims is a key component of contemporary (white) English/British nationalism. The deeply xenophobic nature of England’s post-colonial malaise, articulates the lack of respect towards Others, that is embedded in English culture as a consequence of Britain’s traditional ‘exceptionalism’.

    What happens when one nation thinks it owns another? Authoritarian nationalism and a breakdown in democratic principles (see the full-English Brexit).

  241. manandboy says:

    So, £100 million, to advertise throughout Europe that the UK ‘means it’, about leaving on Oct 31st.
    Cummings,Johnson and Gove’s Master Plan.

    Time to get the thinking caps on, to figure out what this is really all about.

  242. Robert Peffers says:

    For anyone who missed it here is a clip from Westminster. You won’t see clips like this on the BBC or ITV nor read about them in the SMSM. (They don’t want you to know this):-

    Isn’t it strange, though, that there are wingers you would have you believe the SNP are just too comfortable as part of the Westminster Establishment.

  243. Robert Peffers says:

    Here is a YouTube clip from Glasgow from a week ago:-

    But! But! But! Are not the broadcasters and dead tree press telling us there is no apatite for independence in Scotland?

    Must be shom mishtake.

  244. Maria F says:

    Thank you Mr Pfeffers @8:42 for that interesting clip.

    Mr Johnson claims that there are many, many, many benefits, economic, political and strategic to be had from Scotland voting to remain in the union in 2014. But am I the only one that finds fascinating and perhaps the most interesting part of Mr Johnson’s speech that he actually cannot bring himself to say at any point that those benefits are for Scotland at all?

    As the Rev has taught us over the years, the most important part is not what they say, but what they do not say.

    By the way, his smirk when he was telling about the economic, political and geopolitical benefits was a give away. He was not believing a single word of what he was saying. But guess what? neither did we.

  245. mike cassidy says:

    Those mentioning the breakup of Czechoslovakia should read this from October last year.

    “A multi-ethnic nation born at the end of World War I in the glow of pan-Slavic brotherhood, Czechoslovakia survived dismemberment by the Nazis and more than four decades of Communist rule only to fall apart after just three years of democracy”.


    And I found this analysis – from 2011 – of the question of currency.

  246. Sarah says:

    @ Meg Merrilees 6.50 p.m. re the fundraisers still needing support – the links are in the Rev’s post on 2nd July, The Achievers.

  247. Robert Peffers says:

    Here is how tv interviews should be conducted but you won’t see them on United Kingdom TV:-

  248. If anyone is feeling flush and generous, these two Achievers are needing a boost to their Crowdfunder appeals.

    Here is the link for Phantom Power. Currently has raised £3,229 of £20,000

    and this is the link for i-Scot. Currently $7,825 of $73,023 – can’t express it in sterling as the website seems to be coming up with the amount to be raised in US Dollars.

  249. cynicalHighlander says:

    Will someone ask Ruth Davidson branch manager of Scot Cons if she condoms the second post.

  250. galamcennalath says:

    Robert Peffers says:

    how tv interviews should be conducted

    They used to be better. My favourite used to be Brian Walden. Wiki tells me he died in May.

    He had a cracking technique. He’d stop a politician rattling on and say something like … “now, just so viewers understand, are you saying XYZ?” … phrased so they really had to say Yes. And he’s insist on a simple Yes. That way he could nail feet to floors.

  251. Dr Jim says:

    Once again we keep hearing about Scotland leaving the UK as if somehow wthout Scotland the UK still exists or will exist when of course Scotland is the UK along with the partner nation England (well that’s how it’s supposed to work) when how can it, surely the entity that is the UK ceases to exist and if I’m correct why do they keep saying we’re leaving something that we are, when isn’t the correct thing to say Scotland dissolves the partnership that created the UK

    Like Holland and Barratt, if Holland goes it’s just Barratt
    or Slater Hogg and Howieson, Howieson went and now it’s just Slater Hogg, so Scotland doing the same leaves K

    Doesn’t it?

  252. Katie says:

    @cynicalHighlander Do you mean ‘condones’ . Hahaha … I know childish but you have really cheered up my evening. Thanks 🙂

  253. Bobp says:

    Legerwood 4.20pm. Bruce Arnold ” being a proud and loyal british subject who has lived in and loved Ireland for more than 60yrs”. There is only one country he loves and is loyal to, so why does’nt he fcuk off back to it instead of sponging off the Irish taxpayer.

  254. cynicalHighlander says:


    Your post made me smile glad I brought some humour into your space. 🙂

  255. jfngw says:

    I see the BBC running a how bad it would be for Ireland with a no deal on their news at 6pm. Looked like a bit of pressure to drop the backstop, they are obeying the UK government line.

    Just think all that money we are allocated in GERS to maintain the UK state, civil service, HMRC, etc could all be spent providing work in Scotland instead of jobs in another country.

  256. geeo says:

    No fucking around from Jonathan Powell, Chief
    British negotiator in N.I. 1997 – 2007, explaining the backstop, how it returns violence to the irish border and how Johnsons position is completely stupid.

    Maitliss: “but how do you end up with violence with a hard border”?

    Powell: “well, today, you drive around the border and you have no idea if you are in the South or North, such is the road network.

    So you put up signs at the border, and because of the need for customs checks, which is why countries actually have borders today, so you have infrastructure.

    The IRA decide to shot at the signs, so you put up border posts with police, to guard the signs, so they shot at the border posts, so you call in the army, and they shoot at the army, then suddenly you have the border crawling with army personnel and military hardware, and you are back to the troubles of old.

    You must have border checks if you have no deal, as you are bordering a EU country, There is no escaping that basic reality !

    Concise, precise and easily understood explanation, even Maitliss got it !

  257. mike cassidy says:

    Just a wee story you might have missed with all the borismania going on.

    Officials: US putting troops back in Saudi Arabia

    U.S. Troops Are Back in Saudia Arabia—This Will End Badly

    Pleasant dreams!

  258. galamcennalath says:

    jfngw says:

    Just think all that money we are allocated in GERS to maintain the UK state, civil service, HMRC, etc could all be spent providing work in Scotland instead of jobs in another country.

    Indeed. More significantly perhaps, there is a big multiplier effect where that money is then re-spent in Scotland by the first level of earners. This supports local services, housing, shops etc.. Also, all taxes gathered are directed to the iScottish Exchequer.

    The benefits in independence seem endless 🙂

    To paraphrase Johnson … a pound of Scottish money spent is Scotland is worth more than a pound of Scottish money spent in Croydon.

  259. Fireproofjim says:

    And think of all the embassies and the large number of their well paid staff contributing to our economy.
    Plus all the delegations of businessmen eager to set up companies in a business-friendly, English speaking member of the EU.
    Plus our share of research and development projects, many of which are currently leaving the U.K.
    There’s no downside. Scotland will prosper as never before.

  260. Joe says:

    Off topic but have to say this after seeing some things: ive worked, payed taxes in, lived in and married all inside the EU and in states just joining for 10 years and i swear on the soul of my parents – if scottish nationalists think independence is to join this socialist block ill be moving to England.

  261. Dan says:

    @mike cassidy at 11.11pm

    Pleasant dreams you say…

    New Scientist article on Russia declaring state of emergency over Siberian wildfires.

    It’s a pity Siberia didn’t have the crazy amount of heavy rain that my area had when I was out and about earlier this evening. The deluge would have put their fires out. The water was flowing off the fields and roads were blocked with flooding.
    On my return home I’ve declared a state of emergency over my parsnip bed due to the young plants taking a hammering with the extreme precipitation.

  262. Joe says:

    Honestly, the lack of reality im seeing from people who have clearly no clue or experience of what they speak is frightening. Im GLAD to be returning to the UK (Scotland). I will never live in another EU state voluntarily again. Independant (fully) Scotland is all I will support

  263. CameronB Brodie says:

    “if scottish nationalists think independence is to join this socialist block ill be moving to England.”

    See yah. Take care and write often. You’ll be missed. 😉

  264. CameronB Brodie says:

    Is it safe to assume you’re a fan of Steve Bannon?

    Steve Bannon’s Fascist Far Right Christian Army Is Marching on Liberal Europe – and on the Pope

    Bannon thinks he’s Europe’s savior. He’s also a narcissist, spinmeister and provocateur. But we shouldn’t dismiss his coalition-building efforts to radicalize Europe, empower the far right and declare holy war on the Vatican

    Steve Bannon is trying to take his far right populist provocations to victory in Europe’s ballot boxes – and to win Europeans’ souls. Hard right, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-abortion, Christian traditionalist souls susceptible to cheap anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim dogwhistles, that is.

  265. CameronB Brodie says:

    Are you happy that English Islamophobia threatens the well-being of Scotland’s political economy and civil society?

    #Islamexit: Islamophobia and Twitter after Brexit

    Although Brexit would appear to have little to do with Islam, the referendum saw a spike in Islamophobia. Giulia Evolvi (Ruhr-Universität Bochum) analysed tweets sent at the time and found violent narratives that blamed globalism for their grievances, while drawing succour from politicians such as Donald Trump.

    The aftermath of Brexit has been characterized by a spike in anti-immigrant and racist acts. In particular, the British association Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) denounced a rise in Islamophobia after the referendum. This suggests that Brexit might be connected with a specific understanding of British identity that excludes Muslim minorities as “other” to UK culture….

  266. Confused says:

    O/T since there’s not much else to talk about, not already done many times over –

    there was a discussion of culture, esp. music the other night, and also film – following a bit on from a natter about outlander

    it occurred to me that – when you read into the story of many great films, a lot of them were almost never made – anything odd, or interesting, not sure to make money, is always on the shoogly peg; “classics” we now take for granted, e.g. the wicker man, fall into this category.

    – there’s also something else I have noticed – mysterious cancellations of successful series, or them simply being disappeared, for example one of the best thrillers I had seen for years was “utopia” – a conspiracy thriller about secret societies, bioweapons and genocide. It had two successful, popular, and critically acclaimed seasons, then got abruptly cancelled – I know a bit about bio warfare and am a follower of “mysterious deaths” and much of the plot-fantasy, was quite feasible.

    – too near the knuckle, maybe?

    C4 claimed it wanted to pursue other interests – but what else was it doing even remotely of this quality?

    Sometimes a work of fiction will, via a leap of imagination, get close to the truth – the film “manchurian candidate” comes to mind. Watch this film – then watch the footage of sirhan sirhan dazed after the shooting of bobby kennedy. Makes you think, dunnit?!

    I remembered the other day, a briefly shown spy thriller, set in Glasgow, from 1987 with John Hannah and Stratford Johns, James Cosmo – called BROND.

    I don’t think it has ever been shown again, there only were 3 episodes but it was very very disturbing and addictive – a shadow world of deep state intrigue, a naive young man way out of his depth – and the overwhelming feeling was one of unease and dread, that the heart of this country was something steeped in ancient malice, evil at its root, reptilian.

    There’s irish terrorists, scottish nationalism all mixed up in a complex plot. C4 made it – would they do so again today, in these sensitive times?

    Worth a look, esp. if you never saw it or don’t remember it. Michael Caton Jones directed it, I think, his first.

    BROND – see if you can see it.

    – oh BTW – the music for the series was called – “the secret ceremony” and the b-side “wiping a tear from the all seeing eye”

  267. galamcennalath says:

    Funny how those on the left think the EU is too business friendly. Yet those on the right think it’s socialist!

    For me, that shows it must be getting it nearly right!

  268. Famous15 says:

    Joe you talk like a 77th brigadier. Whistle the tune to Ode to Joy and i will believe your mince.

  269. Breeks says:

    Maria F says:
    31 July, 2019 at 5:37 pm

    “Then please explain why it’s SNP policy to stop Brexit”

    I could think a couple of reasons for this:…

    The Sovereign people of Scotland saying No to Brexit by an emphatic majority in a democratic referendum, where the will of England was the diametric opposite to that mandate creates a constitutional impasse which pits the sovereignty of the Scottish people against the sovereignty of the UK Government in a battle to the death.

    People begin to talk about a fighting a General Election on the single issue of Independence, but overlook the fact the planets were already lined up perfectly in 2016 and have already provided Scotland with an airtight Constitutional stand off which the Union of the United Kingdom can neither win nor retreat from. We already have a perfectly robust amalgamation of Constitutionally Sovereign and Democratically legitimate mandate to present Westminster with a Brexit ultimatum which they cannot defy or overrule.

    It is an unforgivable and catastrophic mistake that Scottish Sovereignty was not put at the very heart of Scottish Government policy from the very beginning to absolutely rule out Brexit as an unconstitutional colonial imposition of one country’s will upon another.

    Where on Earth has the authority to prevaricate upon the subject come from? What authority or mandate does the Scottish Government have to set aside the emphatic will of the people and pursue an alternative strategy which releases the UK Government from the teeth of the Scottish Constitutional bear trap which snapped shut when the Brexit result was announced?

    When you raise the point about sovereignty, the wise amongst us like Bob Peffers show us comments and clips from Ian Blackford or somebody else mentioning sovereignty, and mentioning sovereignty in the right context, but there is never any reconciliation between saying the words and actually acting as a sovereign Nation.

    Worse still, far from solidifying in defence of Scotland’s sovereign defiance to reject a “UK” Brexit, our Scottish government volunteered a compromise soft Brexit option, which immediately undermined Scotland’s Constitutional bulwark and the intractability of our sovereign edict to remain in the EU.

    When the Scottish Government’s Soft Brexit aspirations were spurned, the focus moved to supporting a people’s vote which the UK might need, but which is a spurious issue for Scotland yet represents further ambivalence about the sovereign integrity of Scotland’s 2016 mandate. A People’s vote might be a legitimate pursuit for English or U.K. Remainers, but Scottish Independentists required no such thing. Why are we fighting a battle for the UK which the UK won’t fight for themselves, rather than standing firm in grim and resolute defence of Scotland’s sovereign rejection of Brexit?

    Think about it. If you wanted the UK to overturn the Brexit result, what better leverage and argument could you give them but demonstrate emphatically that Brexit meant the end of the UK?

    Sovereignty is not merely an expression or turn of phrase to be left hanging in the air or written in Hansard for posterity and for people to think about. Sovereignty is a legal, constitutional status, with terrestrial ramifications and consequences which cannot be overturned. Unfortunately for Scotland, the SNP seems mesmerised by the binding ramifications of Scottish Sovereignty like a rabbit is beguiled by a stoat.

    I am put in mind of a colour sergeant in the paras introducing raw recruits to a rifle. Take control of the weapon, hold it firmly with confidence and aim before you fire. If you feel a sharp pain in the shoulder, turn the weapon around.

    Right now it feels like we’re hurting ourselves rather than them, because we’re pointing Sovereignty in the wrong direction and at the wrong people. We haven’t properly taken command of the weapon.

  270. Effijy says:

    Wow. that story in the propaganda papers by Vruce Srnold is quite exceptional
    See 4.20pm.
    Brexit situation is all the Irish Republic leaders fault????

    They are ruining a very special relationship with their great friends ands superiors England.

    So special this English love affair that they watched a million Irish deaths unfold due to the
    Potato famine. They turned machine guns on innocent men women and children watching a
    Football match.

    England raped their resources and murdered those fighting for the right of self determination.

    This guy is a holocaust denier and he should be expelled from Ireland before those who lost loved ones find out which stone he lives under.

    I don’t want anything to do with a country capable of allowing a disgusting story like this to reach the press. England will be showing Hitler a clean pair of Jack Boot Heals in who to be a fascist state.

  271. Golfnut says:

    @ Dr Jim. 10:38.

    It certainly has become more prevalent over the last few months. True, it was used widely during indy1, but disappeared for a time. I’ve noticed that the narrative (framing) has changed from ‘ Scotland was extinguished ‘ to ‘ Scotland joining the union ‘. Of course they aren’t really referring to a union at all, more ‘ the first empire ‘. Unfortunately the legal document they signed up to, the Treaty of Union, is specific. It details a political union between 2 Sovereign states, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. The Treaty is also specific as to what it actually creates, the United Kingdom. It’s a bit of a bummer when your seat at the top table, ownership of Trident and all those Treaties the UK has signed up would to have to be renegotiated. For instance Spain would get Gibraltar back but lose Catalonia. The dissolution of the Treaty does get them out of the GFA, but NI has to go.
    I’m not sure exactly what this new tack is for, home consumption or International, but the narrative is undoubtedly based on the assumption that Scotland returns to Independent Statehood.

  272. Dorothy Devine says:

    Mr Peffers , I enjoyed the interview but the drivelling ignorance and aggression btl left me astonished and despairing – I wish I hadn’t read them.

    What kind of cretin is proud of those responses and feels obliged to share them with the rest of the world – all kind of Extreme Alf Garnet stuff.

  273. hackalumpoff says:

    See Nana’s links here

  274. mr thms says:

    Watching Sky News and I am wondering if I misheard someone claim London subsidises the cost of running Northern Ireland to the tune of £10 billion a year?

  275. Socrates MacSporran says:

    I have just watched the Euractiv TV interview with the FM which Robert Peffers highlighted at 9.24pm last night.

    That boy will never get a gig with the BBC, he asked his questions, then allowed the FM to answer. He would have to learn the skills of interrupting every ten seconds, then talking over, if he ever hopes to get a job with “Auntie”.

    What a refreshing change that was.

  276. Breeks says:

    Interesting questions to mull over… hypothetical of course… just for fun.

    Just suppose for arguments sake, the SNP in both Holyrood and Westminster came together as one, and declared that Scotland had exited the Union… done deal. It’s kaput. The UK is 2K.

    Question 1. Forget the outrage a moment,… would it stand? As an elected government, it would surely have credentials superior to the lords who signed up to the Union in 1707. So would it stand? If not, why not?

    Question 2. Who would formally dispute the legitimacy? England as a third country with no sovereign or electoral mandate? Or would it fall upon the Scottish people who would have to contest it? And would Scotland be independent or not independent while it was being contested?

    Question 3. What could Europe do to expel a sovereign nation from Europe if it formed from within its existing fabric? There is no precedent.

    Question 4. If the Holyrood contingent and Westminster contingent came together, where is the fulcrum to determine whether an electoral majority exists or not? Would it suffice to have numerical superiority of members with an electoral mandate? Or is the “merge” wholly incompatible?

