Let Justice Be Done
You should probably watch the whole of this speech by Sir David Davis this evening, even if you saw the trailer three and a quarter years ago.
It’s both a comprehensive refresher of events surrounding the Scottish Government’s conspiracy to convict Alex Salmond on false charges, and a sharp reminder of why Scotland is, in truth, not yet a country in a fit administrative state for independence.
But one part in particular ought to be the headline news tonight.
Those 63 seconds mark the first time that anyone of standing has publicly named Liz Lloyd, formerly Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff (and current media pundit), as the source of the illegal leak to Davie Clegg, then editor of the Daily Record, which led to the newspaper’s publication of the allegations against Salmond.
Davis did so under Parliamentary privilege, because aspects of the Salmond case are still the subject of a live criminal inquiry, and have now been so for more than two years without any action resulting from it.
That continuing inquiry frustrates Salmond’s attempts to bring a long-awaited civil prosecution against the Scottish Government, formally initiated last November but which cannot (in practical terms) continue until the criminal inquiry is concluded.
(Operation Newbiggin, the inquiry into the actual leak itself, was closed down earlier this year because while Police Scotland established criminality, they didn’t have a sufficient degree of evidence about the culprit to be confident of conviction. However, the Crown Office inquiry into perjury continues. Also, the standard of proof in a civil case is lower, so the failure of Newbiggin does not necessarily mean that Salmond’s civil prosecution would fail.)
The illegal leak of the allegations to the press took place in August 2018, so it will soon be six years since Salmond was accused, and yet the matter remains a festering sore upon public life. The Scottish Government, and the current First Minister, have both obstructed and interfered with justice at every possible turn in an attempt to keep the truth from coming to light, as Davis painstakingly detailed.
His statement to the Commons came in the context of the King’s Speech, in which the Labour government announced some welcome steps to strengthen the Scottish Parliament – a duty of candour, the extension of Parliamentary privilege (currently only applicable to Westminster) to Holyrood, and the separation of the powers of the Lord Advocate, all matters on which Wings readers have been well informed.
All three will help make Scotland a more just and accountable country, something at which the Salmond fiasco exposed grave shortcomings. No nation in which the judicial system appears to be under the significant control/influence of the government (and is answerable to no-one), and in which the chief prosecutor also serves as a minister in government, can ever be truly said to be worthy of self-rule.
Davis revealed that there is an indisputable prima facie case to answer in terms of perjury around the Salmond inquiry. (Neither he nor this site makes any assertion of any individual’s guilt, only of a stateable case.)
Unlike in the far more complex case of Operation Branchform, whose progress is also now measured in years but which has at least resulted in one person (so far) being charged, it is hard to see what could remain to be investigated. There are very few players in the matter. Who could be left to ask?
So it’s time, as Sir David says, for the Crown Office to resolve the matter one way or the other – either by a prosecution which establishes guilt or innocence, or by officially dropping the matter and enabling Salmond’s civil claim to proceed.
The truth cannot be forever delayed. Justice must take its course and be seen to be done. Though the heavens fall.
Watch the few remaining SNP ("Tractor" - Ed) MPs leave at the start of the speech! Shame on every one of them!
Well reported and now await the ensuing outcome if prosecutions against said named individuals.
As long as we have the premise of guilty until proven innocent, masquerading as so-called corroboration, we will never have justice. Its a system open to abuse and injustice, all in the name of spending less on the police. God forbid they do real police work. The legal system is an arse
Collusion between the crown office and SNP government to convict a political opponent never more evident. Welcome the Scotland under the SNP.
The walls are closing in
Good lord!
That’s put the cat very much amongst the pigeons. There now has to be a case that establishes who did what, though I suspect right now there’s a lot of people crapping themselves. Obviously one needs to be careful what’s said as we don’t have the same parliamentary privilege as Davis, but it’s good this is now in the open.
Let the games begin. I can’t wait to see who breaks the walls of silence first.
Den
Ignored says:
18 July, 2024 at 8:36 pm
Collusion..
Probably worth bearing in mind Salmond, Murray and Hirst were all SNP members at the time.
No! It wisnae the “not remotely Scottish” yank-politics-spouting English woman! “Big girl did it run away!” Betty Lloyd and Sturgeon laughed like hell when they shat oan Salmond, the stinking sleekit shite slices thit they ur.
link to heraldscotland.com
The cracks are appearing. The pressure will build. The dam will burst.
And who is the wee fanny looking on?
Pathetic well we’ll see.
Can’t see it going to the wire.
Weird how some get off with real serious shit
David Davies is a good man of integrity.
A good speech, well done that man! Bringing grubby things out into the fresh air and daylight is the best way to get rid of the stench and stains. The court actions are getting interesting now, maybe soon we will see and hear some long awaited revelations. And hopefully certain capital letters and their handlers have many sleepless nights to come.
Lorna Campbell
Ignored says:
18 July, 2024 at 9:19 pm
The cracks are appearing. The pressure will build. The dam will burst.
Hope so Lorna. COPFS, Polis, Civil Service, Press. All guilty,
All have reasons to not let justice to be done. The police are the only one of these institutions I would rate as likely to do their jobs honestly in the absence of political interference. The Crown office have all the evidence they need why aren’t they prosecuting?
Just needs the first one to burst and take the deal now. Then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
One does hope that a few persons’ bots are touching cloth now.
It’s a start, I notice there’s a total media blackout on this though. They managed to keep it out the media long enough that people don’t care. I absolutely believe there’s been some favours from the police and prosecution service to protect the leak. Why else would things drag on so long.
If Davis is covered by parliamentary privilege he should name the main accuser in the Salmond trial, that might get some peoples attention.
Liz Lloyd. Fanny washer.
Well done nicoliar. Pervert extra. You’ve shafted us.
Not me. I got your drift before most. You’re a fecking pervert.
So far the Times and the National have covered this story.
The Herald? Nope.
The Daily Retard? Nae chance.
Gotta love that David Davis dude.
“My comment is awaiting moderation” and I don’t know why.
Why is that Stu?
I don’t really know enough to comment however I will anyway.