    To answer my own questions, the battle ground would not I suspect be the issue of sovereignty, but the struggle for international recognition of that sovereignty. The “UK” would strike out by refusing to recognise Scotland, and seek to persuade other Nations likewise, but Question 5… Would they succeed, when the law is on Scotland’s side? I’m looking at you Europe…

    Question 6. How will we persuade anyone to recognise Scottish Sovereignty when we don’t even recognise it ourselves? Aren’t “we” the literal authority on Scottish Sovereignty? Who else can the “world” ask about the legitimacy of Scottish Sovereignty than the Scottish people themselves? Even the UN would defer to us for a definitive ruling.

    Our future is in our hands, but we aren’t even talking about it. Do you see why I get so frustrated???

  277. Robert Peffers says:

    @Joe says: 1 August, 2019 at 12:19 am:

    ” … if scottish nationalists think independence is to join this socialist block ill be moving to England.”

    A wee song for Joe:-

    By the way, Joe, the word, “Scottish”, should begin with an upper case letter, “S”, it is an insult not to do so. Note that I used an upper case letter, “J”, for your name.

  278. manandboy says:

    – but its been coming for a long time.

    “Britain’s Brexiters set a simple rule to fight the 2016 referendum. Disdain facts, disregard truth and appeal instead to visceral emotion. Cultural insecurities and grievances did indeed trump economics. Invited to strike a blow against metropolitan elites, to throw rocks at experts and to close the door on immigration, a small majority of those who voted backed Brexit.

    Boris Johnson, who led the Leave campaign, has been setting much the same course in preparing for a general election. Every scrap of solid evidence and independent analysis says a disorderly Brexit would have a calamitous impact on the economy and living standards. The vast proportion of businesses report a risk to investment and jobs. The pound is sinking fast. Michael Gove publicly scorned experts during the referendum campaign. Now he has taken charge of preparations for Britain to crash out of the EU on October 31.”

  279. galamcennalath says:

    manandboy says:

    Cultural insecurities … strike a blow against metropolitan elites …. throw rocks at experts

    Indeed. It is propaganda and manipulation different from anything before in the UK, I reckon. There has always been propaganda but the scope and objectives seem relatively narrow compared to what is happening.

    What we now see is an assault on democracy, knowledge, and human decency …. because these things stand in the way of a far right take over. It’s a replay of the 1920/30s rise of Fascism.

  280. Robert Peffers says:

    @Joe says:1 August, 2019 at 12:25 am:

    ” …. Honestly, the lack of reality im seeing from people who have clearly no clue or experience of what they speak is frightening. Im GLAD to be returning to the UK (Scotland). I will never live in another EU state voluntarily again. Independant (fully) Scotland is all I will support.”

    You are talking pure mince, Joe. In the first place the EU has no legal way to force any member state to do anything. This is because the EU works by democracy and by consensus. I’ll quote you a few examples that show this is true. There are founding member states of the EU who still do not use the Euro. Sweden is one and the UK is another. Yet numpties like you try to tell us that an independent Scotland will have to join the Euro.

    However, here is the truth – every EU member state has a veto. That means if there is anything about the EU a member state does not like then the question has to be why did they agree to whatever it is they do not like? They must have agreed to it or they would have vetoed it.

    This is the exact opposite of how the United Kingdom works. The United Kingdom government just tells the entire UK members what they will do and they have no say in the matter. I’ll quote you an example, Joe. The Scottish Government are being refused a section 30 order and they have been refused any say in the swo called, “Brexit”, dealings. Westminster dictates to the member kingdoms in the United Kingdom and the member kingdoms have no veto.

    So there you go – you are either very stupid or you are an agent for the Westminster Establishment who thinks we are all very stupid. Here are a few very simple facts, Joe. They are never mentioned by the tame Westminster propaganda propagators but they are true.

    The first one is that the only country in the entire United Kingdom that is a net exporter is Scotland. This is simple to understand. Scotland exports more than Scotland imports so Scotland’s accounts show a positive surplus.

    The next fact is that in normal years the Scottish per capita GDP is higher than either that of England or indeed the rest of the UK. Now per Capita GDP, (Gross Domestic Product), is the total revenue raised from a given area divided by the total population of that given area.

    Thus as the Scottish per capita GDP is higher than that of England it means that Scotland must be subsidising England – go figure that one out, Joe. But, Hey! If you choose to believe the lies propagated by the Westminster propaganda machine then off you go to England. I’m sure you won’t be missed in Scotland.

  281. Colin Alexander says:

    “The decision of the Scottish Parliament has been made in line with the
    tradition of popular sovereignty in Scotland”, said Nicola Sturgeon in her letter to Theresa May in March 2017.

    Tradition? I thought it was constitutional law.

    Claim of Right 1689; Declaration of Arbroath 1320; MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396, 1953 SLT 255

    MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953) SC 396 – Court of Session (on appeal):

    “LORD PRESIDENT COOPER: ….The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution.

    “Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done”.

  282. Dr Jim says:

    “For those of us who want to see a No deal Brexit by 31st of October” Niall Patterson Sky news presenter

    Then Niall goes on to denigrate Leo Varadkar and most Irish politicians followed up by informing the *British* public that all this “shows that the EU is an undemocratic organisation”

    A guest *journalist* on his programme says “Nicola Sturgeon by condemning a no deal Brexit is helping Boris Johnson to convince the EU that *WE* mean business”

    There were no armbands or insignia visible

  283. Ken500 says:

    The Westminster U imbeciles are trying to ruin the UK economy. A majority of 2. They will not last until October. Another £2Billion wasted. The Tories are supporting currency fraud and tax evasion. Labour should be opposing the Tories in the rest of the UK, instead of colluding with them. Brexit would cost Scotland £8Billion.

    Thank goodness for the SNP standing up to Scotland. Scotland would be £20Billion better off Independent. There could be an increase in OA pensions, The SNP supporting essential services. Building roads, railways and new hospitals. The Borders rail line. AWPR. Introducing MUP. Building and renovation affordable houses. Keeping unemployment down. Helping the old and the young. Mitigating Westminster Welfare cuts.

    Vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence.

    The U councils not supporting essential services.. Building grotesque monstrosities. No one wants. Empty shops, offices and under occupied hotels. Wasting £Millions. A scandal. People want open spaces and pedestrianisation. ACC wasting £200Million. The UTG would have cost £20Million. They refused a gift of £80Million. A disgrace. SNP have the largest number of councillors. The U Council kept in power by a two job Tory and a reneged LibDem. Wasting public money like there is no tomorrow and not supporting essential services. A complete disgrace. £1.2Billion in debt. Wasting £300Million on a Conference Centre, without a business case and a population base. Sitting empty most of the time being subsidised with public money. More waste. They can’t count or read a balance sheet.

  284. Ken500 says:

    Thank for the videos Mr Peffers. Tommy S a hero. Glasgow standing up for people’s rights.

  285. robertknight says:

    More squaddies being recruited to the ‘Dark Arts’.

    As enemies of the State we can undoubtedly expect to be the focus of their attention.

  286. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Confused (12.58) –

    Cheers for that post, very interesting. ‘Brond’ rings a bell but can’t pinpoint it, will have a look.

    People have all sorts of reasons for getting into the indy movement generally. For me it’s always been about what I suppose we could loosely term ‘culture’, a sense that we will never ever flourish until we are genuinely free of WM control.

    One of the main ways it’s held us in such a grip is, of course, via ‘culture’. Institutionalised belittling of indigenous culture. The obvious examples are back in the 18thC following the Jacobite uprisings, and Outlander does a good job of bringing that reality to many Scots as well as an international audience. But the contemporary reality is very difficult for many of us to see because it’s too close.

    I’m way past the point of caring abut accusations of paranoia, being labelled ‘conspiracy nut’ etc, but the stushie over Alisdair Gray’s ‘white settlers’ statement a few years ago was illuminating if for no other reason than it exposed the genuine fault lines in academia and the self-appointed ‘Northern British’ intellegentsia when it comes to the issue of independence – it whippped the drawers right off them and they panicked big-time. The sheer ferocity of the reaction spoke volumes and still does any time the issue is raised. They cannot admit, and never will, that every level of the decision-making process in Scotland when it comes to creative industries, be it film, stage, literature, poetry, whatever else, is constantly monitored and influenced by state-sanctioned commissars. They’re everywhere, and that should not be surprising or shocking to anyone – where else does a ruling elite look for subversive, possibly radical ideas? To the thinkers and writers. If you can’t get them onside then the very least you can do is make sure their work doesn’t reach the intended audience. That’s where the producers and editors and commissioners of new work come into their own and earn their keep.

    I don’t know what the post-indy landscape will look like when it comes to cultural activity. No-one does. But it’ll be exciting to witness it develop. Here’s hoping we see that process starting soon.


  287. Dr Jim says:

    We have enough people loyal to the British crown in Northern Ireland to make reunification not inevitable and Scotland isn’t a shoe in either

    The Telegraph

  288. Dr Jim says:

    The Telgraph is counting on sectarianism to win the Brexit argument for the *British* in Northern Ireland and Scotland

    So there’s yer modern politics for you, it’s really not about policy at all

  289. Capella says:

    @ Ian Brotherhood – excellent comment. Sums up exactly why we must support this site.

    Here’s another example – Richard Murphy was supposed to appear on Newsnight last night to oppose Boris Johnston’e false “boosterism” economic theory. But Newsnight cancelled at the last minute because a balancing appearance from an American theorist called Laffer couldn’t happen when Laffer cancelled.

    Yet Steve Bannon is given a lengthy platform to air his right wing views without “balance”.

  290. Legerwood says:

    Colin Alexander @ 9.41

    Lord Cooper’s statement in 1953 was an obiter dicta and as such has no force in law

  291. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “…the only country in the entire United Kingdom that is a net exporter is Scotland. This is simple to understand. Scotland exports more than Scotland imports so Scotland’s accounts show a positive surplus. The next fact is that in normal years the Scottish per capita GDP is higher than either that of England or indeed the rest of the UK.”

    Aye, 100% correct @Robert Peffers says at 9:38 am @Joe doesn’t have a clue or is a troll IMHO.

    It is also true to state that UK Oil & Gas exports / tax receipts are at present not calculated as Scottish but as Ex-Regio (not attributed to any ‘region’ of the UK so centrally allocated).

    There is currently no way to accurately calculate VAT across Scotland separately from the rUk.

    There is also currently no way to accurately calculate Scottish exports to rUK which are actually in transit to EU or the rest of the world via the SE of England’s transport hubs.

    So the true Scottish figures aren’t really available but the will be a lot better than the published ones.

    And there won’t be a “£15 Billion Blackhole” in an Indy Scotlands books, that’s for sure!

  292. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Robert Louis @ 20:31 (31.Jul)

    Treaties are formed and ended all the time, for many, many reasons.

    A rather wild (and notably unsubstantiated) generalisation. Historically, in essence only from force majeure, as I mentioned. For very good reasons.

    As to the matter of the Union, whatever the notional construction of “Great Britain” might theoretically have been on its foundation, it had only one government, and that was in London. So how could two countries magically abrogate a treaty from inside one central govenment? Duh.

    The only method available back then was force of arms, and as we know, that was indeed attempted.

    The difference today is that we in Scotland have a proto-government once again, and it has good claim to greater democratic legitimacy than the one in London. But by whatever means it attempts to (re-)assert full sovereignty, it cannot succeed without being able to demonstrate majority popular support. I would have thought that obvious.

    The only thing that’s actually missing is the means to demonstrate that support, because assuredly “when you build it, they will come”. Which is why the UKGov and its native proxies are so desperate to prevent any opportunity for that popular swing to happen.

  293. Robert Peffers says:

    @Breeks says: 1 August, 2019 at 7:30 am:

    ” … Right now it feels like we’re hurting ourselves rather than them, because we’re pointing Sovereignty in the wrong direction and at the wrong people. We haven’t properly taken command of the weapon.”

    Unfortunately, as usual, you miss a very important point in the whole argument for and against any claims of sovereignty ever made in World history.

    That point is that it doesn’t matter a damn if you are constitutionally or legally right if you cannot carry the World along with you than you are going to fail.

    I could quote you many, many examples but I feel I would be wasting my time. There are current situations, ongoing for decades, that prove the point. For example ask the question, “Has Palestine a sound case against the incursion of Israel”?

    You will get many conflicting answers and every one of them will have some merit and every one of them will most likely be wrong.

    To put that case in its most simple terms – of course the Palestine case is solid but who chose Palestine to be the home of a new country and why did they do so is not the point. What is the point is that anyone’s claims of sovereignty over a particular territory depends almost entirely upon that claim being recognised by the World’s most powerful governments.

    Now consider this – before and during Indyref1 the European Union were not exactly very supportive of Scottish claims and the USA/UK Special relationship was decidedly very much against Scotland’s case.

    Even with a rock solid legal case I very much doubt that Scotland stood a snowball’s chance in Hell of ever being accepted by the biggest World powers.

    Now ask yourself if that situation has changed from then to now?
    If you think it has then consider why and who has brought about the change? I believe the EU is now solidly behind Scottish claims for independence but equally that the USA/UK relationship has really changed from the USA being 100% supportive of Westminster to the USA seeking to absorb Westminster and being ready to use Scottish independence as a lever to use to bring about that absorption.

    That is at least one very good reason why Nicola and the SNP are like a swan on a loch – all sedate above the surface but paddling like hell beneath the surface. I see a decided change in the EU and much increased support for Scotland being shown as such in the EU parliament chamber with a corresponding lessening of support for the UK/Westminster/England/Britain.

    I may be wrong, and I often am, but I believe we foot-soldiers are far too close to wanting the SNP to act well before the time is right. We only see the local and UK picture but making the case for declaring ourselves independent involves the rest of the World’s acceptance and not just the UK Supreme Court or the International courts.

    The long running Palestinian/Israelite battle for sovereignty over what was once Palestine proves the point that winning the case in law is only the start of the battle and you cannot succeed without the acceptance of the World’s most powerful nations.

  294. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Joe @ 12:25:

    Independant [sic] (fully) Scotland is all I will support

    Oh dear, another “my road or the high road” prima donna. It’s not about “socialism”, it’s about having a government that truly represents the people, however that works out. But since democracy appears to be too difficult an ask for you, perhaps the New Order in England will suit you just fine.

  295. Robert Peffers says:

    @Dorothy Devine says: 1 August, 2019 at 8:06 am:

    ” … What kind of cretin is proud of those responses and feels obliged to share them with the rest of the world – all kind of Extreme Alf Garnet stuff.”

    Well, Dorothy, I really have no answer to that question but for some reason the colour Orange kept drifting across my view as I read the comments and I really can’t figure out why.

  296. Colin Alexander says:


    I agree Lord Cooper’s gave an opinion (obiter dictum) and not a legal ruling regarding sovereignty.

    But what about The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 which states that Bruce remained king only for as long as he carried out the wishes of the people ( so implying the people, not the monarchs of Scotland are sovereign)?

    The same principle repeated in the Claim of Right 1689.

    The Claim of Right has never been repealed; it can’t without constitution turmoil, as the legitimacy of the present Queen as Queen of Scots relies on this document as giving legitimacy to the replacement of the Jacobite royal lineage as the Royal Family of Scotland.

    Article 50 was triggered on the basis of the sovereignty of parliament. The UK Parliament is argued as having absolute sovereignty via The Crown of England.

    That WAS the English Parliament who had this status following Charles II’ of England’s deal with the parliamentarians.

    Westminster is supposed to be the parliament of Great Britain, a new construct.

    So, as Lord Cooper pointed out, how can it be assumed to have absolute sovereignty the same as the parliament of England, based on the English monarch’s role as sovereign in England?

    My argument is that the people of Scotland are sovereign, if they are asked directly, as in ANY referendum, A or B? and they choose A then that decision is binding.

    Isn’t that the whole argument behind an “advisory” indyref being binding? Isn’t the same argument that Theresa May etc copied: “the people have decided” when arguing for Brexit?

    But the Union is a Union of kingdoms, with two separate constitutional legal bases:

    In England the Monarch is sovereign.

    In Scotland the people are sovereign.

    The Queen approved Article 50.

    In Scotland the people rejected Brexit.

    In a Union of two equals both must agree to change or the deal is broken.

    That’s basically the same argument I put to the EU. The EU has said sovereign decisions made by member states cannot be interfered with.

    But LEGALLY would Brexit be a sovereign decision at all, when the sovereign people of Scotland voted against Brexit?

    The SNP talk sovereignty, then run from the sovereignty question. They did so regarding the legality of Brexit where the direct decision of the sovereign people of Scotland was to Remain.

    The Courts repeatedly are unwilling to answer constitutional questions regarding Scotland. We saw that in the Gina Miller case too.

    It’s time the Scottish courts were forced to answer the big Scottish constitutional questions. At least then we would know if the law and whole Scottish legal system needs reformed to uphold and defend the sovereignty of the people.

  297. Dorothy Devine says:

    Mr Peffers , orange order ? Agent orange ? Or Donald Trump?

    ( Actually , I guessed!)

  298. Ottomanboi says:

    This from three years ago in the Guardian is back in vogue.
    Philip Johnson in the Telegraph is the latest ‘federalist’.
    Save the Union, Go Federal, Lets Waste Loads of Time Discussing the Unworkable.

  299. Davosa says:

    What a crawling, snivelling arsehole Gordon McKee (who he ?) must be. Try growing a backbone tosser !

  300. Sharny Dubs says:

    Hay ho! I read somewhere that Sturgeon made a TED presentation that was a “breath of fresh air” but can’t seem to find it.
    Wonder why lol!

    Can anyone help me with a link please?

  301. Robert Peffers says:

    @mr thms says: 1 August, 2019 at 8:44 am:

    ” … Watching Sky News and I am wondering if I misheard someone claim London subsidises the cost of running Northern Ireland to the tune of £10 billion a year?”

    Your hearing is probably o/k. What you have to take into account is the strange way London and Westminster do their accounts.

    Let me show you how it works by showing the way they conclude that Scotland is subsidised with, “English Taxpayer’s”, money.

    The thing is that it isn’t English Taxpayers money in the first place. Her Majesty’s Treasury is the recipient of all the revenue collected in the entire United Kingdom by HMRC, (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs).

    So, in the first place there isn’t such a thing as London or even English taxpayer’s money. It is everyone in the United Kingdom’s Taxpayers money. Which means that When Westminster allocates money to anywhere they are first of all giving back money that HMRC has collected from the recipients, (but they don’t want you to know that).

    And that brings up yet another bit of the propaganda that they don’t want you to know. Let’s leave Northern Ireland’s finances alone for the moment for I do not know the figures for N.I. but I do know how it works, or rather doesn’t work, for Scotland.