As bad as it is, the leaking of information to the press goes back since kingdom come. A former FM accused and charged with sex crimes is always going to be a story in the public interest. Is it really going to be seen as much more than a misdemeanor even in the unlikely event it was taken forward? What was the chain of events if she hadn’t (allegedly) leaked it? It would always have come out anyway, surely?
Well, the source of the Daily Wrecker leak has now been named in The Times.
One less bit of information that can be redacted
It’s a pity he didn’t mention the names of the alphabet women.
P.S
David Davis also stated:
“However, I have personally met with a witness who has made the statement that he was told by the then political editor of the Daily Record that the story was in fact leaked to them by Liz Lloyd.”
Sorry did I hear the freudian “Leslie Evidence”?
I am torn between wondering if the gormless Scots squad are capable of investigating anything and if the scottish press and the BBC can be any more culpable in their framing and or ignoring the obvious given they involvement in the cover up.
Still piece by piece those protecting Nicola are stepping back. Westminster is notorious for back tabbing their little puppets so I guess jail awaits.
I wonder how many of the vietnam group will end up in jail.
“make Scotland a more just and accountable country”
Highly doubtful in a colonial society where the purpose of state institutions is to protect the interest of the colonial power. ‘Self-rule’ in a colony is a mirage; what we see is Lord Lugard’s ‘indirect rule’.
I strongly believe that, when Woman H is revealed as a perjurer, and who her husband is, the Scottish MSM, ie The Scottish Sun and The Daily Record, going by what is read by workers in my establishment, will be unable to ignore the ramifications.
That’s when the politically-uninterested will finally see what’s been going on for the past ten years, orchestrated by Sturgeon and her lackeys in the SNP.
I hope you are right, BDTT, but the comments on The National’s facebook post aren’t encouraging.
Mind you The National managed to make it look like a “Tory” attack on Scotland – “A former Tory Minister has called for Holyrood to be given tougher powers to look into the unlawful investigation of Alex Salmond” so many of the comments are all about Tories and that Davis is a friend of Salmond.
link to tinyurl.com
David Davis names Nicola Sturgeon’s aide as Salmond leak source
Colleagues of Lloyd have said that Davis is not correct and David Clegg, the former political editor of the Daily Record who broke the story, said: “I have never and would never reveal the identity of a confidential source.”</i
Is it legal for David Clegg to lie to the police or not to answer their questions?
Is that not a bit weird?
How would colleagues of Lloyd Know were they the ones who leaked the document to Clegg? Colleagues? Would one of them be called Nicola?
I could never warm to Alex Salmond, and while it is unfair to judge someone you have never met, I thought him a smug and rather oily character. However, he is obviously a clever man, and an agile and effective politician.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, if the political machinery of Scotland has the ability to effect what appears to have been an entirely contrived criminal prosecution against someone of his stature, then none of us are safe.
When churches were rather more popular and significant to people than they seem now to be, the Church of Scotland could, (and still can) demonstrate a distinct division between Church and State, relative to the situation which obtains elsewhere.
Until it can be established that, in Scotland, there is an equal separation between national governance and the application of the law, this will continue to.be a very uncomfortable environment in which to live.
All that toxic wee bastard Sturgeon and her cohorts including Swinney have achieved in nigh ten years is to turn this country into a banana republic without the bananas.
If wishes could come true I’d wish every one of these oxygen thieves the vilest of terminal conditions, because whatever Hell might have in store for them isn’t enough.
Other than The Times, not a single MSM outlet makes mention of D Davis, nor was any SNP bench warmer present in the House to listen.
Tells you all you need know about the SNP and the British Establishment. A relationship most eloquently summarised by George Orwell – “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
Alex and I were both elected to Westminster in 1987. I’m happy to say that we remained friends throughout our time there and since, despite the fact that we represented different parties, though he knew that I supported independence (and still do).
It never crossed my mind when this sorry affair was raised publicly that he would have committed these offences.
I was delighted when a Scottish jury took the same view.
David Davis, another friend from the same intake has finally exposed the actions that led to his trial, and rightly named those responsible.
It’s time for them to face justice themselves.
Sturgeon and the Lesbian conspiracy to make Scotland the first gay state in the world.
Hi Lewis Moonie.
Good to see you commenting BTL at WOS! Any more?
robertkknight @ 11:41
Other than The Times, not a single MSM outlet makes mention of D Davis…
Here’s The Independent:
link to msn.com
… and The Express:
link to scottishdailyexpress.co.uk
It’s likely The Telegraph will follow suit, not least because they hold the Scottish Government in no special regard and frequently employ Davis to write guest columns for them.
In other words, some papers will go with this while others (probably) won’t. Not sure what this says about the evil British “Establishment”. Likely absolutely nothing.
Hi Lewis Moonie @ 11.42pm
Thank you for your post.
Very much appreciated.
Would this surfaced if Scotland was independent and the curtains closed
spill the beans, i’m in Germany I can say things that you can’t.
Lord Moonie @ 11.42pm:
I echo the appreciation expressed by others earlier.
Does not the House of Lords also enjoy parliamentary privilege? If so, may I suggest you might use it from your seat on the red benches – subject to the constraints of ongoing criminal investigations?
Mr Davis in the Commons before now has suggested extending privilege to the Scottish Parliament. An amendment to the Scotland Act proposing this, initiated in the Lords, would be difficult for the Holyrood régime to resist.
I leave that thought with you.
The full statement is blistering to watch. I’ve never been so enthralled by a political speech ever. These characters need to be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and/or perjury immediately. The SNP are dead to me as are any remaining supporters.
The two ALBA MPs should have had the perfect opportunity to reveal the identities of Salmond’s accusers at Westminster.
But I understand they were instructed by the clerks that due to the ongoing police investigations they would not be legally protected by normal Parliamentary privilege.
The much tauted Parliamentary privilege at the Westminster parliament is not as freely available as one would have thought.
It would be fantastic if David Davis can do what the ALBA MPs could not.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
They will do their utmost to prevent Alex Salmond from getting the justice he deserves, and to save the conspirators from going to jail.
What a coincidence, I was talking about this stuff just a couple of days ago…
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
I’ve discovered the little speaker button on Google translate and with it the wonders of having a posh English female voice read out assorted swear words and other terrible things.