    There are another set of figures that tell a quite different story and also another group of scams that Westminster imposes upon the kingdoms and countries of the United Kingdom. These figures are termed, “Per Capita GDP”, (Gross Domestic Product).

    To get those figures Westminster takes a particular area or region and calculates the total revenue gathered from that area or region then divides the revenue take from it by the total population from it and that is the per capita Gross Domestic Product of the particular area or region. Now take care here for it is the basis for yet another Westminster scam. When comparing per capita GDP take care to only compare like with like. A common Westminster scam is to take, for example, an area like the North of England and compare its per capita GDP with the financial city of London. These two are not comparable. So now you have the basis of per capita GDP and we will now speak about the per capita GDPs of the two entire countries of Scotland and England but again there are scams as offshoots of this comparison used to cheat Scotland but mote on that later.

    Under normal conditions the annual per capita GDP of Scotland is higher than that of England. That means every Scot on average pays more into Her Majesty’s Treasury than the average English person. It thus follows that every Scot, on average, subsidises every Englander. It also means that the Scottish block grant is paid entirely from what Scots contribute to HMRC. In other words Westminster is only returning part of what Scots pay into the Treasury back to Scotland as the Scottish Block Grant.

    It isn’t English Taxpayer’s money that finances the Scottish block grant it is Scottish Taxpayer’s money – so what happens to the rest of what has been collected from Scotland? Here then are some of the other scams Westminster uses. That per capita GDP figure for Scotland does not include a single penny of oil and gas revenues because Westminster claims those as being collected from, “United Kingdom Extra-Regio Territory”. Now the term, “Extra-Regio”, is defined as, “Not identifiable as from any particular region”, but up to 98% of oil & gas is extracted from what is known under the international law of the seas as being under Scottish jurisdiction yet not a penny of it is attributed as Scottish revenue.

    There are several other scams including the National Grid connection charges and the Scottish Crown Estates profits the latter just being added to the English kingdom’s crown estate profits.

    So there you have how Westminster cheats us so you now know that at lest some of what, “London”, is claimed to be gifting to N.I. is not London or England’s taxpayers money but is in fact the revenues collected from N.I. itself.

    It is, though, a fact that Scotland is the only UK country that is a net exporter and Scotland’s per capita GDP is the highest of all UK countries and, without counting oil & gas revenue the Scottish per capita GDP is the highest of any other country in the United Kingdom.

    Don’t take my word for it – go check the figures.

  302. Dr Jim says:

    The Queen of England has no power to approve or disapprove of anything that’s put before her to sign, if she decided to disapprove then she signs her own abdication over to the next actor in the theatre that is the Royal family

    The Queen has no constitutional power over anything, she’s a performance player in the great play that is England, she has duties that she performs on behalf of the UK government in order to upkeep the charade, The Queen has a starring role in the *British* movie but she she’ll never be the director or even the executive producer, we pay for the ticket to watch her movie whether we want to or not, a bit like the TV licence eh

    She has a vote like all the rest of us but says she never votes, we’ll never know though will we
    She doesn’t even get to decide who she knights or hands out honours to, that’s the UK government’s decision

    I used to have an agent like the UK government and when I dumped him he tried to have me blacklisted, again the same tactics as the UK government uses on other countries, if I can’t own you I’ll make sure you can’t go anywhere else or I’ll ruin you

  303. Robert Louis says:

    Robert J Sutherland,

    I agree you need a democratic mandate to display the wishes of the people of Scotland. I never said or even suggested ANYTHING other than that. Maybe you imagined I did.

    As to your other points regarding treaties they were all addressed in my previous post. You merely re-stating the same incorrect assertions, makes little difference. As regards treaties ending, go do your own work, I’m not doing it for you. I mean seriously, what do you expect? I’ve just had a quick look, and all I can say, is ‘google is your friend’. In other words, do it yourself.

    I might add, you clearly did not bother to read either of the links I provided last night. That’s a pity, because if you had, you might have realised just how ill-informed your false assertions are. For example, you cite ‘force majeure’, in what I can only assume is a silly attempt by you to add some kind of pseudo-legal credibility to your errant nonsense. Pure fluff.

    The treaty of union of 1707, is not magic, and can, as in all other cases, be ended unilaterally by either signatory. This is a matter of FACT, and no matter how you try to manipulate selected text from the treaty to assert that the treaty of union of 1707, is somehow ‘special’, or ‘magic’, it will not make it correct. It is that simple.

    For Scotland to end the union, we merely need a democratic mandate by the people of Scotland to do so. Permission from England (the only other signatory to the treaty) or Westminster is NOT required. Had you read the links last night you might grasp why.

    I have addressed your points, and will not waste my time further with you.

  304. Legerwood says:

    Colin Alexander says:
    1 August, 2019 at 12:04 pm

    “”I agree Lord Cooper’s gave an opinion (obiter dictum) and not a legal ruling regarding sovereignty.

    But what about The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 which states that Bruce remained king only for as long as he carried out the wishes of the people ( so implying the people, not the monarchs of Scotland are sovereign)?

    The same principle repeated in the Claim of Right 1689.””

    Would you like to quote the relevant passages from those documents. The sections where it actually refers to ‘people’ directly and not by implication which would be a matter of interpretation which in the case of the Declaration of Arbroath is an interpretation of fairly recent vintage.

  305. Dr Jim says:

    The FM opens a £23 million plant in Scotland creating even more jobs for the people in East Kilbride but the Trolls undaunted complain about plastic straws and sugar

    While they’re watching it on their plastic computers and tellys

  306. geeo says:

    Bad news on economy from Bank of England re:brexit, deal or no deal !

  307. Breeks says:

    @ Robert Peffers.

    I don’t think I am missing the point Robert.

    By the letter of the law, the Scottish people are sovereign.
    By the established convention, it is Westminster who holds Parliamentary Sovereignty.

    To date, we have adhered to the latter doctrine, rather than challenge it as required by the first doctrine.

    We paper over the distinction with the liberal application of “democracy”, but mere opinion is insufficient to rewrite the law. If we allow the law of OUR constitution to be rewritten, that is capitulation, whether it’s democratic or not.

  308. galamcennalath says:

    Interesting to read how those with far right views desperately try to polish the Brexit turd.

    Perversely they claim that a plummeting pound is evidence that the markets believe Johnson’s threats, as if this were a good thing!

    And … ” … having the facility to adjust the value of our economy [£ exchange rate] to an appropriate level, we will be free to forge new trading relationships, unencumbered by the EU’s native protectionism. Unlike remaining EU countries, we will be free to deregulate and will have more freedom to lower our taxes in order to provide the economy with an emergency stimulus.”

    … “deregulate” and “lower our taxes” roll off the tongue as if this was desirable and of benefit to real people.

    Scotland, Nicola, pull the ejector seat lever, please!

  309. Dr Jim says:

    “Brexit is an unwelcome event globally”

    Mark Carney governor of the Bank of England

  310. sassenach says:

    Robert Peffers @ 12-36pm

    An excellent post, giving clarity to the UK government scams.

    Even more remarkable given your problems with your sight just now.
    Keep on truckin, Mr P!!

  311. Robert Peffers says:

    @Breeks says: 1 August, 2019 at 8:55 am:

    ” … Interesting questions to mull over… hypothetical of course… just for fun.
    Just suppose for arguments sake, the SNP in both Holyrood and Westminster came together as one, and declared that Scotland had exited the Union… done deal. It’s kaput. The UK is 2K.
    Question 1. Forget the outrage a moment,… would it stand? As an elected government, it would surely have credentials superior to the lords who signed up to the Union in 1707. So would it stand? If not, why not?”

    As it happens, Breeks, I have already answered your question in a reply to one of your previous posts.

    There is a big difference between legally winning your argument and getting your declaration, (or even your legal argument won in court), and being accepted by the World’s major powers.

    I pointed out there is absolutely no doubt Palestine had her sovereignty taken from her when, (mainly), the USA and the UK decided the Jews had been granted a bit of Palestine as their new country. If for no other reason than Palestine were not in agreement with their country being colonised by the Jews to form a new country called Israel.

    Just what legally gave the UK and USA the authority to implant the Jews in someone else’s sovereign territory? Please note I’m not being anti-sematic here It isn’t for me to judge if or not the Jews should have got a new territory. My point is that the USA and the UK had no legal authority to take away another state’s territory other than winning a war, (with the aid of many other states).

    The point being that you cannot subsume someone else’s sovereign lands – it has to be done by agreement not force or the violence that follows will go on for a very long time. The same argument could be presented for Ireland and where the same prolonged violence was the result and, make no mistake, the Irish violence is in danger of restarting under present political conditions.

    There, Breeks, is your answer. I have been making the Scottish legal case for around 70 years but even then as a young boy I was not daft enough to think that winning the legal case was winning Scottish independence. If the World powers do not accept your case you will not be accepted as a legitimate World country.

    As far as I’m concerned the Treaty of Union itself wins the legal battle and that has been in place for 312 years and Scotland is still not an independent nation. I also know that in 2014 the EU was not nearly so ready to accept Scotland as a possible member state but I have kept an eye on how the EU regards Scotland and there is a definite and distinct difference now than then.

    Nicola and the SNP are not daft enough that they do not know an independent Scotland needs both the will of the people of Scotland and the acceptance of at least most of the World’s free states.

  312. jfngw says:

    Unionist press claiming all the austerity cuts could be mitigated by ScotGov, but they don’t want any tax rises, they actually want tax cuts. So in this scenario it could only be mitigated by diverting it from places like health or education, cue screams from same press when this filters through about the poor performance in the areas cut.

    They see it as a win/win, no matter what the Scotgov do they will be attacked. It is the same tactic as the London based parties in Scotland, they are only interested in one thing, bringing down the SNP, the collateral damage is a price worth paying to them.

    It is the same attitude as Brexit, those that want it don’t care about the damage or job loses. Had this discussion with someone with a rpi linked pension as he voted for Brexit, I asked if he would still vote for it if it put his pension at risk, he said no but was willing to through anyone else under the bus as long as he wasn’t affected.

  313. CameronB Brodie says:

    Scots face a bit of a dilemma. Most are unaware of what “sovereignty” entails, yet we are being asked to decide on our constitutional futures. Are the SNP themselves, aware of what sovereignty entails? I have my doubts.

    International Protection of Human Rights and State Sovereignty

    International law as a legal order is distinguished from national or intraorganizational legal orders by the lack of a central enforcement authority. This major deficiency is painfully felt in the field of international protection of human rights. The degree to which human rights norms are implemented remains in marked contrast with the degree to which such norms have been codified and accepted by the international community as binding conventional law.

    An impressive body of international conventions providing for the protection of human rights in almost all spheres of social and political life has been built up during the past fifty years,’ but their enforcement is sadly lagging. Sovereignty of states -understood as their supreme authority and independence- is being identified as the major factor responsible for such a lamentable state of affairs with regard to the internationally controlled implementation of human rights.2

    Although other subjects of international law such as international organizations and, to some degree, the individual have emerged as actors in the international system,3 the sovereign states remain the prime constituent elements of the international system, both politically and legally. Thus, the sovereign states not only are creating the international norms for the protection of human rights, but also are determining the process of their implementation -or nonimplementation -according to their sovereign will.

    Seen from this perspective, state sovereignty and the international protection of human rights appear to be incompatible. Starting from the assumption of the incompatibility of the principle of state sovereignty and the international protection of human rights, two major schools of thought have developed4 and have advocated corresponding
    strategies. One school takes a position of transnationalism or supranationalism aimed at overcoming the sovereign state as the dominant constituent element of the international system.

    Transnational mechanisms of human rights implementation are supposed to replace international protection of human rights. These mechanisms are conceived of as being either of a grass roots, populist, nongovernmental type or of a supernational, vertical, “hierarchical” nature. In any case, national sovereignty as a supposed barrier to the implementation of human rights is to be bypassed or overcome, thereby transforming the traditional nature of the state, which is characterized by the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction over its people and territory.

    Richard Falk leans towards this position when he states that without the emergence of a new system of world order, not based on sovereign nation states, international protection of human rights is bound to remain weak or marginal.5 However, Falk admits that in some instances effective international protection of human rights may be procured even today.’ Among the questions which remain with regard to this position is how -and more importantly, when- such a new system is going to be brought about,7 not to speak of the possible deficiencies and dangers of such a system.8

    The other school includes some writers and especially practitioners in the field of foreign policy who tend to take a rather resigning or forthrightly negative attitude toward the notion of international protection of human rights. They claim that the protection of human rights is essentially an internal matter of states and certainly not a proper or primary object to be pursued by means of foreign policies. The principle of nonintervention into the internal affairs of states takes precedence over human rights concerns? It may be overinterpreting the works of Hedley Bull if one attributes this kind of argument to him,1″ but as a prominent foreign policy designer, Henry Kissinger could properly be mentioned in this context. 1

    Although both schools raise pertinent aspects of the problem of implementing human rights from an international level, for practical purposes and for a number of very basic theoretical reasons, neither is satisfactory. Any return to the classical notion that the protection of human rights is essentially or exclusively an internal matter of states seems to be out of step with present state practice and international political and legal theory.12 On the other hand, in view of an international system persistently and even increasingly clinging to the notion of sovereignty,13 strategies for the implementation of human rights based on an essentially new world order appear to be premature, to say the least.

    But more important, both the traditional approach and the new world order model are derived from a misconception of the legal and political scope of the principle of sovereignty as it has developed today. The new world order model also suffers from an imbalanced assessment of the role of the state in the law enforcement process. Therefore, both points have to be examined in turn….

  314. Sharny Dubs says:

    @Proud Cybernat

    Many thanks

  315. Golfnut says:

    @ Breeks and Robert Peffers.

    Thatchers bag man in Scotland, Forsyth, expressed his objections to a reconvened Scottish Parliament by stating that ‘ Scottlands Parliament could repeal the Act of Union and there was nothing they could do about it ‘.
    If Westminster, declared itself the Parliament of England, repealed the Act of Union and withdrew from the union, would the world condemn England or not recognise England as a sovereign state, I don’t think so and it may well be exactly what Westminster are planning to do.

    @ Ledgerwood

    Lord Coopers opinion wasn’t part of the legal ruling, but his statement has more than a little legal authority. He was after all sitting as a judge on a constitutional issue. I think he would know if Scots Constitutional law recognised Parliamentary Sovereignty or not.

  316. CameronB Brodie says:

    This isn’t rocket surgery. Westminster’s imposition of Parliamentary sovereignty is the imposition of English legal doctrine over Scotland’s will, and the extinction of our popular sovereignty. Put simply, the full-English Brexit is the enslavement of a nation.

    IMHO, we’re way past ‘don’t scare the horses’.

    Essay: The Human Rights Agenda Versus National Sovereignty

  317. CameronB Brodie says:

    My previous comment wasn’t hyperbole.

    Human Rights: A Critique of the Raz/Rawls Approach

  318. Footsoldier says:

    I listened to Stephen Gethins this morning on Radio Scotland in quite a lengthy interview with Gary Robertson. He managed to achieve two things:

    a)complete avoidance of using the word independence
    b)any plugs or bullet points on independence or the SNP.

    Do any of these people receive proper media training?

  319. geeo says:

    As currently constituted, all 3 Unionist political parties will be removed from an independent Scotland’s politics as they will become politicians of another country.

    With that in mind, did folk notice the story about the tories in Scotland threatening to “break away” from the uk party and forming a fully Scottish Tory party ?

    2 quick points about that.

    1. The ADMISSION they are currently NOT a ‘Scottish’ PARTY (who knew huh)?

    2. By becoming a legally Scottish Party, with constitutional separation from WM Tories, this allows the new Scottish Tory Party to operate in an independent Scotland post Yes vote.

    Davidson is not trying to give her Party leader a bloody nose, she is actually using it as an excuse to keep her job post Independence by being able to operate in an independent Scotland.

    Yup, Davidson is fully expecting Independence, and appears to be planning to save her arse by ensuring she can keep her job at Holyrood in an indy Scotland.

  320. Golfnut says:

    @ CBB.

    Cameron our Sovereignty hasn’t been extinguished, much as Westminster would like us to think it has. The problem is we don’t use it and many even if they have heard of it, haven’t a clue what it is. The blame is ours, at least its ours now, we own the blame because we failed to use it in 2014, and we have failed to counter the narrative that we can’t use it without permission.

  321. galamcennalath says:

    “UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has been accused of lying after media fact-checking teams found no evidence that he raised the possibility of a no-deal Brexit during the 2016 EU referendum campaign, as claimed.”

    Absolutely nothing like ‘no deal’ was suggested during EURef. Instead a comprehensive trade deal with the EU was going to be the easiest in history.

    Lies built on lies built on lies …

  322. admiral says:

    jfngw says:
    1 August, 2019 at 1:15 pm
    Unionist press claiming all the austerity cuts could be mitigated by ScotGov, but they don’t want any tax rises, they actually want tax cuts. So in this scenario it could only be mitigated by diverting it from places like health or education, cue screams from same press when this filters through about the poor performance in the areas cut.

    This totally ignores the point that the job of the Scottish Parliament is not to mitigate the worst excesses of austerity driven Westminster. Instead it suggests a kind of political schizophrenia – it is recognised by the unionist press that Scotland in the union gets dreadful policies imposed on it by Westminster, but that’s OK because Scotland through the Sottish parliament can choose to mitigate those policies if it wants to.

    That’s politically incoherent – logically, if you think Westminster policies need mitigating in Scotland, why not just support independence and cut out the Westminster bit altogether?

  323. SilverDarling says:

    @Footsoldier 1.45 pm

    It seems to depend on whether they are MPs or MSPs.

    Joanna Cherry recently did a thread on Twitter about how the SNP MPs are concentrating on thwarting a no deal Brexit while the MSPs and Scottish Govt are pursuing the case for Indy as that is where the logistics determine each group are best placed.

    However, I agree that the case for Indy should be at the forefront now in every interview. Reiterating the changing trend in the polls and the existing mandate.
    Keith Brown was excellent in his interview with Kay Burley on Sky the other day.

  324. CameronB Brodie says:

    Parliamentary sovereignty is bad, mk.

    State Sovereignty and Human Rights — Irreconcilable Tensions


    Both ‘state sovereignty’ and ‘human rights’ are highly contested concepts; their very definitions are contested, as well as their comparative importance and inviolability. This essay briefly discusses some of the meanings of human rights and state sovereignty, before drawing on the example of the Australian-run detention centre on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island to illustrate several of the tensions between these concepts. This essay then briefly explores alternative versions of sovereignty, that may have the potential to be more compatible with human rights than state sovereignty.