Anyway, didn’t Tommy get two or three years for perjury? I think he did. Don’t quote me on that.
Okay, time to explore lewd with the posh Google translate woman…
Back in about three weeks.
charlie says:
19 July, 2024 at 1:18 am
“spill the beans, i’m in Germany I can say things that you can’t.”
Under the Scottish dictatorship’s draconian laws, what you say/write in Germany becomes said/written in Scotland the moment someone in Scotland hears/reads it.
You would become liable to arrest the moment you arrived in the UK.
That is how bad the situation has become in this banana colony, where, as the Rev. Stuart Campbell found out, no one can be held accountable.
Note: Davis also said he had spoken to a witness who attributed the leak to Liz Lloyd. That’s potentially interesting as the witness might be willing to stand up and be counted…
I wonder who he is. A disgruntled politician who lost his seat perhaps? That doesn’t it narrow it down much but it might explain the timing.
HAL-9000 : What is going to happen?
Dave : Something wonderful.
HAL-9000 : I’m afraid.
Dave : Don’t be. We’ll be together.
Nothing to see here – move along.
The State, skilled in the arts of obfuscation and deception, will protect its own.
And there you have it. As recorded on many spoilt ballot papers of the day – Corrupt as fuck. An ugly, ugly stain that won’t wash away until justice can be done. But that day can never come because government can never be seen to be corrupt and let all the pension collectors collect their pensions.
It was solely the weight of guilty embarrassment that forced those SNP MPs to hurriedly vacate the Chamber. Starmer’s Scottish branch office might be expected to capitalise on this, but will the anonymous players in this cack-handed plot allow such a thing?
link to tinyurl.com
Lewis Moonie
You are a good man! Thank you so much for campaigning for women.
I hope you keep posting. Most of the men on here aren’t into that sort of thing.
One if the biggest disappointments for me is Joanna Cherry saying well done to DD and she knew stuff as well but couldn’t say for fear of her safety because she’s a woman.
I mean, WTAF
All of them had parliamentary privilege and not one single coward spoke up, not one
I wonder if the person who told David Davis was indeed the person running to take over the Scottish Tories Russell Findlay because he knew. I find it strange that he could have brought down Sturgeons government but didn’t .
Wait, what?
The man who jailed Assange is going to gift Holyrood a duty of candour, the right to defame journalists, and delegate a new master for the Lord’s advocate (presumably in order to relieve them from any current or future duties of candour under the new regime)
Fascinating!
As Hatuey partially observed @3:56am though, whilst parliamentary privilege certainly extends to defamation, there’s probably a line somewhere between murder (aka Julius Caeser on senate floor) and intentional disrespect of a court order (with or without malice).
Furthermore, as Joanna Cherry admirably demonstrated previously, Westminster conventions are subordinate to Scots Law IN ANY EVENT so could* yet be encouraging if COPFS turn out to be as determined to seek a two year imprisonment of Mr Davies as they were in the case of Craig Murray.
* Failing which Mr Davies’ interpretation of the current rules would presumably allow John Swinney to order his arrest (via the Lord Advocate) or, perhaps better yet, let Nicola Sturgeon ask Holyrood to defend her reputation (and enhance it’s own) by voting for it
🙂
David Harvie ( now sheriff in Inverness ) accused by Davis of not telling the whole truth under oath . Isn’t that perjury ?
What do you suppose that lot at Holyrood will do with parliamentary privilege?
None of them seem all that interested.
Don’t forget ‘The Hate Monster’ Charlie.
Anything published in Scotland is a hate crime in Scotland.
The Hate Monster Cops police the entire internet.
You could be arrested as soon as you get off the plane in Scotland and they may even be able to have you extradited.
I love that man David Davis. Set the truth free. God bless him and his family. The right honourable David Davis indeed.
Leaky Liz – not enough plumbers in the entirety of Scotland to stop the drip drip stench of corruption.
We know leaky liz and the alphabetties are going to hell. Via Corton Vale.
LEAKY LIZ. Corrupt to the core!!! Take her away boys! Her deeds would shame all the devils in hell!!!
I want to echo Liz and say what a disappointment it is that we have to rely on an English Tory MP to defend our rights as Scots to justice.
I had long ago given up on the SNP of working for us, but we did have a couple of Alba MPs who could easily have raised this matter (perhaps even in a slightly annoying manner).
This disgusting episode, and the criminals who perpetrated it, needs dealt with, before we can proceed.
It wouldn’t matter if the Stooge stood in front of a TV camera and said ..” I wiz me whit dunnit , aw it , the plot tae chib Salmond , that wiz ma idea “… the Cult would still not believe their guru is anything other than a divine fusion of Mother Teresa n Joan D’Arc , possessed of the strategic genius of Sun Tzu & the wisdom of Solomon , natch .
The disembodied spectres who flutter , moth-like , around the dim , guttering candlelight provided by paid apologist sites like , eg WGD , wailing pitifully for their Golden Age when the Tories were still around to blame everything on and provide an all-engulfing smokescreen for the consistent failures of the Stusafinney Caliphate of Clowns ; people who screamed ” Conspiracy Theory ” at any departure from the * Covid * Hysteria group-think dogma are now declaring that Sturgeon is the victim of a plot by WM because – wait for it – I actually read this – they considered her the greatest threat to the * Union * – no , really , some people actually believe that ludicrous fantasy .
Yes , according to them the victim here is Sturgeon .
” Ladies & Gentlemen we are floating in Space ” .
Untethered from any recognisable reality , hopelessly adrift in a political vacuum , moving inexorably towards a Black Hole of Utter Folly : a Wormhole leading to a bizarre universe where an outlandish mutant species formed by the merging of BLiS & BiS rule over a race of castrated sheep-like creatures , fed on a diet of green carrots and pecked-at incessantly by strange wingless birds they call Wishart’s Tits .
Future to the Back 🙂
Got me thinking… thinking out loud… Maybe I should mull it over for a bit…
But while David Davis is refreshingly clear and succinct in his speech, it becomes clear that to a huge extent, the rehabilitation of Alex Salmond’s political career relies upon UK Parliamentary process and protocol. Do away with that option, and you’d deny yourself access to a wide variety of useful tools and unstruments.