  325. CameronB Brodie says:

    Agreed, but is our sovereignty not currently being over-ridden and extinguished?

  326. mike cassidy says:

    The opening part of Brond for those interested.

    Not seen it since the original broadcast in 1987.

    So no recall as to how it mixes Scottish and Irish terrorism.

    Do remember it being very strange though.

    More Nicholas Roeg than Quentin Tarantino.

    As this dvd release review indicates.

    Frederic Lindsay’s book made one of those ‘top Scottish books’ lists.

    I would recommend his ‘Jim Meldrum’ series if you like crime fiction.

  327. mike cassidy says:

    Brond dvd review.

  328. John Boyes says:

    Sharny Dubs says:
    1 August, 2019 at 12:22 pm
    Hay ho! I read somewhere that Sturgeon made a TED presentation that was a “breath of fresh air” but can’t seem to find it.
    Wonder why lol!

    Can anyone help me with a link please?

    Here you go Sharny – two for the price of one.

  329. Golfnut says:

    @ CBB.

    No Cameron, its the herd of elephants in the room that they truly hope don’t go on the rampage.

  330. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Robert Louis @ 12:42,

    It is of course impossible to argue cogently against your fluffy hand-waving waffle, and I can’t help it if you have insufficient grip on history to make a decent case. Suffice it to say then that any established government is extremely unwilling to renege on international agreements, because the universal loss of trust demoralises allies and can lead to alliances being formed against it by others as counterweights to the insecurity. Elementary. You claim I’m wrong but are just too ill-informed to (be able to) prove it.

    As to your inadequacy of language skills (consulting a dictionary is indeed more work than a cheap snide), but to help you out a little, the way treaties generally fail is either because of war or because established polities change and make previous treaties redundant. (As, for example, with the unification of Germany in 1870, which rendered redundant all preceding arrangements between the former German kingdoms and principalities).

    As to my “bottom line”, the part which no doubt irritates you most, since it spoils your evident determination to have some kind of grandiose gesture of abrogation, you didn’t (and can’t!) explain how a government in London can somehow temporarily bifurcate itself (even supposing it wanted to) into distinct sovereignties in order for the Scottish half to formally declare itself free. And currently there is no other available locus. (Except manifest popular will, of course.)

    This situation isn’t at all trivial, but you manage to convey the impression that you think it can be trivially solved by a simple theatrical proclamation from the High Street of Edinburgh.

  331. CameronB Brodie says:

    Golfnut 🙂

  332. SilverDarling says:

    Following on from the idea that maybe the SNP MPs and MSPs have different agendas when they go for interview that is all very well if there is a level playing field.

    But we know that the media and Unionist opponents immediately change the direction of the interview so that MPs will be asked about e.g Education or Health and MSPs asked about Westminster politics to mix it up in the viewer’s mind. So they all need briefed to have the same message as the opportunities are far and few these days.

    Funnily enough the shocking stuff recently about Education and Alcohol treatment in E & W has given the SNP some ammunition should they need it. Will they be on the ball though next time Kay Burley or Emily Maitlis confuses the issue?

  333. SilverDarling says:

    *confuse duh

  334. manandboy says:

    “a powerful element within British political life refuses to accept that the blind pursuit of British interests can have deeply damaging consequences for those beyond its borders.”

    And now is the time to address it.

  335. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Sand-people’s ghost-costume ban starts in Holland today (probably all Steve Bannon’s fault). Isn’t she probably pretty?

  336. Clapper57 says:

    *I cannot believe that a Tory government has spent over three years trying to get a withdrawal deal/agreement now has some government ministers stating that the people who voted for Brexit voted for a No Deal Brexit while simultaneously telling us Ireland and EU are to blame for a No Deal scenario. *

    If no deal was the preferred plan and preferred option of Brexit voters who cast their vote in 2016 …. why then have they, the Tories, wasted all of this time and money trying to get a withdrawal agreement and subsequent trade deal ?

    Correction btw, I can believe the above *.

    Just as I , and many others , predicted post EU Ref that eventually the blame game would play out when Brexit reality replaced the Brexit fantasy.

    Who should the blame be directed at ?

    The ones who promoted the idea ? The ones who orchestrated the referendum ? The ones who campaigned for Brexit ? The ones who campaigned and voted remain but now hide behind ‘democracy’ to meekly accept it’s flawed legitimacy ? The ones who have failed, at the first hurdle, to get a withdrawal agreement? The ones who failed to include the Irish border in their Brexit equation? The ones who are now promoting No Deal as the best option after years of stating we would get a better deal than the one we currently have in the EU ?

    The above questions are not by any means exhaustive indeed the questions are endless but all lead to the biggest question as to who actually benefits financially from the Brexit that is currently being promoted and endorsed ?

    Meanwhile we have people like Mundell and Davidson who now find themselves publicly exposed as ‘those who never had and still do not have any influence’ …..but who still expect Scots to believe that they are credible, principled in their intention and well………… on the right side of the Brexit debate while the SNP are, as per, on the wrong side ……one reason apparently is this over used and abused smokescreen word….that is ‘democracy’….. which has been so abused and so over used by both Brexiteers and Tories/Unionists on both sides of the border…..also by biased media pundits, newspapers and other charlatans…….that one could be forgiven, in the context of the Brexit vote, of not knowing it’s true meaning or purpose……more so for those of us in Scotland. ( Also in any UKOK elections actually).

    So it all leads to the question…… who do we, the Scots, blame for this fiasco that we now find ourselves in post 2014 ?……….well we all know who would all be on that list don’t we.

    One thing is for sure……wherever there is blame ………. then the never ending blame game will always be targeted towards those who are NOT responsible while those who ARE to blame will deflect the attention away from their own culpability ………….aided by a complicit media and certain factions within the public who for various reasons embrace this chaos for their own selfish motives.

    I suppose in order to admit you are to blame would mean you would need to have some acceptance of guilt and I am afraid that is very much lacking in those who have placed us in this precarious position….pre and post 2014 and 2016 ….and who I personally blame as guilty in all of this.

    Are we all just simply going to spend our entire lives posting endless comments on blogs while our chance for actually living our lives as best we can in an independent country is actively being denied by those who do not have and never have had our best interests at heart ?

    I hope not . I really really hope not. Like many others I am weary , not broken yet, and will do as much as i can to realise the ambition of Scotland achieving independence and out of this toxic environment that is prevalent very much thanks to a WM Unionist dominated regime.

    Here’s hoping that “Now is the Time” for those other Scots….. who once were unsure….. but who hopefully now see what we all so clearly saw pre 2014 and beyond…..that ” No Thanks” is the message we should now be giving to the Union about Scotland remaining in the Union.

    Polite but firm…..

  337. call me dave says:

    Rev been interviewed by the Times. That’ll break the monotony 🙂

    Boris all over the X-word today in ‘The National’

  338. Liz g says:

    There’s a link over on the Revs Twitter to vote for Wings as the best political blogg….
    You don’t need to be on Twitter to vote..
    Mibbi some kind Winger could bring the link over here!!

  339. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’m not sure if I’ve been a bit too busy again, or whether I got caught by a word filter earlier. I’ll see if “State Sovereignty and Human Rights — Irreconcilable Tensions” clears moderation, but here’s some contemporary political theory, for now.

    Potentialities of human rights: Agamben and the narrative of fated necessity

  340. Famous15 says:

    Boris about to lose his majority by desertion!

    GeneralElection at the worst possible time.

    See yon folk who voted NO in 2014 have kept us in this lunatic Britnat cludgy. I have difficulty in forgiving you.

  341. Maria F says:

    Breeks says:
    1 August, 2019 at 7:30 am

    “The Sovereign people of Scotland saying No to Brexit by an emphatic majority in a democratic referendum, where the will of England was the diametric opposite to that mandate creates a constitutional impasse”

    True. And to add insult to the injury, the English Supreme Court dictated (in my view illegitimately because it ignores the Claim of Right and Scotland’s sovereignty) that the UK gov does not require consent from Scotland for the UK to leave the EU. That is to me where the real constitutional impasse lies: The supreme court and the UK parl have declared themselves partial by using their power to put the interests of the Kingdom of England ahead to those of the Kingdom of Scotland against its will and without its explicit consent. In other words, they have stopped acting as UK constructs to act as Kingdom of England’s constructs.

    “People begin to talk about a fighting a General Election on the single issue of Independence”

    Just the GE? I would declare that unless a section 30 order is issued when requested, EVERY election should be transformed into a de facto request for a mandate to dissolve the union. The franchise of a GE is dictated by Westminster. The franchise of Holyrood and council elections is dictated by Holyrood. Such stance will totally call the bluff of the pretend absolute rulers among the England MPs claiming that they will not issue a section 30 order. Such stance will make the colonialist parties in Scotland implode because they would have to permanently face the prospect of continuously bypassing democracy and collude with each other at all times to retain the no vote. can you imagine for how long they can keep up with that?

    “2016 have already provided Scotland with an airtight Constitutional stand off”

    True, but the SNP does not have yet the ultimate mandate from the sovereign people of Scotland to effect the dissolution of the treaty of union and that is required to go ahead. You cannot demand Westminster to follow our Claim of Right and respect our sovereignty if then the Scottish gov goes and does not respect it either.

    I am no SNP member so I do not have access to the strategic plans of the party, but from where I am standing, it is beginning to become clear that the SNP is using a few tools at their disposal to deliver the will of the people of Scotland: Eu membership.

    It has been clear to me for quite some time now that “no deal” is the preferred option by the brexiteers and it seems this is also an acceptable option for Corbyn because if it wasn’t he would not have whipped his MPs to reject Ms Cherry’s motion to stop no deal.

    The SNP are using every possible mean: PV (which we all know it is a red herring), to enshrine in law the right of the UK parl to unilaterally revoke A50 (this was the real turning point when the wheels of the tory deception bandwagon started to fall off by becoming clear to the electorate that no deal was no longer the only option to May’s crap deal), they are vociferously opposing to no deal, for example by Ms Cherry proposing a motion to take the wheels of no deal altogether and if I read correctly the tweets, it seems that Ms Cherry could be planning to take legal action against no deal. Now this opposition to no deal and potential delay of brexit will come down like an bucket of cold sick over the powers that be and all those interests behind brexit already rubbing their hands at the prospect of escaping EU regulations.

    “We already have a perfectly robust amalgamation of Constitutionally Sovereign and Democratically legitimate mandate to present Westminster with a Brexit ultimatum which they cannot defy or overrule”

    They will procrastinate and dismiss it for as long as they can. In the meantime, brexit will go ahead and we will lose field.

    Breeks, take a look back at indyref1. The interference of the UK state (the English establishment) was breathtaking. All the broadcasters and MSM were transformed into colonialist mouthpieces 24/7. Some of the stuff printed in those was really vile, like the claims that Scotland would not be able to perform blood transfusions or organ transplants. The 3 main political parties at the time were united in a block against independence and some groups colluded to tell us the lie about the EU membership. The electoral commission totally overlooked funding coming from England to be used in scotland’s referendum campaign. the Electoral commission allowed groups with HQ in England and chaired by individuals not even registered to vote in that referendum to interfere in our right to self determination by actively campaigning against independence. We had England actors, comedians, sportsmen, writers, presenters etc lovebombing us or actively rubbishing independence. Alistair Carmichael, the then Secretary of State for Scotland lied on TV claiming that a referendum on EU membership was just SNP scaremongering. The UK civil service was used as a weapon to work against independence. Then we have the access of Ms Davidson to the postal votes BEFORE the counts even started. The vow offered during purdah. The list is endless. Frankly, in hindsight it is amazing that Yes got 45% in such context.

    What are the chances of such interference not happening in another indyref? Zero. The interference will be even bigger because now the support for independence is no longer 23% as it was in January 2013, now, with the buffoon as PM, a clearer prospect of what brexit means and a diminished Holyrood after the theft of our powers, the support for independence is above 50%.

    What is the only way you can ensure a fair referendum?

    a) if the England MPs suddenly see an advantage on Scotland’s independence and actually necessary for them to achieve an even bigger goal

    b) If the referendum takes place not in Scotland but in England.

    I like to think this is the road the SNP are following:

    a) by stalling, stopping Brexit for as long as they possibly can and making it clear to every voter in England that the SnP is not for turning. They are making clear that the only way brexit is going to be achieved is if the union is dissolved first. This must be making all those VIP taxdodgers and neocons becoming very impatient, particularly if they fear that further delays to brexit will risk having to embrace the EU tax avoidance regulations

    b) 2/3 of tory voters are happy to see the back of Scotland if that brings them their beloved brexit. It is only so much the tories (the brexit party and labour) can hold the floodgates if they continue with brexit delays until that 2/3 actually explode and demand their brexit or else – it is already happening, they are moving to the brexit party. The clock is ticking for the English establishment. Having this referendum in England (or simply England decreeing that the union is over) would be the perfect solution for Scotland as the England parties will eviscerate themselves by having to choose or the union or brexit.

    The only thing the SNP has to do is to watch while England MPs and England voters deliver Scotland’s independence for us.

    Another advantage of this? The SnP will not have to seek a mandate from Scotland to dissolve the treaty of union. That mandate will be served to us on a silver plate by England.

    It is genius, when you come to think of it.

  342. Jack Murphy says:

    Liz g said at 3:59 pm:

    ” There’s a link over on the Revs Twitter to vote for Wings as the best political blogg….
    You don’t need to be on Twitter to vote..
    Mibbi some kind Winger could bring the link over here!! ”

    Here it is—-finger crossed the link works.

  343. CameronB Brodie says:

    OT from the Rev/’s twitter, re. the consultation for the implementation of the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act. It appears the Scottish Government is determined to undermine social justice with this gender-ID bollocks. Gender reassignment does not change an individuals sex, it modifies their body to resemble the opposite sex. That is the limit of the potential we have for changing sex, we can only imitate physical characteristics thought stereotypical of masculinity or femininity. We can’t change an individual’s sexual epistemology, i.e. their embodied lived experience of biological sex.

    New Feminist Perspectives on Embodiment

  344. Robert Peffers says:

    @Robert Louis says: 1 August, 2019 at 12:42 pm:

    ” … For Scotland to end the union, we merely need a democratic mandate by the people of Scotland to do so. Permission from England (the only other signatory to the treaty) or Westminster is NOT required.”

    Just to make it crystal clear if anyone has not already worked it out for themselves here is a wee bit of explanation.

    Do not pay attention to the Westminster false information or the false way Westminster has led the United Kingdom right from day one. The true legal facts are fairly obvious.

    The Treaty of Union is a two partner treaty between two equally sovereign kingdoms, it is neither a union of four countries nor is it a unified country.

    The Scottish, “Claim of Right”, predates the Treaty of Union and has been several times reaffirmed since the Treaty became a live treaty. At no time has the Scottish Claim of Right been tried in any court of law. In fact it was recently very pointedly sidestepped by Westminster. In fact by side stepping it Westminster legally gives it the nod.

    So here is what all the forgoing comes to. The Treaty of Union has only two equally sovereign partners and Westminster is not the legal parliament of the Kingdom of England but Westminster has always presumed to be the de facto parliament of the country, (not the Kingdom), of England. Indeed no such parliament has ever existed since 30 April 1707 and not a single person has ever been elected as a member of the parliament of England since that date. Thus all this devolution stuff is nonsense.

    So here is the point – when the legally sovereign people of Scotland provide the SNP with a majority of people wanting an independent Scotland the union is over and it is not up to Scotland to take the matter to any kind of court. The legally sovereign people have spoken and a sovereign’s word is law.

    So just what can Westminster do about it?

    Well they could send in the troops but I don’t think even they are as daft as that, but they could I suppose try. They could attempt to use their Supreme Court but Scotland has just ended the union and won’t recognise that court.

    They could try the international courts but here’s the thing – Westminster is NOT the parliament of England but is the parliament of the United Kingdom and would thus be attempting to act against itself for Scotland was legally as much a part of the United Kingdom as was England so Westminster would be both the accuser and the accused and no court could allow them to take themselves to court and there is no elected parliament of England anyway.

    Even if they managed to get an international court hearing the Treaty of Union itself is evidence against them as are the records of Hansard where the current Prime Minister, his predecessor and several ministers of state have said that any party in an international treaty can legally end the treaty without even needing to state a reason.

    So there it is – all that is required is for the people of Scotland to provide the Scottish government with a majority of the people of Scotland wanting independence and the deed is done.

    What would seal the deal is if Scotland were to remain as the legacy member state of the EU and thus automatically be recognised as an independent state by twenty odd World states.

  345. twathater says:

    @ Maria 4.14pm That would be fantastic ( if only ) but unfortunately as WE are all aware the english establishment know the TRUE finances of the uk and the FACT that it is the resources and riches coming from Scotland that is keeping the uk afloat
    I posted a comment on that utube link that RP put up last night re Jim sillier ( not a typo ) with regards to the same scenario , I asked all the britnat brexshiteers why they were so desperate to hang on to us whingey jocks when we didn’t want to exit the EU and that they could have an unopposed utopian brexit and all they had to do was dissolve the union

    I also encouraged them to contact their MP’S and demand independence for England away from the Scots and Irish

  346. Colin Alexander says:


    Claim of Right 1689:

    “is obliged to swear To maintain the protestant religion and to rule the people according to the laudable lawes”

    “And did By the advyce of wicked and evill Counsellers Invade the fundamentall Constitution of this Kingdome and altered it from a legall limited monarchy To ane arbitrary despotick…wherby he hath forfaulted the right to the Croune and the throne is become vacant”

    This and the binding of the king and/or queen by oath demonstrated that the monarch was limited / bound to the people / Scottish Parliament / laws of the Kingdom and so did not have the unlimited sovereignty of English monarchs.

  347. twathater says:

    @ ME 5.13 pm I think we should all be ENCOURAGING our English cousins on all platforms to insist they contact their MP’S and demand independence for England to attain their brexit utopia without the hindrance of an Irish backstop and to stop subsidising they ungrateful sweaties

    EVEL unrestrained

  348. Doug Bryce says:

    @Robert Peffers : thank you for your fascinating posts!

    Hopefully soon the legally sovereign people of Scotland will make their voice heard.

  349. CameronB Brodie says:

    @The Honourable Yona
    I like to think I articulate a Frankfurt School inspired perspective. I hope you don’t view me as cultural Marxists, which is, after all, a Nazi trope?

  350. CameronB Brodie says:

    @The Honourable Yona
    What’s your problem with the Frankfurt School anyway, or are you simply repeating something you think makes you sound intelligent?

    Articulating Self-determination in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

  351. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Racist and Misogynist!

    2 for the price of 1 from you @Reluctant Nationalist says at 3:21 pm

    I suppose Islamophobia makes a change from the Anti-English stuff you usually post.

    Unsurprised you are a Bannon fanboy.

  352. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Maria F @ 16:14,

    I would like to think you are right about the SNP creating a Brexit impasse, because in the optimum (if unlikely) circumstance it could even lead to the “Czechoslovak Solution”. (Though these No-Dealers are deluded enough, so who knows?) Alas, the circumstances don’t seem quite propitious enough for that, so the SG is perhaps obliged to “cross the t’s and dot the i’s”, democratically speaking, and demonstrate that every single democratic avenue has been explored by the SG and closed off by London, annoying as that might be for us.

    In effect getting the UKGov to paint itself into a corner. Peter Bell reckons that when the SG then puts it to the people of Scotland by whatever means, the UKGov won’t dare challenge the move in the courts, not only for fear of international reprobation, but also because even the UKSC will have to side with the SG because of the Claim of Right.

    However if experts like Joanna Cherry can also run a legal “guerrilla campaign”, so much the better. Getting the English Leaver public restless and impatient might create a political situation that could overcome the well-understood Establishment resistance to indy. Not formally the “English independence” you mention, but effectively that in effect.

  353. Robert Peffers says:

    @Breeks says: 1 August, 2019 at 1:01 pm:

    ” … By the letter of the law, the Scottish people are sovereign.”

    Indeed so and in spite of several commenters today the fact that the people, not either the crown or Westminster is reflected in very much more recent Scottish Law than the Declaration of Arbroath. For example the law of vehicles parked upon private land in Scotland is very different from that in UK countries subject to English law.

    It is a criminal offence for the owner, or their agents, of private land to either clamp or tow away a vehicle and demand payment to release it back to the owner in Scotland. That and the fact the people have legal right to roam in Scotland because the people, being sovereign, own Scotland.

    ” … By the established convention, it is Westminster who holds Parliamentary Sovereignty.”

    Well that is a matter of dispute, Breeks. It was only under English law, established in 1688, that the monarch of England had to legally delegate their divine right of kings to the parliament of England but there has not been a legally elected parliament of England since 30 April 1707 and Westminster, since 1 May 1707, has never been the parliament of England it became the parliament of the United Kingdom on 1 May 1707. There has been no legally elected parliament of England ever since.

    ” … To date, we have adhered to the latter doctrine, rather than challenge it as required by the first doctrine.”

    What first doctrine would that be Breeks?

    … We paper over the distinction with the liberal application of “democracy”, but mere opinion is insufficient to rewrite the law.”

    Exactly so, Breeks but that applies just as much as the illegal adoption of the law of only England that conferred the monarch of England’s delegation to the parliament of England to the spanking new Parliament of the United Kingdom on 1 May 1707.

    That delegation of the divine right of the monarch of England upon the parliament of England cannot apply as there has been no parliament of England since 30 April 1707.

    … If we allow the law of OUR constitution to be rewritten, that is capitulation, whether it’s democratic or not.”

    I’ll rewrite that for you, Breeks, “If we allow the law of OUR constitution to be rewritten, that is capitulation illegal whether it’s democratic or not.

    The point is that there was no legal parliament of England on 1 May 1707 and there still is not one today. Far as I know there is no statute of limitations on illegal use of international treaties.

  354. CameronB Brodie says:

    So what is a Frankfurt School inspired perspective? In a nutshell, I understand it as a broad-based concern for the emancipation of the human condition, from the adverse affects of cultural subjugation.

    Self-Determination as a Human Right
    The Emergency Exit of Remedial Secession


    The phrase ‘self-determination’ has a strong appeal. In a nutshell, it gives peoples a free choice which allows them to determine their own destiny.7 Traditionally, a distinction has been made between external and internal self-determination. However, for reasons of international peace and security the right of self-determination needs to be balanced with the territorial integrity of States. That is why outside the colonial context, the emphasis must be on the internal aspect of self-determination.

    This thesis examines self-determination as a human right, focusing on the central question whether international law allows for a right of external self-determination in the form of unilateral secession when the internal right of self-determination is breached. It is argued that there is a right of unilateral secession based on customary international law, despite the fact that State practice is limited.

    According to the theory of modern custom, ‘a substantive manifestation of’ opinio iuris ‘may compensate for arelative lack of practice’.8 The author argues that there is strong opinio iuris within the international community in support of a right of unilateral secession, albeit that this right is subject to very strict conditions and may only be invoked as a last resort. Peoples are entitled to resort to unilateral secession only when they are persistently excluded from political participation, suffer from gross violations of fundamental human rights and have exhausted every local remedy available to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. In other words, remedial secession may be used as an ‘emergency exit’ only.9

  355. CameronB Brodie says:

    Or to put it another way, I simply refuse to be told my place.

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

  356. Maria F says:

    twathater says:
    1 August, 2019 at 5:13 pm

    “unfortunately as WE are all aware the english establishment know the TRUE finances of the uk and the FACT that it is the resources and riches coming from Scotland that is keeping the uk afloat”

    And THAT is in my view why the English Establishment and all its useful idiots in Stories, Slab and Slibdems plus its dormant cells in Scotland are making a huge thing about indyref all the time. They know very well the more they deny it to us the more and louder we are going to demand it, when it was not Scotland who voted against the status quo and caused the problem in the first place.

    In the meantime, these cowards, the MSM and broadcasters are keeping the English electorate distracted by pretending that it is only Scotland who has the problem accepting “the will of the people”, when it is in fact the Kingdom of England who has caused the constitutional problem and has now the time bomb of fascism, intolerance and a no deal brexit in its hands.

    In Scotland there is a clear majority against Brexit. 3 years after the vote with all what we know now, and with more and more young people reaching voting age, I am not so sure the legacy of brexit in England will be one to be proud of. And guess who is going to pay for it once the sht hits the fan there? The parties of the establishment that brought them brexit.

    The English establishment can live with a Scottish indyref because it can manipulate it as it did with the previous one and stand a chance to keep both prizes: the UK and the taxdodgers’ brexit. It will be totally screwed with an English indyref though: no matter what option the people of England choose, the establishment will end up losing.

    And that is what makes me think we should oppose brexit with all we got and push the hot potato of indyref right back to where it belongs: the Kingdom of England, which is the partner of the two that broke the status quo with their brexit vote.

  357. Effijy says:

    If ever a vote for a web site was ever earned its this one!

    The Rev is well ahead but those Westminster hackers might just be working late tonight?

    Please vote for a man who richly deserves it.

    PS Thanks to Wings the First Minister’s Independence petition
    Is just about to go they 262,000.

    Go on. You know you want to!

  358. CameronB Brodie says:

    Maria F
    It looks like support for the full-English Brexit is softening in England. I doubt the same result would be returned if the referendum was re-run, which it should be as the first effort was an affront to democracy (see the role performed by the new PM, for example).

    Tories face general election backlash if they push for no-deal, new poll finds

    P.S. I meant effects of cultural subjugation earlier, not affects, though emotions are involved.

  359. manandboy says:

    I have a suggestion, which is to counter the widespread use of the term ‘country’ to mean the UK, much favoured by British Nationalists & Unionists, in the Press, on TV, and, especially, in the House of Commons.
    Might I suggest that we all use something like ‘UK4’, when referring to the United Kingdom, – or else a term like it.
    But Not ‘the UK’.

    Every little helps. Cheers.

  360. Maria F says:

    CameronB Brodie says:
    1 August, 2019 at 6:23 pm

    “I doubt the same result would be returned if the referendum was re-run”

    And that is why the tories are running a mile from a rerun of the referendum. They even went (in my view) to the lengths of engineering that bogeyman called “brexit party” to force the EU to chuck us out in disgust because the cowards in control of the UK don’t have the balls to face the wrath of the people of England if they do that themselves on a no deal, which is what they are after. The brexit party also helps to keep the illusion that brexit is still going strong among the electorate of England.

    It is clear Brexit was just a tory tool designed for a particular purpose/s (escaping EU regs and the ECJ and steal back powers from Scotland to rein it in?), a purpose/s that was never made clear to the electorate.

    The vote from the people of England and Wales was just the excuse to justify use the tory tool and that is why they resourced to Psyops, dark money, breaking electoral law and everything else: they “needed” that vote. Looking back, it almost feels that the result was thought out first and then planned how to get it.

  361. manandboy says:

    Maria F, so much of what you say is so good, but in one important detail it could be more accurate. The Tories constantly refer to Independence because nothing makes Unionists more afraid than to hear or read about Independence. An anxious voter is easy to manipulate, which is why the Better Together campaign was designed from the beginning to make people afraid, and in particular, the huge numbers of the elderly, English immigrants, and EU residents.


  362. galamcennalath says:

    manandboy says:

    widespread use of the term ‘country’ to mean the UK, much favoured by British Nationalists

    Yup. As part of the propaganda war we need to counter their language.

    I’m particularly keen on using the single quote to signify alleged or so-called .

    I never write British or Britain without single quotes to signify so-called. The correct usage is geographical, not political.

    I never say British or Britain, always UK.

    UK4? Perhaps.

    In the same way as most of us now say/use BritNat instead of Unionist, an alternative to their so-called country of UK would be useful in making a print.

    In writing, perhaps ‘United’ Kingdom or would be appropriate.

  363. manandboy says:

    In the Financial Times today, the SNP was referred to as the ‘Scottish Nationalist Party’.

    It is through such details, 3 added letters, unceasingly repeated, that propaganda is broadcast, and minds are brainwashed.

    Scotland must rank as one of the most brainwashed countries in the world.

    I don’t know why the Scottish government doesn’t just come right out and say that.

  364. CameronB Brodie says:

    It really nips my bits when I hear SNP representatives talking about “the country”, when they are referring to the UK. Real poor and sloppy practice, IMHO. That isn’t an essentialist perspective btw., Scotland is not England, no matter how you look at it.

    Time for some cultural ontology?


    Chapter 2
    Ethnic Identity and Nationalism

    In this chapter, I first examine the theoretical discussions surrounding the Arvanites’ ethnicity, ethnic identity, nationalism, and national identity. The chapter begins byplacing ethnicity into a historical and analytical perspective, within the discipline of social anthropology. I, then, examine the debates which arose after the seminal work of Barth (1969, 1996), which perhaps became the most important conceptual framework for research into ethnicity and which, almost forty years later, is stillworthy of discussion in contemporary anthropology.

    Within this context, I examinethe idea of the ethnic group and its relationship to ‘others’ and to the nation-state. This examination leads to the concepts of nationalism and national identity. A review of the work done with regards to ethnic and national identity in Greece is undertaken. Finally, I ask the question: do the Arvanites constitute an ethnic group, when they have different traditions, origins, language, and other observable primordial elementsor, if there is no public discourse about them as an ethnic group, and if the ethnic-actors do not want the ethnic recognition, should they be considered an ethnic group?

  365. CameronB Brodie says:

    This isn’t simply a matter of cultural taste, how do Scots producers expect to fair after the full-English Brexit?

    Nation Branding: Toward an Agenda for Critical Research

  366. galamcennalath says:

    manandboy says:

    In the Financial Times today, the SNP was referred to as the ‘Scottish Nationalist Party’

    We could counter with the Conserve and Onion Party 🙂

  367. North chiel says:

    Just a thought , however presumably “ Her Maj” signed the Bill / Act of Westminster Parliament to “withdraw” the U.K. from the EU. Notwithstanding the prior vote by her sovereign Scottish people to remain . Does this constitute a breach of the Arbroath declaration in the context of the crown ??

  368. Jock McDonnell says:

    Hurrah, I shall take delivery of my Wolseley 6 on November 1st, Mustard with red leather & mahogany. Hurrah.

  369. jfngw says:

    In the 1930’s Der Stürmer was the main nationalist newspaper. In 2010’s we are awash with British Nationalist newspapers, some even like to caricature Scots as thief’s (even the Tory leader in Scotland thought this way), remember the Alex Salmond pickpocket propaganda, the press loved it.

    Meanwhile we now have a Scottish secretary that to my mind takes us back to the Nicholas Fairbairn era of Tories in Scotland.

  370. galamcennalath says:

    Jock McDonnell says:

    I shall take delivery of my Wolseley 6 on November 1st.

    Nice one! Year?

    I’d love a classic car.

  371. galamcennalath says:

    jfngw says:

    Nicholas Fairbairn

    Dressed like a diddy and always pished out of his mind.

    Removed by Roseanna Cunningham.

  372. Socrates MacSporran says:

    I note with dismay, yet again we are discussing the Tories’ continued use of the term “Scottish Nationalist Party” in the HoC.

    I have long maintained, the SNP MPs ought to be fighting a guerrilla action in the Chamber. The use of “Nationalist” rather than “National” by the Tories is now so widespread, it has to be deliberate.

    The SNP should be raising Points of Order every time this happens, and not backing down, forcing the Speaker and his Deputies to bring the Tories to heel.

    They should also be using Erskine May, and every tactic they can come up with, to disrupt the procedures of the House. Piss them off totally – it will make them all the readier, in spite of our riches, to see the back of us.

    Every time a Unionist politician tries to say Scotland is subsidised by England, stop the proceedings, protest, get them to withdraw.

    I think they will get pissed-off before we will.

  373. call me dave says:

    Ooh! Wolsely 6

    My brother-in-law lent me his in 1969 for my 1st wedding anniversary. First car I actually drove after passing my test

    Pibauchlie House Hotel Dunfermline. still got the menu 21/6p

    Two tone colour grey &green with AA badge leather seats lovely smell…smooth and silky.

    Got a ford Cortina mkII a couple of months later.

    Enjoy! 🙂

  374. Colin Alexander says:


    The Imperials’ pejorative buzzword used to be “Separatists” to describe the SNP and others who want the end of British Empire colonial rule over Scotland.

    And the propaganda was the small-minded Scottish nationalists creating new borders compared to the internationalist Unionists being against borders.

    Tory Govts and Brexit have exposed the truth: isolationism, xenophobia, bigotry, racism and separatist tendencies are nasty symptoms of British nationalism.

  375. sassenach says:

    Socrates MacSporran @ 8-33pm

    In total agreement, hope our MPs are reading this and act accordingly.

    Even the BBC are using the ‘ist’ term all the time. We must surely take a stand?

  376. mr thms says:

    I am watching the BBC News 24 channel and the newsreader sadly announced a sixth hospital patient had died as a result of the listeria outbreak affecting ‘UK’ hospitals.

    I did not know hospitals in Scotland were also affected?

  377. call me dave says:

    Aye I see what you did there! Took a minute 🙂

    I was aware of the outbreak which has been ongoing for a few weeks darn Sarf. It’s good old auntie again smooth as silk.

    I had a similar jolt this afternoon when oor Auntie wie a kilt presenter extolled the Murray Bros were partnering each other in a tennis tournament..”Good news for Scotland”.
    Then a picture of the pair, with Jamie sporting huge UJ wrist sweat bands on.

    I remarked to my partner “did you see that”
    The wristbands…UJ… BBC?? says I

    “Och! Your getting paranoid”… 🙂 and so it goes.

  378. Robert Louis says:

    Socrates at 833pm,

    Totally agree with you. The SNP should be disrupting parliament at every turn, not playing ball with it. As regards the Tories continually mis-naming the SNP, perhaps the SNP should do exactly the same. The should think up a suitable mis-naming of the Tory and Labour parties. Only by doing something like that, will it stop.

    Sadly, The SNP do not seem to have much fire in their bellies. They all seem rather obsessed with ‘working with others’ to stop brexit, against the wises of the people of England. Like anybody down there actually gives a sh*t. Even before the brexit vote, they were all getting a bit too cosy, playing along with Westminster rules.

    They were sent there to settle up on behalf of Scotland, not settle in.

  379. Robert Louis says:

    Manandboy at 624pm,

    When anybody says ‘country’ to me, meaning the UK, I always say, which country? I recall Alex Salmond often referred to ‘these islands’, in reference to the UK, or ‘ALL the nations of the UK’.

    What is also strange, is that loony unionists who insist Scotland ceased to exist following the treaty of union, are horrified when you suggest, that by the same logic, England no longer exists, since both parliaments and governments were ended or prorogued. Try telling folk down in south east England that the treaty of union ended England, and you soon find out exactly what they think. This of course despite the fact that both the English and Scottish acts of union are effectively the same. So how could one of the acts END Scotland, yet the other did NOT end England?

    Mind you just about everything unionists say about Scotland is baloney.

  380. Interesting read Mac – thank you. @ 9.27 Good to read what is usually behind a pay-wall.

    I agree with most of what this person has written in the Times. I think while Ruth has been pin Maternity leave Politics has changed immeasurably and she has come back singing the same song not realising that the song has changed.

    Think the journalist lets himself down with the last sentence though..

    I never subscribed to the ‘Ruth as a putative First minister’ project…. so why did he not write that at the time?

    Just another sheep really – but- he obviously senses things have changed and changed big time and Project Ruth is over.

    Guess it will be Swinson now….

  381. Call me Dave

    re UJ ‘s

    I went to buy sugar to make Raspberry jam and guess what – on the top of the packet of sugar – you don’t notice it on the shelf – the very bit that is folded over that you have to unseal to get at the sugar …. a humungous UJ.

    Almost walked out in disgust but I HAD to make the jam as it is for a summer fate at the weekend.

    Might put me off sugar now….

  382. Maria F and Breeks

    I think the Treaty of Union will collapse but it will collapse because of Ireland first.

    The border issue and the backstop requirement are immovable.
    No deal Brexit forces a hard border on Ireland and that will will breach the Good Friday Agreement. ( with the US Congress saying that they will not allow any trade deal if the GFA is breeched)

    N.I. will either cause the break up of the UK or Westminster will impose Direct rule and a hard border which could be calamitous.

    The little reported fact is that the majority in N. Ireland- remain voting- are in favour of the backstop as it keeps them in the Custom Union and Single market.

    The DUP is against it and a border in the Irish sea breeches the Treaty of Union by dint of making one port in the UK ( Belfast) operate with different rules from other ports around the UK.

    Curiously, the DUP deal to support the Tories was only for two years and is about to expire, so what will Boris do then.
    If he punts them another billion then the UK Gov will struggle to retain any semblance of impartiality which makes it seem increasingly likely that Devolution will not be reintroduced. Will this force Boris to go for a GE?