Without putting words into Alex Salmond’s mouth, if I was in his shoes, I might be very reluctant to, say, impeach the Holyrood Government and the colonial Scotland Act while those very same “institutions” represented the most plausible route to justice and vindication.
It’s a bit like dodgy Police Officers resigning before they can be properly investigated. Were Salmond to collapse the institutons, those implicated in wrongdoing would be let off the hook. (Maybe not the best metaphor to use in the circumstances).
Again, thinking out loud, I wonder whether this is a factor in Salmond’s thinking, and goes some way to expain why Salmond’s defence seems pedestrian and lacklustre, while many believe he is being weak when he should be tearing down the house and gettin’ intae them!
While I find these delays insufferable, I imagine it’s equally so for Mr Salmond. And while I’m champing at the bit to take a match to the Scotland Act, the Salmond stitch-up is one of the very small number of issues which need to be dealt with, first, because the implications could be profound, and their effect on the political landscape of Scotland absolutely seismic.
link to hansard.parliament.uk
Here’s a written transcript of DD’s speech from Hansard. Always handy if you want to quote something he said.
It says:
He is currently suing the Scottish Government in a civil action. That has been assisted as some of those involved in constructing the case against Mr Salmond are now themselves under police investigation.
Should that not be sisted?
I’ve just recently learned what ‘sisted’ means although I’m still struggling to understand what’s going on with all these court cases.
There was some confusion earlier this week about Herald articles which appeared to be old articles. I’m wondering if they were updated because the case had been sisted.
It’s all quite confusing. I wonder why it wasn’t published elsewhere & why Tom Gordon didn’t make it clearer in his ‘updated’ articles.
Those involved in constructing the case against Mr Salmond are now themselves under police investigation
Is that not big news?
It’s all very weird!
I’m away!
Got this sinking feeling that by the time I get back this thread will be filled with post about Moonhowlers.
Liz Lloyd’s “council of war whatsapp group.”
She sickens me.
Ruby,
Why would the Herald protect them and who would have the power to tell tom gordon what not to write.
Think on that.
Sturgeon KNEW. She orchestrated the entire conspiracy! Her henchwoman and her. Orange is the new black. Leslie Evans. Disgrace to Scotland.
Salmond’s coming for the 3 million Nicola. The motorhome and the showroom.
Cough it up Nicola. You’re going down! Your corruption we will not tolerate a second longer.
God bless David Davis. A hero. We’ve waited 3 years. Set the truth free. The Wings Over Scotland.
Can someone enlighten me why a Scottish MP couldn’t have done this in parliament?
Is it only English MPs that have parliamentary privileges?
I listened to it all. Damning in the extreme.
One contradictory phrase stood out. The rule of law in Scotland?
Aye, right.
I notice Davis referenced a whistleblower in regards to WhatsApp messages;
“A whistleblower revealed communications from Sue Ruddick, the SNP’s chief operating officer that in their words point to
““to collusion, perjury, up to criminal conspiracy.””
Does anyone know who that whistleblower is?
Good to hear this come out formally, so to speak, even though it’s no surprise to anyone following Scottish social media over the last few years. This whole sordid affair stinks, particularly when viewed in the specific context which Dani Garavelli inadvertently revealed in her infamous article (which can’t be mentioned here). I hope Alex Salmond gets justice.
When you hear this you realise that it is a jungle in which we live.
Police, prosecution, civil servants and police utterly corrupt and in truth no different from the Nazi’s of the 1930s.
In America the second amendment was introduced to allow people to resist bad government because where do people go when they have governments that are wesponised against them.
Sadly guns have proved, for different reasons, to be an absolute tragedy in the US. But the principal of defence against bad government and it’s apparatus of state is sound because where do you go
when there is no rule of law.
But to maybe conclude here is a thought. Governments like Sturgeon and their apparatus of state can illegally brutalise innocent law abiding folks but if it was a Glasgow gangster would they do it. Of course they wouldn’t. And maybe that is the hard reality.
And when that genie is out of the bottle, and folks are accountable how does one think behaviours will change.
But going back to Sir David Davis he is a good man for raising the absolutely corrupt rule of law here in Scotland
If SNP insiders can deny LL’s involvement, does that mean they know who did it?
A Big Boy who ran away?
“Does anyone know who that whistleblower is?”
Thereby ending the career of said whistlblower?
I’ve lived 50 years in Scotland — and never want to live anywhere else. But I will never understand Scottish politics: and I begin to think that few, if any, of the commenters on this site understand it either. It is now more than 3 years since David Davis’s first adjournment debate speech put on quotable public record the intimate involvement of the Scottish judicial system, the Scottish police, the Scottish Government and its civil servants, the Scottish press, SNP MPs and MSPs and SNP staff in the conspiracy to destroy Alex Salmond. And still, apparently, it seems to many commenters here that now at last the dam will burst, all will be revealed, the guilty will be named and shamed, and justice will be done.
I’m in favour of Scottish independence; but any unionist who asks me whether I want to live in a country ruled and run as Scotland is ruled and run, will find me shamed into silencce.
I just watched the David Davis speech via the link. The people who were attempting to ruin Alex Salmond were at the same time packing out the SNP and the public sector with people who actually were guilty of the types of crimes which AS had been falsely accused of.
This is not unique to Scotland, yesterday I posted about an extremely powerful kabal of lawyers, media and special interest groups within the EU forcing trans ideology onto unwilling countries and cultures, see The Denton Files. MI5/England/Westminster does not have that extent of reach.
Davis’s contribution is valuable and reminds us that the same stinking corruption and tainted leadership are still in place in Scotland.
But in 2021, in the Scottish election, the Sturgeon cabal still got re-elected; the electorate just did not care.
Will a Labour UK government now and likely 2026 Labour Scottish government take any concrete actions to improve things e.g. parliamentary immunity, separation of prosecutorial service from government, impartiality of civil service?
I have no doubt that every SNP MP/MSP/staffer knows exactly who handed over the documents.