    It is a Gordian knot and ‘i think events will overtake us my dear boy’. ( Can’t remember who said that) but the SNP have to actively wait , ready to spring into action at the shortest notice as it will happen quickly.

  383. Lochside says:

    So there it is – all that is required is for the people of Scotland to provide the Scottish government with a majority of the people of Scotland wanting independence and the deed is done’

    Don’t you remember?..We did this already…in 2015 with a majority of pro Independence supporting party seats and votes (51.3%). But apparently because Independence was left out of the manifesto…our leadership decided to join in the charade of the de jure ( as per 1707) ‘UK’ Parliament, which as we all know is in reality is de facto an English ruled ‘representative democracy’ dictatorship, which employs the ‘Crown’ as a rubber stamp to hide its despotic power.

    Just like the same model they set up in the tinpot ‘state’ pf Northern Ireland…where a protestant majority oppressed and discriminated against a minority R.C. population for half a century…and will do so again under the evil clown masquerading as PM.

  384. Robert Peffers says:

    @manandboy says: 1 August, 2019 at 7:06 pm:

    ” … Scotland must rank as one of the most brainwashed countries in the world.
    I don’t know why the Scottish government doesn’t just come right out and say that.”

    That may be because although much of Scotland is indeed brainwashed it comes a long way behind England in that respect. The sheer pig ignorance in that nation is quite unbelievable until you live and work among them for a while. Then you believe it. Now remember that ignorance simply means they do not know. It doesn’t mean they are stupid.

    Try explaining to an average working class Englander the United Kingdom is not a country because it is a kingdom and that is why it is called the, “United Kingdom”. It can then become a rather long and rather convoluted conversation.

    The simple explanation that it is called the United Kingdom because it is a united kingdom simply seems a little too difficult for them to understand in the first place but when you then attempt to go on and explain that there are only two equally sovereign parts to that United Kingdom it seems to overtax their powers of understanding a wee bit overmuch.

    Whatever you do you must try and avoid mention of, “The Treaty of Union”, for it is very likely to lead to you needing to teach them a bit of their own history and they may not believe a word you say. Now I’m not saying they are all as thick as short planks but they simply have never been made aware of just exactly what the United Kingdom is and how it came to be so.

  385. Rick H Johnston says:

    The English parliament continued in 1707 with Scots commissioners added.
    In international terms Scotland ceased to exist. De facto only Scotland lost its independence, while England’s was unaffected.
    The adoption of a new flag was a mere figleaf for Scotland’s humiliation.

  386. Robert Peffers says:

    @North chiel says: 1 August, 2019 at 7:54 pm:

    ” … Just a thought , however presumably “ Her Maj” signed the Bill / Act of Westminster Parliament to “withdraw” the U.K. from the EU. Notwithstanding the prior vote by her sovereign Scottish people to remain . Does this constitute a breach of the Arbroath declaration in the context of the crown ??”


  387. ahundredthidiot says:

    Maybe the SNP should rename the party – Scotlands National Party.

    for that is what it is

  388. Robert Peffers says:

    @Jock McDonnell says: 1 August, 2019 at 7:55 pm:

    ” … Hurrah, I shall take delivery of my Wolseley 6 on November 1st, Mustard with red leather & mahogany. Hurrah.”

    Naw! Not another one?

    I spent many happy hours restoring old bangers. My step-son caught the bug and is never without an old classic or two. He is currently looking for another one. He seems to be a old Ford freak and has had everything from Mk I Lotus Cortina’s to mk I & MkII 1600E Cortina’s but all sorts in between. He gets fed up with them after all the hard work of restoring them.

  389. Ian Brotherhood says:

    For those who may be interested, yon Smallaxe is back on Off-Topic.


  390. Fireproofjim says:

    Meg Merrilees
    It was Harold MacMillan, Prime Minister, who, commenting on the unpredictability of politics, said the cause of most problems was just “events, dear boy, events.”

  391. Robert Peffers says:

    @Robert Louis says: 1 August, 2019 at 9:23 pm:

    ” … As regards the Tories continually mis-naming the SNP, perhaps the SNP should do exactly the same. The should think up a suitable mis-naming of the Tory and Labour parties.”

    Hilarious, Robert Louis. You do know that the term, “Tory”, is in fact a pejorative term don’t you?

    “Tory”, originally meant a type of Catholic bandit during the Civil War who fought against Cromwell’s invasion. It was applied because the Tories favoured the power of the Crown against the Parliament and the High Church wing of the Church of England and the maintenance of the CoE’s privileges.

  392. Confused says:

    @Ian Brotherhood re: culture, brond etc – agree thoroughly, many good points – e.g. Alasdair Gray nearly hung for -stating the obvious-

    – a couple of things I should have added, but the post was getting a bit long

    GOOD, compelling, work DOES get done – but only by ACCIDENT – and if it is saying “the wrong things” – then it quickly gets “disappeared”, even the money angle is secondary.

    A lot of people -raved- about BROND, but no deal. While you can probably track it down with the internet – thanks Mike Cassidy – they don’t make it easy. It also has shitty reviews on IMDB, so the casual viewer is unlikely to bother.

    – and a story behind the story about talented Scots – Michael Caton Jones heads for “the new world” to make his way.

    Censorship and propaganda are done so well in this country – when you have editorial control and the purse strings tight around your hand – there is no need to burn books or do anything overt
    – you simply – do not fund projects you dont like
    – and if one slips thru the net – then you show it once, then shelve it
    – otherwise, people are “totally free”

    Peter Watkins “Culloden” and “The War Game” come to mind.

    BBC4 makes a lot of rolls-royce quality documentaries – they are often a bit freer than normal as BBC4 is for the intellectual, not the hoi polloi who may fret and get restless, still, even here they are at it – two relatively recent ones on sellafield and porton down gave little away

    – “these johnnies seem to have it covered – nothing to see here – move along”

    it all looked harmless enough, but then we had that skripal poisoning event, plus the looming “super-trident”. The public is being “groomed” all the time, with skill, made complicit in our own victimhood.


    the western system (whatever you want to call it) – it has little to offer really – economically it lurches along from one financial crisis to the next, grinding people down; there is no great idea or belief at the heart of it, its nihilism all the way down – certainly no GOD; but what it always had was excellent cultural propaganda – hollywood and the bbc may be the most powerful weapons in the arsenal.

    comedy link of the day

    – they are on to us – the new “BROND” is a 30 year old incel staring at a computer screen typing crap into online forums – “jock gits are deep fried heroin subsidy junkies”.

    Perfidy, on the cheap.

  393. Dr Jim says:

    Tate and lyle sugar doesn’t have the Union brand emblazened on it and you’ll find it in Aldis and of all places Superdrug,
    Superdrug being the cheapest at 49p

  394. geeo says:

    Too close to call in tonights by-election apparently.

    If Tories lose, Johnson gets the record for quickest time taken for a new PM losing a by-election!!

  395. Kangaroo says:

    Rick H Johnston @10:33pm

    Your having a laugh, or you have a Roo loose in your top paddock. You pick.

    There is ample evidence on this site and in preceding comments on this post above that totally eviscerates your assertion.

    When posting on here, and making assertions then you need to have references to back up your position, otherwise it is just gibberish. In this case it is.

  396. silverbuick says:

    The Tories just lost the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election leaving them with a working majority of only one.

  397. TJenny says:

    silverbuick – and rumours flying round twitter of up to 5 Tory MPs jumping ship if the Libs won tonight. If true and they do jump, giving him no majority, does that mean he’d have to call a GE?

  398. silverbuick says:

    TJenny – It’s looking more and more likely to happen, although who knows with Boris.

  399. Breeks says:

    Robert Peffers says:
    1 August, 2019 at 5:47 pm.

    ” … By the established convention, it is Westminster who holds Parliamentary Sovereignty.””

    Well that is a matter of dispute, Breeks…

    Well, you’d expect so, but Westminster isn’t disputing it by routinely ignoring Scotland with impunity.
    The EU isn’t disputing it by excluding Scotland from Brexit Negotiations.
    The USA isn’t disputing it by eyeing up deregulation of Scotland’s NHS and Whisky.

    Come to think of it, by setting aside Scotland’s sovereign Remain mandate to advocate a soft Brexit doesn’t dispute the convention of Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty either. It exposes a Scottish Government which doesn’t consider itself bound by the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

    I agree 100% UK Parliamentary Sovereignty ought to be disputed, it ought to be shot down in flames, but the dispute is simply not happening in any meaningful capacity. The day to day exercise of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty is neither being disrupted nor disputed. All we get is anodyne talk, and a half hearted assertion that everybody ignores, and whenever another pernicious subjugation looms, we maybe grumble a bit, but we roll over every time.

    We are crippled and using democracy like a crutch. “Ah we cant even start this fight without a majority”. We HAVE a majority, and Brexit is the wedge which put our majority on one side of a constitutional divide and the UK on another. What we lack is the stomach for the fight.

    The closest we have come to challenging UK Sovereignty was the Article 50 Revocation Case at the ECJ, but we left the job half finished by establishing the fact the UK could revoke Article 50 as a sovereign prerogative, but NOT establishing whether Scotland might do likewise, and revoke Article 50 unilaterally by its own sovereign prerogative. How very “British” of us.

    We agree Robert, Sovereignty IS a matter of dispute, but that’s the whole problem. A few words in the House of Commons for a few lines written in Hansard isn’t going to win that dispute, nor set the Heather alight, nor persuade the International Community that the UK as they have known for 300 years it is a lie and a constitutional absurdity.

  400. manandboy says:

    The BBC is like an avocado which looks OK on the outside but is completely black on the inside. You get the idea.

  401. manandboy says:

    But the story is that PMJohnston is telling everyone a pack of lies about him ‘boosting’ the economy, supported, defended, and protected by the BBC.

    PMJohnston – the guy is just another bent used-car dealer whose joky clown act is cleverly designed to disarm his audience. And how effective it is.

    Q. Is PMJohnston an honest and decent guy.
    A. Never.

  402. Ken500 says:

    The Tories will not win a GE. It will be a hung parliament. The SNP could hold the balance of power. An S30 could come out of it. Or full fiscal autonomy. Then Independence. The Tory vote in Scotland is collapsing.

    Get rid of Labour. Take the fight to the Tories. The SNP will win. Independence. Now that is a good strategy, through the Ballot Box. With EU support. The best time to have an EU Ref is when it can be won. Vote SNP/SNP. Vote for Independence and a better world.

  403. Effijy says:

    Tory on BBC claiming foul at losing last nights by-election.
    Apparently a Dirty Deal was done with other parties to leave
    The Fib Dems as the main challenge to the Tories.

    Sounds very similar to what the Westminster Dirty parties do
    When taking on the SNP vote.

    The election came about as the sitting Tory MP was a crook
    and fiddled his expenses like Nero.

    He was allowed to stand again and almost hit there?

    Serial Adulterer, Liar and Bully as PM, fraudsters put up
    For parliament seats.
    Are these now badges of honour that attract Tory voters?

    WTF is England morphing into? Nothing I want to be connected too that’s for sure!

  404. Ahundredthidiot says:

    given tories beat brexit and pummelled labour while losing to Libdems, I think BJ was waiting for this outcome, now emboldened, he’ll call a GE.

    After it, it will be time for SNP to do the dirty deal. The end will justify the means.

  405. Ian Brotherhood says:

    @Confused (11.55) –

    Good stuff.

    Long time ago we had the following Orwell essay, can’t remember why, but it does address a lot of what you’re saying there. It’s always mystified me how Orwell can have become a staple in the national curriculum whilst the core issues he was tackling are, in effect, suppressed.

    It’s not widely known that Animal Farm has never appeared as Orwell envisaged it (in English at any rate). He wrote this essay as a preface but it was never published. (The original pagination of the text allowed for the preface so it must have been pulled very late in the publication process.)

    The form of ‘censorship’ he describes here is so close to what Alistair Gray and Kelman were describing, it’s simply unthinkable that senior cultural/political commentators in this country weren’t well aware of the similarities. But did they raise them as part of the debate? Did they hell.

  406. Willie says:

    Brecon by election brings into sharp focus how Labour are absolutely finished.

    With just over 5% of the vote it shows just how they could never win a General Election. Equally however, and with the Libdems winning and with the Brexit Party taking 10% of the vote, this shows how the Consevatives will not win a General Election.

    That said, the Libdems would in an instant throw their lot in with Tories to form a Conservative Government. The recent example of Nick Clegg as the junior partner in a Tory Government shows that only too clearly.

    This brings into sharp focus just how powerful a returned majority of SNP MPs will be. Armed with an absolute mandate in Scotland their numbers in Westminster will be able through parliamentary arithmetic to hold the balance of power and force through change. They will not be Libdem patsies to the Tories.

    Vote SNP!

  407. Petra says:

    @ Breeks says at 5:56pm …… “We HAVE a majority”…

    “HAVE a majority” for what Breeks? As even Silly Sillars pointed out recently people like Ruth Davidson and thousands of her ilk would have voted to Remain in the EU, but don’t support Independence. FAR from it. If we want to get out of this Union we require a MAJORITY of sovereign Scots to want that too ….. Independence. Something that Nicola Sturgeon is well aware of, but that you “conveniently” don’t seem to “get.”

    The EU excludes Scotland because we are not one of the 28 member states. Simple as that. As to not establishing if Scotland could revoke Article 50 in its own right, Scotland hasn’t signed any Treaties, etc, in its own right with the EU so why on earth would you think that they would entertain us? And don’t you think that if it was at all feasible to do so Joanna Cherry (with the backing of the EU that you promote) would have gone full steam ahead with doing just that?

    This is just another, probably one of dozens … hundreds even, of your posts that’s filled with the same old gobbledygook that’s being used to camouflage your real intent, IMO, and I reckon that most of us on here know exactly what that is by now.

  408. Marcia says:

    Re Brecon and Radnor by-election in Cymru.

    Turnout down 15%. The remain candidate polled 43.5% down about 5% from 48% from the 2016 referendum in this seat. If it hadn’t been for Plaid and the Greens standing aside but Brexit intervening then the Tories could have retained the seat. Labour voters voting tactically helped to defeat the Tories. Not the result the LD’s expected. They thought given the circumstances of this by-election it would be an easy victory. The polls for this by-election were way off. It was a vote against something rather for something.

  409. Petra says:

    Nana, Professor John Robertson’s giving you a well deserved mention in the following article.


    Plus loads of Scottish “news” that’s either suppressed or distorted by the MSM.

  410. galamcennalath says:

    Combined Brexit vote in Brecon was high. What is it Leavers think they are actually buying into?

    One aspect, English/British Nationalism’s daft isolationist drive can be delivered. An ideological success, but at enormous cost.

    However, I reckon most Leave voters are still being influenced by the lies and undeliverable promises for a ‘positive’ Brexit. The nonsense Leave case of EURef perpetuates in much of the media.

    One thing is certain, a lot of Leave voters won’t get what they expect! Then who do they blame?

  411. Ken500 says:

    Two unreturned e-mails certainly upset poopy pants. The people in Scotland have to vote for Independence. The best time to have an IndyRef is when it can be won. Not in the middle of total turmoil. Even full fiscal autonomy. Then Independence. Scotland is going that way in any case. Indy support increasing.

    The SNP should give the elderly an increased payment, if they could. Increased OA pension would pay for itself. It would cut out the cost of administration which is almost the cost of the pension/welfare payments in the UK. Pension £180-200 a week would cut out admin costs. Pay for itself. Any surplus could be got back through the tax system. Pensioners pay tax.

    Westminster U imbeciles are spending £7Billion a year on decommissioning. Yet are investing more in Hinkley Point and Trident, a total waste of public money. The costs are out of control. There are far better alternative schemes. Westminster cut a tidal scheme at the Humber (£9Billion) and reneged on a tidal scheme at Swansea (£1Billion). Hinkley Point and HS2 the Tory slush fund. Cameron et al their noses in the trough wasting public money.

    Monies should be invested in the railways in the North and Scotland. For better conductivity and rail times to be cut throughout Britain. Less flights would be needed. A much more pleasant journey. Journeys in the North and Scotland take much longer because of historical lack of investment.

  412. Sinky says:

    Worth buying two copies of The National to-morrow.

    Lets get the 7300 subscribers up to 10,000 and provide an effective pro Indy antidote to the numerous unionist newspapers.

    It works as that’s why Yoons keep hiding The National on supermarket shelves.

  413. Breeks says:

    Petra says:
    2 August, 2019 at 9:13 am

    @ Breeks says at 5:56pm …… “We HAVE a majority”…

    “HAVE a majority” for what Breeks? As even Silly Sillars pointed out recently people like Ruth Davidson and thousands of her ilk would have voted to Remain in the EU, but don’t support Independence…

    Sigh. Give me strength.

    We have a clear and explicit democratic and sovereign majority that the UK should NOT be removed from Europe.

    Westminster cannot overrule that mandate, it can only subjugate it, and bully Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty into submission and acquiescence. That is a breach of the Treaty of Union, and colonial subjugation contrary to international law.

    The only way we can be defeated on the issue is to concede sovereignty by bending to the will of Westminster, not the will of the sovereign people.

    WE DO NOT NEED A DEMOCRATIC MANDATE TO ENACT THE RULE OF LAW. Scotland is sovereign. Westminster is not.

  414. Ken500 says:

    The strong Irish lobby in Congress is now blocking any UK/US trade deals if any terms of the Good Friday Agreement is altered. Johnston and his cronies plans are now faulted. Brexiteer disaster. What a complete and utter mess. The Tories will lose a GE.

    Brexit is about manipulating the currency markets and tax evasion. The Hedge Funds manipulating.

  415. Ahundredthidiot says:

    Marvia @9:43

    which is exactly why i think BJ will call a GE, tories wouldve won it. Labour a shambles and no way LD would get back into bed with Conservatives.

    Perfect storm for us.

  416. Breeks says:

    You do understand that a sovereign edict to remain in Europe is just as potent as a sovereign edict to terminate the Union?

    If we, as an equal partner in the Union say it Brexit cannot proceed, then Westminster can only concede to Scotland’s sovereign veto and abandon Brexit, or press on in spite of Scotland’s constitutionally sound objection objection to Brexit, and thereby destroy the Treaty of Union by the attempted usurpation of Scotland’s sovereignty in order to subjugate the will of Scotland’s sovereign people.