Lloyd Quinan on Through a Scottish Prism said that a civil servant gave it to a senior staffer who gave it to a more junior staffer who gave it to David Clegg. Lloyd said that the junior staffer later became a junior minister.
So Liz Lloyd can deny that she gave the documents to David Clegg because she made sure that someone else made the final handover.
I looked at the junior ministers who came into office after the leak and one name stands out to me as very likely. But as I say, there are plenty of people who know exactly what happened. And so none of the SNP MP/MSP/staff can be trusted because they are ALL complicit.
Well reported as before when you first highlighted this and you covered the whole case really well. But nothing happened, Will something happen?. I noticed this reported in The National and the Scottish Daily Express as well as on here but haven’t been able to find it on BBC or the Scottish papers. Not saying it hasn’t been reported but that’s all I could find.
The «not remotely Scottish» Liz Lloyd from NE England, the ancestral homeland of Sturgeon.
Small wonder the nationalist word always stuck in Sturgeon’s throat.
Frank Waring
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 11:41 am
I’m in favour of Scottish independence; but any unionist who asks me whether I want to live in a country ruled and run as Scotland is ruled and run, will find me shamed into silencce.
With respect, you’re not paying attention Frank.
Salmond’s Government was well run on the whole, given the powers it had; not perfect but good enough to put the fear of God into Westminster and unionists at large. For the first time in decades, hope of a better life was beginning to blossom.
That’s the whole point of getting to the truth of Sturgeon’s grubby conspiracy to destroy that hope; destroy Alex Salmond, YES, the SNP, Scottish Independence and Scotland’s sovereign Constitution, and the free rein she was given to do so by the corrupt Establishment and media. She’s burned it all to the ground.
Before you rush to judgement, Cui bono Frank? Cui bono, and who had the means and influence to do this? Sturgeon’s creeps and delinquent imbeciles? Don’t make me laugh…
For Scotland to build an administration, a government, fit to manage her affairs as an independent nation…she must first become an independent nation.
It would be a logical error in thinking to assert that Scotland must be in a fit administrative state before she can be independent while effectively colonised and bound to a ‘Union’ where such a state is by design almost an impossibility.
Scotland is ultimately administered by a foreign power whose seat is Westminster, despite any illusion to the contrary, and all blame for her current sorry state must lie with that power alone – the Scots as a people are out-of-the-game, as Alf Baird tells us.
Westminster doesn’t want a well-managed Scotland – beyond the efficient extraction of Scotland’s wealth for the benefit of another people and to the detriment of her own.
God forbid the Scots should start believing they can run their own country efficiently and for their own benefit; that way lies a people who might get uppity and think they can do better for themselves free from the constraints of colonial rule.
Meanwhile
Nothing on BBC website and Leeds riots hidden under England site.
The questions remain:
The interests of what entity is the “Crown Office” really serving? Purposely delay cases to leave criminals out of the hook does not serve the public of Scotland at all.
In which way exactly does this unjustifiable delay in progressing these cases in a timely manner and seemingly deliberately leave criminals out of the hook of justice, is benefiting that entity?
What role did that entity have in bringing forward the fabricated case against Mr Salmond?
What relation, if any, do the potential perjurers and leaker have with that entity?
Isn’t it about time we knew?
For how long is that self-serving entity going to continue taking the people of Scotland for utter fools?
Dear Mrs Robertson Im singing your song I hope you get your just deserts .
Re the ability of Scottish people to «run their affairs», take a second to observe the world around you. Only requires a second because the total balls up made by the select elect is stunning in its hubris.
Scotland could never match it.
Fair point, Northcode, and I essentially agree.
But look at the mess Sturgeon made, the lies, the redactions, the attempt to frame Salmond, the general corruption, not to mention her deplorable incompetence across every aspect of Government, and it’s hard to argue that she lacked freedom of movement.
Certainly it’s hard to argue she was deprived of the power required to govern honestly and well when her predecessor managed it and made it look so easy.
That all said, I think the easy ride the Scottish MSM gave Sturgeon essentially enabled and encouraged her, leading her to believe she could get away with anything.
BBC Scotland in particular played a pivotal part in enabling Sturgeon and covering up for her. From what I can gather, they are still doing that.
Frank Waring @ 11:41 am
“I will never understand Scottish politics”
A colonized people exist in a Manichean, calcified society (Fanon) where the assimilated and pensioned-off native elites work only to protect the colonizer’s interest.
The politics of a colonial regime should not therefore be mis-misunderstood as being anything like the politics in an independent country.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Just a matter of time till She/her is shown to be involved in serious legal malfeasance ? IF proven, then the consequences will bite.
Is She/her currently shtting herself ?
Excellent! I wish he had included the “I know a way …”(we can make allegations and remain anonymous- because sexual assault (alleged) victims have protected anonimity). I forget which of the evil women said that.
I wish I could share some of the optimism here re the outcome of this however Scotland is a small country and its civic society is even smaller.There isnt a serious journo in Scotland who doesnt know the guts of this story and the fact that Lloyd is able to appear on TV with complete impunity speaks volumes.The Scottish media silence around this speech is also very telling.Perhaps I’m wrong.I hope so.
No nation in which the judicial system appears to be under the significant control/influence of the government (and is answerable to no-one), and in which the chief prosecutor also serves as a minister in government, can ever be truly said to be worthy of self-rule.
Rev, Scotland has been governed like this since the eighteenth century. It has little to do with being worthy of self-rule and everything to do with control by the colonising power which is why minimal action has been taken since Mr Davis first raised the issue over three years ago.
One witness interviewed was Sturgeon’s Private Secretary, the one who got her interested in trans ‘rights’. He was moved to head up the police division in the SG as Branchform kicked off, and then got promoted to head up equalities earlier this year. And walks Liz Lloyd’s dog still.
Here’s my take on events.
There are two periods in recent times – pre-2014 and post-2014.
Scotland’s administration pre-2014 was given some leeway by her coloniser when it felt sure that its cunning ‘devolved government’ plan had succeeded and that the Scots were safely contained in blissful and relatively comfortable ignorance; content in the false knowledge they now managed their own nation’s affairs.
But Salmond came along and burst England’s colonial bubble…almost. How terrifying 2014 must have been for Westminster.
“Phew! That was a close call, your Majesty – thanks for your help in quelling the ‘rebellion’. Luckily we managed to avert disaster using every dirty trick our glorious empire could muster and defeated the Scots in their ungrateful bid for independence…dirty, sweaty dogs.
That’ll be the last time we let things get so close to the edge – we’ll make sure of it.” said Westminster to itself.
And so a new strategy was designed for Scotland’s devolved government; make it look so incompetent and corrupt that the Scots will beg Westminster to look after their people and their nation’s resources.
“Now, where can we find easily manipulated and corrupt idiots to front our colonial operation in Scotland?” Westminster asked itself.
Enter the Sturgeon Scottish Theatrical Company from stage left (the traditional direction of entrance onto a stage in theatre for the villains in a play).
“Your Majesty. We have managed to find a group of Scottish player types who will do our bidding unquestioningly.”
“Well done, Carruthers! Here…have some gongs. Can your little troupe of Scottish players do a good Macbeth?”
“Hahahah…very witty, your Majesty. Very witty indeed.”
“Out, damned Scots! out, I say! ”
“Hawhawhaw…really, your Majesty. Sometimes you are just too witty.”
“Indeed, Carruthers, indeed. The benefits of a classical education abound Here, have another gong.”
I know, right? You’d think I was in the room the way I tell it.
Kudos to Sir David Davis.
Though it looks like it won’t have any consequences.
Northcode @ 15.15.
Bearng in mind that Ms Sturgeon was, as far as I understand it, Mr Salmond’s protege from the very first and that it was he who brought her into his closest circle, politically groomed her, worked hand in glove with her and was (apparently) entirely in favour of her as his heir and annointed successor, I’d believe that there was much more to what occurred than your suggested script, Northy.
And, I believe, it was in prospect prior to 2014.
However in this “wilderness of mirrors” which of us could ever be certain of anything except we were not and are not intended to know the truth.
Thank you for this Stu. Copied the video around with your comments. It is also worth reading Iain Lawson’s blog article on his YoursforScotland site. He titles is No to Stalins Scotland
Even if this is true what odds does it really make?
Someone let a journalist in on a public interest story?
What else was going to happen?
I agree,.let the matter lie so Alex can take his case forward.
Hopefully the Scottish police can arrest these motherfuckers otherwise Davis will be back to spill more beans.
She should be going to jail Liz Lloyd. Jail STRURGEON.
Fucking ROT Nicola! FUCKING ROT!
ONE THING to be learnt from today’s global outage is that independence does not protect you from the «Globorg».
You gotta be really smart to be truly independent, countries, infrastructures etc are easy meat to the glitch.
A large dose of skepticism and cynicism helps too.
A learning curve?
Sturgeon the JUDAS.
And Woman H. THE LIAR! THE PERJURER!
WE KNOW!
David Hannah
says:
19 July, 2024 at 3:52 pm
“Sturgeon the JUDAS.
And Woman H. THE LIAR! THE PERJURER!
WE KNOW!”
And we know, thanks to Dani Garavelli who “Woman H” is – and therefore who her husband is and the role that he still, even today, occupies – despite everything.
A Reckoning is coming. And it will be mighty.
(Thanks sister Dani)
Sven @3:30pm
The Empire works in mysterious ways, Sven.
The Sturgeon Scottish Theatre Company might well have been a third-rate outfit, but Sturgeon herself was an accomplished actress(I’m old fashioned that way).
Perhaps the offer of a starring role in a play of such Machiavellian magnitude awakened the Madonna in her and she swiftly fell for the proffered accolades and bouquets – the show must go on, after all; and a true thespian will always follow the script handed them.
And being centre stage can turn the heads of those whose characters are ill-equipped to handle the limelight; those too ready to believe their glorification is deserved. The adoration of the masses often blinds folk to their own limitations – believe me, I know.
I, too, was once adored and then callously cast aside like an overly fingered rag doll (I made that up – I’ve never been a rag doll and I’ve certainly never been overly fingered…and I’m pretty sure I’ve never been adored either).
Yes, the show must go on – especially if there might be the reward of a book deal, a gong, and some hefty cash in the last act.
Think of all of the honest police officers that investigated this. Knowing the truth. Knowing that Liz Lloyd was the leaker in the failed conspiracy. Orders could only have come from Opengrupenfhurer Sturgeon herself – the chief mammy.
So not only does Nicola Sturgeon only have to roll over in bed and give Hubby Murrell – the love of her life a kiss. The kiss of death from Mr Goldfinger!
In the bed of corruption and sin. Her henchwoman is as corrupt and vicious as she is. Her right hand woman.
Yet Sir Ian Livingstone – the self described, “racist mysogynistic police force” couldn’t charge Leaky Liz in all that time. Because he was covering up for Stalin’s Wee Sister.
Now the SNP have given the top police job to Joe Farrell. So she can have her paid police officers at Mardi Gla LGBTQ! Strong and stable leadership of police scotland. And a total insult to all of the honest officers of over 20 years in Scotland.
The police have to look upwards to their crooked bossses. The crooked Dorothy STAIN – Stain and stench of corruption. She deserves the JAIL with Nicola! SEND THEM AWAY BOYS. Their legacy tarnished and tainted.
If only she’d been a better woman? IF only Nicola? IF ONLY! YOU JUDAS!
cirsium @ 3:01 pm
“Rev, Scotland has been governed like this since the eighteenth century. It has little to do with being worthy of self-rule and everything to do with control by the colonising power which is why minimal action has been taken since Mr Davis first raised the issue over three years ago.”
Spot on.
Scotland has long suffered from what is termed ‘a cultural and ethnic division of labour within the internal colonialism model’ (Hechter). Why do we think 4 million Scots were shipped out, and the Scots gentry Anglicised, and an Anglo meritocratic elite brought in, and still? Why do we think Scotland even today has more people in prison per-capita than any other western European nation?