    The 2016 Remain mandate is the only democratic majority we constitutionally require to make the Union go bust.

  417. hackalumpoff says:

    See updated Nana’s links here:

  418. galamcennalath says:


    That 2013 article about Johnson is astonishing.

    “Quitting the EU won’t solve our problems, says Boris Johnson “

    Johnson, “question of EU membership is no longer of key importance to the destiny of this country”

    ” Johnson says that he supports legislation backing a referendum – but warns that Britain’s problems will not be solved by simply leaving the EU as many of his Conservative colleagues apparently believe.”

  419. galamcennalath says:

    The key deduction from the Brecon result is that Johnson must pursue a ‘no deal’ Brexit if he is to hold back the Brexit Party. He probably can’t do that with the current Parliament and be so needs to have a general election. He will have to stand on a ‘no deal’ ticket to get the BP to stand aside.

    Is any other scenario likely?

    He probably needs an excuse to actually call the GE. At the moment he doesn’t have a clear case for resorting to that action. So I suggest we watch for the conditions being set up over the next month.

    If Labour continue to talk nonsense about a better deal they could come up with, they will be destroyed.

    Scotland? We really need to make the most of a GE. The SNP needs a very strong pro Indy manifesto. The battle will be Tory ‘no deal’ versus Indy. The SNP must forget about cancelling or softening Brexit. The UK level outcome will be a mandate for an ultra hard and immediate Brexit. For Scotland, the SNP need an equally robust mandate!

  420. PictAtRandom says:

    Frank Field to make an announcement on his political future within the next hour.

  421. misteralz says:

    Who’s placing bets on a GE on Thursday the 24th of October?

  422. Colin Alexander says:

    “And to add insult to the injury, the English Supreme Court dictated (in my view illegitimately because it ignores the Claim of Right and Scotland’s sovereignty) that the UK gov does not require consent from Scotland for the UK to leave the EU”.

    That’s not a correct interpretation of the case, in my opinion.

    Here is the Supreme Court’s decision: Miller & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 3) [2017] UKSC 5

    The Scottish Govt challenged Art 50 on the basis of the Sewel Convention and The Claim of Right 1689 on the basis that laws should not be changed by the Crown and instead requires parliamentary approval.

    As far as I can see, Scottish sovereignty was never even argued.

    “155. A number of interested parties and interveners have taken part in the Miller appeal. They include the Lord Advocate and the Counsel General for Wales, who as well as presenting arguments in support of those advanced by the Miller claimants, have also argued that, in the event that an Act of Parliament is required, the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales is also required, in accordance with a convention known as the Sewel Convention”.

    “174. The Lord Advocate also cites material from Scottish sources which is consistent with the principle derived by the Miller claimants from English case law, such as the Case of Proclamations and the Tin Council case. This includes the provision of the Claim of Right Act 1689:

    “… That all Proclamationes asserting ane absolute power to Cass annull and Dissable lawes… are Contrair to Law.”

    This provision is analogous to the corresponding provisions in sections 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights 1688, to which the Miller claimants refer:

    “That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.

    That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.”

    As Lord Denning MR noted, however, in McWhirter v Attorney General [1972] CMLR 882, 886, the Bill of Rights did not restrict the Crown’s prerogative powers in relation to foreign affairs: “the Crown retained, as fully as ever, the prerogative of the treaty-making power.” The same appears to be true of the Claim of Right. The Lord Advocate also cites article 18 of the Union with England Act 1707. This provision, like the corresponding provision in the Union with Scotland Act 1706, states that laws in use in Scotland are to be “alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain”.

  423. Robert Peffers says:


    O.k. Wingers – get your teeth into this one:-

    You can make your own mind up as to how historically accurate it is. I’m not offering an opinion.

  424. Doug says:

    What happens in Ireland in the near future still influential to Scotland’s immediate future.

  425. jfngw says:

    The only question left for Ruth Davidson is ‘are there any more think tanks out there looking for a washed up politician to head them up’. It’s either that or have her Ruth Davidson candidates stand on a ‘No Deal’ general election ticket.

  426. Robert Peffers says:


    BTW – Allow the previous video to play the videos that follow as these also are of great interest.

  427. Clapper57 says:

    Green and Plaid Cymru stood aside in last night’s Brecon election……so called Remain alliance.

    Sky reporter last night asked Ed Davey if Lib Dems would do the same…..very evasive and no definite obligation given……….wait for it Scotland….this will be another grievance for Jo S to add to her already ever expanding SNPBAD list…….Lib Dems will make a big deal of SNP NOT standing aside in seats in Scotland therefore challenging their Remain credentials…..they never miss an opportunity to lie and spread shit after all.

    Their win last night was hardly a landslide…considering the Tory cheat had the brass neck to stand again…wtf is wrong with people….they guy cheated on his expenses and was found guilty….and STILL people voted for him…the fact the Tories allowed him to stand again is in itself absolutely shocking and shows the depth of depravity and corruption that infests Unionist politics….and how some voters really really really want a Brexit that works for the Tory party…but for them, the voters…not so much.

    Wow guess it is shocking some Scots want out of this WM circus is it not…nothing to see here it seems…..the guy was found GUILTY of fiddling his expenses and was ALLOWED to stand again…the media ?….why that is NOT the BIG story…nope …LIB DEM GAIN….that’s the story and end of.

    All of those people who voted for the Brexit Remain scavenger party….are going to be mighty disappointed at some point…cause if there is one thing guaranteed in politics …it is the Lib Dems always find a way to let you down…say one thing do another..that’s their pledge.

  428. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    I believe you both have a point @Breeks and @Petra

    My take on it (and fell free to correct me Mr Peffers) is that:

    The People of Scotland are Sovereign;

    Sovereign People of Scotland voted to maintain the status quo (UK Union) in 2014 (IndyRef);

    Sovereign People of Scotland voted to maintain their EU Citizenship in 2016 (EU Ref);

    Now if UK Govt removes Scotland from EU against the express will of the Sovereign People of Scotland then that is a material breach of the Union.

    The “It was a UK wide Vote mob” will protest but legally The UK is a Unitary State, created by a Bipartite Treaty which enshrines the principle that The People of Scotland are Sovereign.

    1. So 31st Oct UK Brexits against will of Sovereign Scottish People = Treaty of Union over


    2. BoJo bites the bullet and attempt to square the circle of both votes to Remain 2014(UK) and Remain 2016 (EU) and at some future* date IndyRef2 = Treaty of Union over


    3. BoJo calls General Election before 31st Oct hoping to reduce SNP seats at Westminster to give credence to the “No appetite for IndyRef2” narrative (unsure how it will fall but probably a Con/FibDem Coalition again)


    4. They cancel Brexit (to save Scotland’s resources being removed from the Treasury), English Nationalists/Brexiteers go nuts and at some future date* = Treaty of Union over

    *Future dates = within next 18 Months as everything is exceptionally fluid at the moment.

    Important thing is that once Brexit happens against the will of the Scottish Electorate Scots Gov can “go legal” via EU, UN etc.

    This is why the British Nationalist Politicians are making a big deal about Holyrood 2021 (hoping they can get a BritNat Junta in power).

    It is also IMHO why the UK Govt hasn’t Brexited yet.

  429. Lochside says:

    Breeks and Petra: your disagreement illustrates perfectly the effect of the pathetic capitulation by the SNP in the 2015 G.E. to not demand the dissolution of the Union. We had the two long universally accepted criteria for asserting our Sovereignty once and for all for Independence, allowing us to negate the bent referendum the year before with total number of seats and votes won ( including the Greens). From that point on the confused strategy they have adopted has created discord, such displayed by you both, in the Independence movement.

    100,000 people, including me, joined the SNP to right that wrong of 2014. We expected that the G.E. would present that opportunity and it did. But what happened? THE SNP decided to ignore their basic founding principle of Independence for one of playing political games in the theatre of the grotesque at Westminster. Humiliation and complete ignominy followed.

    When Brexit offered the opportunity, again, to assert our Sovereignty via our majority ‘Remain’ vote. The SNP again failed to play our Sovereignty card. They had shot themselves twice in the head: first with the gamble of a Referendum that was manipulated to bring about a result that, for the first time, meant we could be defined as a ‘region’ of the UK and internationally; and secondly by their cowardice in not asserting a demand to dissolve the Union in 2015. Those two political decisions sealed the inevitability of a UK level political only strategy for dealing with Brexit.

    Hence the disastrous support for a People’s vote ( which has been hijacked by the FibDems) and a ‘soft’ Brexit, both options which allows ‘soft’ ‘YES’ voters to retreat from Indy. But more importantly leave the initiative in English political hands

    Too many opportunities missed. Now we face forcing a plebiscite which can be characterised by the Westminster gangsters as ‘UDI’ because at no time have our leadership demanded the recognition of Scotland’s sovereignty being breached and therefore de facto and de jure ending the Act of Union.Internationally, despite all the supposed ‘support’ we are officially a region. Where is the legal action to establish our Sovereign status? We have only between now and the 31st of October to establish it.

  430. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “As far as I can see, Scottish sovereignty was never even argued.”

    You are correct @Colin Alexander says at 11:26 am

    The Sovereignty of the Scottish People has never really had a definitive legal answer.

    IMHO this is because it would officially and comprehensively end the whole argument that Westminster can overrule the Scottish Electorate on any matter.

  431. PictAtRandom says:

    Clapper57 @ 12.11

    I thought it was a fairly good result for the Tories. If I were Johnson I would try to offer BXP a free-run in about 30 safe seats and 100 “no-hopers / long shots” in exchange for them standing down elsewhere. (If I really wanted to win and clear up the mess, that is…)
    Meanwhile, Frank Field is to stand for the Birkenhead Social Justice Party. So, whatever else, I think that’s one seat that won’t be going back to Labour.

  432. Liz g says:

    Clapped 57 @ 12.11
    I was actually wondering opposite…. LOL
    How do the Lib Dems justify not standing aside for the more electable,Anti Brexit and willing to work with others,SNP in Scotland ?

  433. Ken500 says:

    Frank Field is a total hypocrite. He supported the Tories austerity measures. Then made complaints about them. There are reports he was being deselected. He will not win.

  434. galamcennalath says:

    jfngw says:

    Ruth Davidson candidates stand on a ‘No Deal’ general election ticket

    Indeed. The trick of pretending to be the single issue Ruth Davidson Party, rather than nasty London Tory Party, had its uses but will now come back to bite her on the arse.

    We all got the Vote Ruth Davidson leaflets with mention of Conservatives in tiny print.

    Her brand has been established and now the Tories have to make an awkward decision to scrap the modestly successful branding. However Far Right English Nationalist Pro Johnson Pro Hardest Brexit is a message which might work wonders in the Home Counties, but will sink like a lead balloon in Scotland.

    Wipe out of the Tories in Scotland in any General Election will be deserved comeuppance.

  435. Clapper57 says:

    @ PictAtRandom @ 12.28pm

    Hi PictAtRandom, the joke is that if Brexit party had not stood the Tories would have WON that seat…so much for Lib Dems winning for Remain ! You know re your suggestion on Brexit party/Tories abso-feckin-lutely nothing would surprise me LOL

    Labour party now the Dodo’s of politics Lol

    @ Liz g

    Too right Liz….that is the way it should be in Scotland Lol…but you won’t get much support for that from those liars or their pals in the media….

    Have a good day both of you

  436. Proud Cybernat says:


    Had SNP stood on an Indy Manifesto in Ge2015 they’d have been gubbed. They, rightly IMO, asked voters to “lend them their vote” to hold Unionist Parties’ feet to the fire. They were never going to deliver on the promises they made to win IndyRef1. Had they followed thru on those promises then they could have taken IndyRef2 off the table for a generation. Instead they reneged. And here we are on the brink of IndyRef2. What the hell did the BritNats think would happen by reneging of the promises they made to win IndyRef1?

    They don’t get a free pass. They’re reaping what they sowed. Their own fault.

  437. manandboy says:

    “He is clever, cultivated, charming; witty, self-deprecating, wildly entertaining and oh so terribly British. Also dissembling, dishonest, dark, duplicitous, and a danger to his country and to Europe – a poker player whose bluff is about to be called.”

    To turn a blind eye to either side of Mr Johnson’s character and history, would be a big mistake. To ignore his ‘good’ side is to fail to understand what makes Johnson work as a politician/journalist.
    To ignore his ‘bad’ side, is to fail to know that not only is Johnson bad for the vast majority in the UK, but that his bad side is stronger, much stronger than his good side.

    It is certain that if PM Johnson and his Vote Leave team get their way, then tens of millions of the lives of people in the UK, and elsewhere, will be very, very badly affected – possibly for the rest of their lives. While the few, greatly enriched, will smile and laugh as they drink expensive champagne while wondering what major toy/asset to buy next.

  438. Dr Jim says:

    Yeah, the Lib Dems won nothing, they were used as a protest vote and it was the protest that won although the Lib Dems will squeal with delight about their great victory, but not quite because between both Brexit parties Tory and Brexit, they actually combined to have more votes so Brexit voters still outnumber remain voters on the evidence of this election

    The bigger news from this story is where Labour ended up because of their leader Jeremy (Peter Brady) Corbyn

    Peter Brady was the original invisible man in the TV series , I just realised some folk might not know that

  439. The way. They re port the news the Bank of England say there is a 1 in 3 chance the economy will get worse with a no deal brexit but that really means there is a 2 in 3 chance It won’t trying to make good news look bad they think we are stupid also this Supreme Court was only set up so t could over rule the Scottish law we should never refer anything to them at all we should ignore it laws only work if people obey them and also if you do not call a ref., you will never win one ???

  440. Golfnut says:

    @ Jockanese Windtalker.
    ‘ end the whole argument that Westminster can overrule the people of Scotland on any matter.

    Absolutely back on.

  441. Robert Peffers says:

    @Breeks says: 2 August, 2019 at 5:56 am:

    ” … The day to day exercise of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty is neither being disrupted nor disputed.”

    Perhaps, Breeks, you might care to explain for us just what actual purpose would be served by the SNP at Westminster disrupting the day to day workings of the United Kingdom Parliament?

    Now I may be wrong, and I often am wrong, but I believe that all the Westminster SNP members would manage to do by such tactics would be to greatly reduce the rope that the Westminster Parliament is currently in great danger of hanging itself with.

    To put that another way – could the SNP MPs do a better job by disrupting the Westminster parliament than the combined Tory, Labour and LibDems are doing at every sitting of the parliament.

    Seems to me the SNP’s greatest tactic is just being there and frightening the shit out of the entire unionist cabal that is the Westminster Establishment. Ask yourself the question – what is it that has reduced the Westminster Establishment to being the laughing stock of the entire World’s politics?

    It is quite impossible for the SNP MPs to do a better job of disrupting the parliament than the Westminster parliament is currently doing all by itself and all the SNP and Plaid Cymru needs do is turn up and give them the occasional reminder that their precious union is hanging on a gie shooglie peg. It also has the benefit that no one can point a finger at the Scots and Welsh independence supporters as being the cause of the Westminster Establishment’s troubles. Ian Blackford just needs to remind then now and then that Scotland will not be dragged out of the EU against their will to keep the unionists in a constant fear of no more a union parliament.

    Westminster is beset by bad mistakes at the present time and fear is a great catalyst for mistakes. Remember the very old saying, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making mistakes”, so why disrupt them while they are in such a state of disarray?

  442. wull2 says:

    An update to my prediction 3 yeas ago, there will be a GE at the last minute, it will go down in history as the Brexit Party that took us out of the EU, lost Scotland and NI, and now possibly Wales. That way the two main parties wont get the blame.
    Vote SNP or YES, nothing else.
    Last thing Welcome to anybody new site, don’t be afraid to post, we don’t bite.

  443. Reluctant Nationalist says:

    Scottish National Galleries need gutted of the scum who run them.

  444. Dr Jim says:

    Back to the original premise of Scottish Independence and the reason for joining the EU

    In the UK Scotland has no vote or veto, in the EU Scotland has both

    In the EU population doesn’t count against the size and power of a country’s vote, every member state has the same, the Republic of Ireland is proof of that right next door

    The Faroe Islands with a population of just over 50.000 even though technically a devolved nation from Denmark has far greater power than Scotland and they’re doing very nicely

    Independent Iceland with a population of 350.000 and have none of the advantages of Scotland aren’t complaining either

    No country in the world that has removed itself from English control has ever been on the phone asking to return to the bosom of the great Imperial power, indeed it’s quite the opposite with places like Mauritius taking the UK to the UN to remove them from their territory of the Chagos Islands which the British cheekily rented a property not theirs to the Americans

    Does any country within the so called Commonwealth want to come back to the English fold, that’s a big definite no thank you very much

    Now there must be a reason for that

    Sectarianism and or money are the only things (people) preventing Scotland’s Independence, all the rest of the talk round about it is just political avoidance of that fact

    Scotland is just Northern Ireland without the blowy up stuff or we’d have been Independent already and the way things are going at the moment Wales might have more chance of becoming Independent quicker than Scotland, eh, they don’t have a sectarian problem

  445. Petra says:

    ‘Simplifying the Complications.’

    From Nana’s links at 10:17am.

    We’ll end this Union, one way or another, probably well before next Autumn via supporting Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP. Rest assured of that, Breeks, Lochside et al. Let’s just keep it simple, rather than convoluted, by working our backsides off to garner support for the only party that’s actually capable of ensuring that we achieve our objective. Running them down to the ground on a daily basis seems to me to be counter-productive, to say the least.

  446. Ottomanboi says:

    The majority of voters in the Radnor byelection voted for quit EU parties. Plaid Cymru chucking its votes away to the weirdy LibDems was a bad move, with effectively no return.
    Could you imagine the LDs standing down for PC and the Greens? Certainly not now they think Swinson’s ‘the business’. Watch out Ms Lucas.
    As regards the fabled Scottish sovereignty, I’ll truly believe in its existence when the bit of it allegedly down in London is brought back home.
    The Union treaty, executed by an unrepresentative Edinburgh parliament, had certainly zilch to do with the popular sovereignty concept.
    I do wonder if this is not one of those post Union Scotch myths we occasionally hear about: a cultural comfort blanket.
    In dealing with 21st century Unionism we need to get heads out of the clouds of fanciful exceptionalism. It can make you look just a bit wet behind the political ears.

  447. Footsoldier says:

    Labour really on the up – they beat the Official Monster Raving Loony Party by 1346 votes in the Radnor by-election.