In a colony we might reasonably expect what passes for a ‘justice system’ to be colonial in nature and effect. The assimilated native elite together with the imposed elite speak only the colonizer’s ‘language of high prestige’ and it is this language and cultural difference that divides the people; colonial elites do not work in the colony’s interest, they protect only the colonizer’s interest and their privileged position in the colonial racket.
In a colony it is only the values of the colonizer that are sovereign (Memmi); from poppies, to union flags, to a one-nation Britain, to English language, media, literature and even history. As Northcode reminds us, a colonized people are ‘rendered subordinate’, they are ‘out of the game’, and ‘no longer part of history’ (Memmi). Hence the ‘colonized seldom looks for justice’ in the colonial environment (Fanon).
The problem with Sir David Davis’s intervention is that he has very limited, if any, understanding of Scotland’s colonial institutions and the wey thay hiv aye warked agin the interest o maist Scots fowk, an still dae:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Alf Baird
Since you’re back again at WoS, how about a little truth from you:
In your recent “election” (with “94.2%”) to the “Liberation Scotland” “Steering Committee,” HOW MANY VOTERS ACTUALLY VOTED?
So far, all the usual moonhowler suspects, who (accurately) point out how the SNP has lied, have themselves refused to tell the truth about THEIR OWN organization.
This is your chance to show, with facts, that your organization is or isn’t just a tiny bunch of moonhowlers.
I have just sent the following complaint to the BBC. I do realise that to continue to perform the same action in the hope of a different result is one definition of insanity but I can only hope that this might just annoy somebody in the BBC. At least they will have to spend a few minutes to send their usual reply – “There is no way you can do anything about our obvious shortcomings in our dealings with Scotland, no matter how justified your complaint.”
My complaint:
Sir David Davis, MP, made a speech in the House of Commons on 18th July 2024. This speech is in the public interest as it pertains to the working of the Scottish Government and the judicial system. There has been no mention of it on any of the BBC websites, including those which would seem to be the most appropriate places for it to be reported. These include the Politics section of the UK, the politics section of Scotland and the Parliaments section of the UK website.
The speech has not been reported on any of the BBC television or radio news programmes on any channel or station.
I realise that Sir David Davis made this speech in the House of Commons and as such had the protection of Parliamentary Privilege. However, for the BBC to simply ignore it altogether amounts to a BBC imposed news blackout and censorship. The BBC could have reported the fact of the speech being made by Sir David Davis. I am sure the BBC has access to legal guidance and could have produced an informed account of the speech which did not fall foul of any legal reporting restrictions.
A media blackout such as this from the publicly funded BBC amounts to censorship and as such is unacceptable and indefensible.
On what grounds was the decision made to ignore this speech?”
“a sharp reminder of why Scotland is, in truth, not yet a country in a fit administrative state for independence”
Scotland will never be “in a fit administrative state for independence” for as long as Holyrood remains with its hands tied behind its back due to the constrains imposed by the Scotland Act.
An unelected representative of the crown is sitting in the middle of the executive power and has been able to successfully steal control over the legislative power from the people of Scotland and hand it to the crown because of that Scotland Act. In the context of a democracy, that is totally outrageous and completely unacceptable. Yet, neither the crown nor Wesminster has lift a finger to change it. Let’s not forget that the Scotland Act is a product of Westminster.
Only when Scotland’s MSPs voluntarily or forced by the people of Scotland bring themselves to ditch the Scotland Act, then Scotland can become in a fit administrative state for independence.
Mr David Davis exposed this three years ago, yet, what has Westminster done to correct Westminster’s well known “error”? Not a thing. And that was despite Mr Davis’ party being in power. And that is despite the same “error” not being present in England.
So, why nothing happened? Why didn’t they move things to separate those darn powers? Because it was most convenient for Westminster and the crown to be able to use that unelected figure in Scotland’s cabinet to thwart the entry into Holyrood of any bill for an independence referendum that could be passed by the pro-independence MSP majority currently in Holyrood.
They will progress this matter to separate both powers now only because they are already predicting (preparing us for) a unionist majority in Holyrood which will never bring a referendum bill, never mind pass it. With a unionist government in Scotland and a unionist majority of MSPs there is no danger of a referendum bill, therefore that unelected figure stealing control over the legislative power will not be required. I am sure they will use that time with a unionist majority to figure out some other way for the crown to continue to steal control over Scotland’s legislative body in preparation for another pro-independence majority.
Scotland is still being treated as a colony and that this continues to happen in the third decade of the 21st century is disgraceful.
One has to wonder why it must be an English MP who has to reveal this in Westminster and why not a single Scottish MP has found the balls to do so. I have the sneaky suspicion that the reason behind this might well be that “parliamentary privilege”, if derived from the 1689 Bill of Rights and from the original English parliament, rather than Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689, can only extend to England MPs. If this is confirmed, it will be another clear proof that Scotland’s MPs and England’s MPs are still, to this day, representing what still are two independent parliaments each governed by its own rules.
Starmer schmoozes «Europe» and the potentially yesterday’s pres Macaroon..
Come on Scotland, a hefty kick up the arse for these conceited, feet of clay functionaries.
Scotland Reconstructs, but first «ding doun».
Have Fun!
Ruairidh
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 8:31 am
I want to echo Liz and say what a disappointment it is that we have to rely on an English Tory MP to defend our rights as Scots to justice…
Bang on. It needs cleaned up before we can move on.
Mia said;
“One has to wonder why it must be an English MP who has to reveal this in Westminster and why not a single Scottish MP has found the balls to do so. I have the sneaky suspicion that the reason behind this might well be that “parliamentary privilege”, if derived from the 1689 Bill of Rights and from the original English parliament, rather than Scotland’s Claim of Right 1689, can only extend to England MPs. If this is confirmed, it will be another clear proof that Scotland’s MPs and England’s MPs are still, to this day, representing what still are two independent parliaments each governed by its own rules.”
Interesting thought, Mia. If England’s parliamentary rules only apply to England’s MPs, then another corollary is that England’s MP majorities are only relevant to England’s MPs and the English kingdom, but not to Scotland’s MPs, and vice versa. Which is as it should be anyway, because they represent two different sovereignties. Scotland’s MPs should never be overruled by England’s MPs because neither group can have any authority over another nation’s MPs.