  448. Breeks says:

    Robert Peffers says:
    2 August, 2019 at 1:18 pm
    @Breeks says: 2 August, 2019 at 5:56 am:

    ” … The day to day exercise of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty is neither being disrupted nor disputed.”

    Perhaps, Breeks, you might care to explain for us just what actual purpose would be served by the SNP at Westminster disrupting the day to day workings of the United Kingdom Parliament?

    Now I may be wrong, and I often am wrong, but I believe that all the Westminster SNP members would manage to do by such tactics would be to greatly reduce the rope that the Westminster Parliament is currently in great danger of hanging itself with.

    To put that another way – could the SNP MPs do a better job by disrupting the Westminster parliament than the combined Tory, Labour and LibDems are doing at every sitting of the parliament.

    I understand the point you’re making, but what purpose??? Seriously? Had the Scottish Government dug in hard to defend Scotland’s Remain mandate and Constitutional Sovereignty, then from that point to this, Scotland would have had it’s own Constitutional Backstop, a Sovereign veto, a Brexit kill switch, to rival Northern Ireland.

    Dear Westminster, You can have Brexit any way you like, except Scotland isn’t budging. The End. Love Scotland.

    By way of another example, had Joanna Cherry sought clarification from ECJ about whether Scottish Sovereignty was sufficient to revoke Article 50 unilaterally, (and having recognised Scots Law as distinct and extant just by hearing the case, it is hard to imagine they would have denied us), and then potentially the EU would have to rewind and start Brexit negotiations from scratch, only this time recognising Scottish Sovereignty and defending the lawful constraints of the Scottish Constitutional Backstop.

    I could go on…

  449. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Jockanese Wind Talker @ 12:22

    One fatal flaw in (some of) that reasoning is one that many seem to overlook, due it would seem to a combination of institutionalised passsivity and a failure to comprehend the true nature of power and politics. It’s what I could call the “hanged man fallacy”, or the “traffic victim fallacy”.

    In this case waiting for the axe to fall on Brexit before organising any real resistance (or in the case of Carolyn Leckie, just organising another protest march). Which by then is far too late. Power has shifted elsewhere and becomes practically irretrievable, whatever the rights of the situation. Just as it’s not possible to revive the innocent executed man or the person run over on the traffic crossing by a red-light jumper.

    Are we forgetting those “Henry VIII” powers in the hands of the Bozos?

    Besides which, we have a solemn promise (not a “Vow”, surely?) by Nicola herself from March 2017 that we would get to decide our future once the outcome is known but while we still have a meaningful choice. Surely we can no longer doubt the outcome, whether there is a UKGE or not in the meantime, and that the possibility of meaningful choice vanishes on Halloween this year?

  450. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    Your argument rests on the assumption that the Scottish Government and/or the SNP are/have been doing absolutely nothing behind the scenes (which we mere mortals have no visibility of) @Robert J. Sutherland says at 2:25 pm

    Yes, I am also making an assumption that they are!

    We’ll find out very soon either way.

  451. Lochside says:

    Proud Cybernat says:
    2 August, 2019 at 1:03 pm

    ‘Had SNP stood on an Indy Manifesto in Ge2015 they’d have been gubbed. They, rightly IMO, asked voters to “lend them their vote” to hold Unionist Parties’ feet to the fire’.

    They ‘held their feet to the fire’ again in 2017 and got gubbed by Ruth Davidson ‘No Surrender etc’ and lost 1/2 a million votes.So that worked well didn’t it?

  452. K1 says:

    Snide as ever RN. You should work on those ‘projections’. 🙂

  453. Clapper57 says:

    @ Lochside @ 12.25pm

    “Hence the disastrous support for a People’s vote ( which has been hijacked by the FibDems)”

    Hi Lochside, the Lib Dems have indeed hijacked the People’s vote campaign….Greens , SNP , Plaid C have been relegated to the side lines….fellow Liberal Guy Verhofstadt endorsing them as only true UK ‘Remain’ party….

    Some People seem happy to forget that these arseholes were a non entity pre Brexit vote…the Lib Dems had nothing to lose and saw an opening for themselves to gain votes by supporting this campaign for a so called People’s vote…they are basking in the light of the supposedly liberal minded luvvies who are willing to forget Lib Dems past abysmal and shocking record in their Tory alliance because they, the liberal minded luvvies, are happy to promote them, the Lib Dems, as a means to remain in EU.

    I watched video, post Swinson being elected as new leader of Lib Dems , and listened to her lies about pro Independence supporters in lead up to Indy Ref in 2014 .

    She said ” We saw it in Scotland first” “Indy Ref heralding harsh hostile politics”…stating No supporters had to hide their support for fear of retribution, Indy supporters protesting at BBC Pacific Q “demonising a journalist” ( Nick Robinson..but she did not mention his name)…also she did not mention ANY of the background to this protest….she also noted the twitter trolls, fake news and linking the emergence of the state of politics today as being prompted by the Independence Referendum campaign.

    Where does one start with this verbal diarrhea..frankly there is so much sheeite in this that it is hard to know where to start or whether just to consign it to….more crap from the crap party….in fact her perspective of reality is so easily refuted and is clearly the opinion one would expect from both a liar and a hard line Unionist, so easily communicating “fake news” via a speech riddled with anti Indy propaganda, and dare I say…using her won words again….definitely deploying ‘harsh hostile politics’… it does however confirm what we already knew that she is cut from the same inferior cloth as the rest of the Lib Dem liars that we, the Scots, have to unfortunately endure…. their presence in our politics pollutes the decent and honest politics we should expect to get as constituents..SHE knows what she says is not true…the PRESS know what she is saying is not true….but desperate times call for more lies from desperate proven liars….with an even more desperate media only to happy to promote, support and endorse it by lying also .

    If the SNP were NOT standing in my constituency and Lib Dem were I would never never never never never never never ever ever ever ever ever ever consider voting Lib Dem….they are fakes , liars and shit stirrers and would sell out Scotland if given the chance for power once again in a Tory alliance. I might even stand against them myself , if this was the situation, under the party called ” Anyone But The Lib Dems party”.Lol

    That’s another rant in the bag Lol

  454. manandboy says:

    Sinky says:
    “Worth buying two copies of The National to-morrow.
    Lets get the 7300 subscribers up to 10,000 and provide an effective pro Indy antidote to the numerous unionist newspapers.”

    Sinky, The Herald & The National are produced in the same office by the same Unionist owner. One horse, two colours. The 10k ain’t gonna happen. The Scots are too savvy for that trick.
    Now, if The National gave 100%, that would be a different story. But it can’t do that from the current stable.

    The National is a bit like the AUOB marches, in as much as there are more than Independence supporters involved, only too happy, as others have said, to be a cuckoo in the Independence nest.

    I am myself a former subscriber and loyal supporter of The ‘Richard Walker’ National, and for a long while after launch, in both online and hard copy, and am still moved to buy the wk-end edition regularly, ‘waiting’ for the day when it becomes a pure Indy paper. As if.

    Others of course will have different opinions. But the low circulation figures say it all.

  455. Clapper57 says:

    My above post @ 2.48pm

    “using her won words again” should be ” using her OWN words again”

  456. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    Jockanese Wind Talker @ 14:32,

    No, I appreciate that the SG are likely making all sorts of preparations, but my apprehension is due to the very fact that they are invisible to the general public. It’s the public dimension that worries me most. And, I guess, those who would have wished for a public defence of The Claim of Right and suchlike. For me it’s not merely a theoretical exercise but an intensely practical one: by creating a cause célèbre of some kind, we actually win people over because the injustice then becomes manifest to all.

    If we don’t have the public onside for independence, everything else falls, just as you carefully outlined earlier. And the UKGov, now preparing an absolutely massive no-deal-exit PR campaign, clearly realises that. And it has the (ie. our!) money for it.

  457. Breeks says:

    Robert J. Sutherland says:
    2 August, 2019 at 2:25 pm

    …..Which by then is far too late. Power has shifted elsewhere and becomes practically irretrievable, whatever the rights of the situation. Just as it’s not possible to revive the innocent executed man or the person run over on the traffic crossing by a red-light jumper.

    I agree 100%.

    I’m not a lawyer to give you the source, but long before anything final like death, there’s a principle in law that if you repeatedly don’t defend yourself, then eventually you will forfeit the right to defend yourself. There are lots of examples.. I think the Americans call it limitation of statute or something… after so many years you cannot be prosecuted… but there are other “get-outs” too.

    There is another principle, in Contract law, that you have a duty to yourself to mitigate damage suffered by yourself. For example, if your sofa is on fire, but you don’t call the fire brigade because the house is insured anyway, if your insurer twigs you delayed calling the Fire Brigade, you might find they pay out on the accidental damage to the sofa, but not the fire damage to the rest of the house that you could have prevented.

    You really should address a grievance or injustice as soon as you are aware of it. If you don’t, you may have to explain why you didn’t, and it might open a can of worms.

    If Scotland is as sovereign as we think it is, then we’d do ourselves a massive service by making absolutely sure….

  458. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    K1 @ 14:40,

    (Nice to see you back again, K1, however briefly. I have missed your =errm= pithy expressions. =grin=)

  459. PictAtRandom says:

    Dr Jim @ 1.30

    “Greater Weegieville is just Northern Ireland without the blowy up stuff or we’d have been Independent already”

    Fixed it fur ye.

  460. Robert Peffers says:

    @Jockanese Wind Talker says:2 August, 2019 at 12:28 pm:

    ” … The Sovereignty of the Scottish People has never really had a definitive legal answer.”

    Thing is the sovereignty of the People of Scotland, per se, doesn’t need a definitive answer for it is a basic part of Scots Law. There is absolutely no doubt that under Scots law the people of Scotland are sovereign and it did not just stop dead in the Declaration of Arbroath for it is used in even modern vehicle parking laws in Scotland.

    That, though, is not the problem. It is the many ways that sovereignty can be applied where the legal arguments not only begin but also end but some of Scotland’s finest legal brains are in the SNP and I’m sure they have given much more than a passing thought to the matter.

    Here are a few thoughts on the matter – The franchise in 1707 did not extend to other than those with land. Common people did not have the vote. How does that affect the signing of the Treaty of Union?

    Not only that but the Treaty of Union was not exactly what could be called a free vote by those who did have the franchise. By anyone’s standards the Treaty of Union was a rather shady deal and probably illegal and that’s a complication to start with. I posted a link to a good video here on Wings today. Actors speak some of the known dialogue and there is input from descendants of the Scottish aristocrats giving their opinions.

    Anyway, there is the first legal argument – could the Treaty of Union be declared illegal by not being a free and honest agreement?

    Next up are some legal considerations like, was it the will of the people of Scotland when the people were rioting in the streets against it? The point of that argument is that although the parliamentarians voted for it and signed it did they have the proxy of the legally sovereign people or perhaps was the people’s sovereignty at that time only applicable to those with the franchise or did it need a majority of all the people?

    To put that another way did the parliamentarians have the legal proxy of the common people and did they legally need it under the laws of that time? Anyway that was then – what about now?

    Does Westminster have the legal right to claim the proxy of the sovereign people of Scotland when the Westminster government are elected by everyone in the United Kingdom? Does the Holyrood parliament have the proxy of the majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland on everything or only of non-reserved matters?

    Now I could go on all day with such questions casting doubts on the matter and I’m not a lawyer so just how many more legal questions could a bunch of Westminster legal experts throw into the mix? Climate change could have wiped us all off the Earth and they could still arguing about it to the last two standing. What we see as simple matters could be blown out of all proportion and the case for independence in a court of law lost.

    So there’s the problem but there is a simple solution. If the SNP/SG get a majority of the legally sovereign people of Scotland who want independence there isn’t a government in the United Kingdom that could wriggle out of granting it because the United Kingdom, the EU, the United Nations and even the Geneva Convention have all been signed up to by the Westminster Government. With all that opinion against them they would have to accept the right of the people of Scotland to self determination.

    It has been said here on Wings countless times that the SNP need a specific majority of the people of Scotland voting for independence. No matter what those who run down the FM/SG/SNP say or do these isn’t going to be a claim for independence until we give them that majority. Furthermore if a vote is held and lost wave independence goodbye.

  461. Robert J. Sutherland says:

    me @ 14:52 (& others),

    Given the media environment in which we find ourselves, we should acknowledge the point made by RP among others that one shouldn’t interrupt one’s opponents while they are making mistakes, and Lord knows, our opponents (UKGov, but also Labour and even the media) have been very industrious in that department. Fr’instance, look what has happened to Tank Commander Colonel Ruthie: great fanfare once but now demoted to Private Leper.

    But we shouldn’t be fooled by BoJo. He may be a careless buffoon, but I wouldn’t count on it in the greater scheme of things. He seems to positively intend a UK wide “national” catharsis in which “lesser” concerns like ours are drowned-out by his own self-imposed major crisis. A cunning plan that makes Swinson’s posturing about “harder to leave UK Union than EU” look like mere chickenfeed.

    But there must surely come a time, and a time very soon now, when we have to be more proactive in garnering public support. Getting on the front foot instead of all this unconvincing “petitioning”. We can’t continue forever to rely on our opponents keeping playing the game clumsily to our advantage while otherwise pretending we don’t exist. Judging by her demeanour the other day, though, our FM isn’t under any such delusions.

    And it does seem wonderfully appropriate, does it not, that the English PM most likely to go down in history as “losing Scotland” should be BoJo?

  462. Liz g says:

    Robert J Sutherland @ 5.59
    Well said Robert J..
    Although I must admit I’d take much more pleasure in Auld Betty Windsor being the monarch who couldn’t hold these Kingdom’s United being her legacy…

  463. Colin Alexander says:

    The Constitutional convention is that the UK parliament cannot bind its successors (because parliament is sovereign). By the same reasoning this applied to the auld sovereign Scottish Parliament too?

    The Scottish Parliament was considered sovereign, from the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. Scotland having a legally limited monarchy, not an absolute sovereign.

    The Scottish Parliament, before it was prorogued, passed the Union with England Act in 1707. This is the basis of the UK ( along with the Parliament of England’s Union with Scotland Act 1706).

    I would argue the devolution parliament can be dissolved by a reconvened sovereign Scottish Parliament by Scotland’s MPs. The reconvened Scottish Parliament could then legislate to amend or abolish the Union with England Act 1707. The heart of this matter is not independence, it is sovereignty. Having the ultimate or final say.

    The people of Scotland are ultimately sovereign, they cannot be bound by UK Parliament or the EU. They only have to decide to exercise sovereignty or take back control.

    However, we face the onslaught of One Nation British Nationalism: Stu warned of this over six years ago:

  464. mr thms says:

    For anyone looking for signs that the UK will be keaving the EU.

    This story about free ports says

    “Seaports and airports will be able to apply for free port status, to be set up after the UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October.

    Such zones are allowed under EU law, although backers argue the benefits would be greater after Brexit if the UK is allowed to diverge from EU rules.”

    I like the timing because recently

    “Publicly-owned Prestwick Airport put up for sale”

  465. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    “One Nation British Nationalism” = Fascism

  466. Legerwood says:

    mr thms @ 5.29 PM

    Free ports. This may be of interest to you. Boris Jonson received campaign donation from the owners of Bristol ports as did Jeremy Hunt apparently. Nothing like hedging your bets!

  467. Dr Jim says:


    You’re wrong, North east Fishermen, Perth, Ayrshire, Dumfries
    all of those places cess pits of sectarianism, and that’s without counting the central belt

  468. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    manandboy at 2.50 pm

    What dispiriting pish. “The subscribers” is only part of the daily hard sales, there is a significant online purchase and it is an excellent daily independence supporting newspaper.
    Its readers letters are very lively (all four pages) and off the top of my head there are terrific contributions weekly from Carolyn Leckie, Mhairi Black, Angus Robertson,Tasmina,WGD,Patrick Harvey, Lesley Riddoch, George Kerevan, Kevin McKenna, Pate Kane, Michael Fry, Michael Russell, Ross Greer as political commentators plus wide range of good and informed journalists.

    Whe I see attacks on the National (by those who obviously don’t read or recognise it)I know I am talking to a wee pretendy friend

  469. Petra says:

    @ Dave says at 11:39pm ….. “Wee pretendy friends.”

    It never ceases to amaze me, although in many cases it REALLY disappoints me, how they all emerge from the woodwork eventually, especially at crisis point. Then we all have to keep a close eye on them thereafter…… But not for much longer thank the Lord.

  470. Confused says:

    @Ian Brotherhood – nice orwell essay – my god didn’t he write long paragraphs, something I don’t remember from the books

    orwell would probably win an award, if such existed, for most-namechecked-but-least-read-and-understood authors – I remember getting him at school, then finding out about 10 years later the Ministry of Truth was based on the BBC. Missed a bit.

    while kissinger getting the nobel peace prize was on another level – david aaronovitch winning the orwell prize a few years ago is close to it; a neocon warmonger who never saw a war he was not in favour, such a victory is self referentially orwellian.

    – aaronovitch probably read about the “boot stomping on the human face forever” and was quite in favour of the idea

    alasdair gray had a short story called “5 letters from an eastern empire” – if I remember it

    – a poet has a commission with a despot with some very evil plans
    – he doesn’t like the job and so writes a poem which attacks the evil despot
    – the despot takes the poem, has ONE WORD changed, to utterly alter its meaning and says thanks very much

    and the CIA, of all things, funded the animal farm cartoon, and fucked with the ending.

    writers and artists are more sensitive than the general public – they see and feel what is coming down – but the system has an amazing ability to co-opt even those who would oppose it

    Alasdair Gray knocked back the OBE I believe, good on him – but John Lydon is now a national treasure. Punk, conceived as anti-fashion, anti-music(biz) is now just another genre of music and fashion. If not prevention, if not suppression, then embrace and subvert it.

    (- I’m rattling on here – one last thing …)

    a while ago, when the catalonia thing erupted, the blogs were aflame, a lot of people trying to read-across, and their perception -probably- based on some mis-remembered, long ago, skim thru 50 pages and a study guide read, of “homage to catalonia”, in order to churn out an essay for a slack B-; but my take is a bit different to most, maybe because my recall is quite good –

    – orwell is a bit of a twat, in real life
    – orwell joins the “wrong communists”
    – there are 3 groups fighting the fascists
    – communists and anarchists, with 2 types of communists
    – what could possible go wrong? (franco is in power to 1974)
    (I would consider Spike Milligan’s war memoirs to be superior)

    the only read-across is : be very careful about people who claim to be on the same side as you – and I am directly thinking about the bella-tendency here.

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

↑ Top