Garavelli Princip
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 4:32 pm
David Hannah
A Reckoning is coming. And it will be mighty.
(Thanks sister Dani)
The facts have already emerged and only one arrest and probably on minor charges at that.
What gives you the confidence that that justice will be done here?
The wording about parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons and Lords is pretty clear, and you don’t even need to be a member to exercise it. I see no reason at all that Scottish MPs would be excluded (the document this comes from is extensive and official and it goes into much detail later about the reduced protections for MSPs in the Scottish Parliament). Only the first component is relevant here:
“There are two main components to parliamentary privilege; they have been described in the Westminster context as:
Freedom of speech is for all those who participate in parliamentary proceedings, whether MPs, peers or non-members. This freedom of speech exists only in parliamentary proceedings, which includes (among other things) debates, committee hearings and published reports, but does not apply to anything said by an MP or a peer outside parliamentary proceedings.”
Why was it left to David Davis to speak out about this when we had the likes of Neale Hanvey, Kenny McAskill and Joanna Cherry in the HoC, why did they not speak out when they had the chance to do so?
@RoS 8.20pm
I don’t know about Hanvey and McAskill but Joanna Cherry said to a similar complaint on X that she felt unsafe doing so. Given the very real threats she’s faced and what’s happened to 2 other MPs I think it’s probably OK to cut her some slack.
All the others who could have done so…? Not so much.
The SNP will never come back from this or the Green/Tranny party. It is ironic an English MP needs to say this because Scottish politicians don’t have the balls. Or know the difference between a boy and a girl. The Gay takeover bid failed. But the Wars not over! It is clear now Scotland isn’t able to govern itself.
I think Sir David Davis is a good man, a well intentioned man, with his intervention very much on that tone.
His exposure of Liz Lloyd to public view was very welcome. Ultimately however, and I believe this will happen, it will be the people of Scotland who force change in the rotten and corrupt political system of governance it Scotland.
Sturgeon, her ministers, Police Scotland, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal and senior civil servants are no more than thugs abusing the levers that are supposed to comprise the rule of law. They are no different from Joseph Stalin, or one Adolf Hitler in how they operate and it will be the people of Scotland who will change this rotten state of affairs.
No one can have any trust. I certainly don’t and in so many ways it is so similar of the experiences of Northern Ireland, its political system, B Specials, and arms of government. And let there be no misunderstanding the Police Scotland, the COPFS and the state would fit you up and or take you out without a qualm.
My recent unexpected dialogue with dasblimp has caused me to realize we have made a big mistake in our strategy to achieve independence.
IMHO we have been lazy and we have fallen into a trap.
We have positioned our independence as essentially us, Scotland, getting away from England. You can dress it up all you want but that is what it boils down to in the minds of most Scots and English.
This was a strategic mistake that immediately makes us in perpetual opposition to the English.
Instead our independence should have been expressed alongside English independence.
We, Scotland and England, are both seeking independence from the same thing. And we are.
They have been fucked over for longer than we have.
If we unite IN Independence, it is game over in a matter of months.
This is how to save Briton, by ending the UK.
This is the strategic path to achieving it.
Mark Beggan
Ignored
says:
19 July, 2024 at 8:38 pm
The SNP will never come ….
We are not alone in having corrupt wanker class hell bent on destroying their own countries. We are just in a worse position than most, lacking nationhood. On the plus side our elite are very much of the pound shop variety. Liz LLoyd and Sturgeon hosting political shows ffs. We aren’t up against that much and we the general punters are stll sound enough despite it all.
United in Independence
That is your whole campaign and logo.
It says we are parting ways not as enemies but as friends who are freeing themselves from something that has been oppressing both our countries for a long time.
For both of us it is just the start of the next fight.
What we see as England is not England.
The English were victims of this same as us. They had their country stolen from them long before ours was stolen from us.
I think this a message the English are crying out to hear. Farage for sure is tapping into it…
I see a path here.
GM @
Ye agree. It was, however,Indy and the denial of the result of 2014 that has allowed the Gay gangsters to run riot. The punter has been the solid truth through this whole sorry thing. A handful of deviant crooks using us for their stage to play out their wet dreams.
their wet dreams.
The two things that stand out. The HoC has Parliamentary privilege unlike Holyrood There is no recall mechanism in Holyrood. The Scottish Secretary now Ian Murray has offered such a mechanism in the past. But no delivery for constituents so far. Everyone and his dog can see the limitations of Holyrood. Corruption abounds because of the frailties of our system. An indisputable case being the joint role of the Lord Advocate. Malicious prosecution the norm. Shite on the pot or get aff Police Scotland. Well past the date of a decision.
They have been fucked over for longer than we have. This is the golden insight.
That converts the English from your enemy to your brother, in the same war.
Who fucked us both over? Don’t you feel that question is getting us closer to the truth than us blaming them.
I don’t know what the UK is but it is not England. It seems to hate English people.
David Davis Is talking about investigations and change of process must stop these crimes from happening again in future.
I want my pound of flesh.
Prison for all those who lied in court, who helped to cover up.
All should loose any pension rights that they have.
Ahhhh. Finally – the game is afoot.
Let the fun begin and justice be served.
RoS: “Why was it left to David Davis to speak out about this when we had the likes of Neale Hanvey, Kenny McAskill and Joanna Cherry in the HoC, why did they not speak out when they had the chance to do so?”
That’s a good question.
There is a theory that Scottish MPs don’t have the same parliamentary privilege and legal protection as English MPs (deriving from differing definitions of sovereignty in the two respective states when the Treaty of Union was struck).
If not that, what?
I don’t believe fear explains it. Fear of losing their jobs and wages maybe but I wouldn’t say that happily explains it either.
Mac
A slight problem with your plan.
What’s paying for Englanders world status as just little England, Wales & an annexation? Tea, jam & money laundering?
Do you think Farage wants English Independence? LOL!!!
Does he hell. Scotland is their possession & it pays the bills. Especially in the next boom wars to come = renewable energy & lovely wind turbines.
They next thing they want their grubby mitts on.
In today’s news China is doing far too well in this field & rather than congratulate them on a job well done, the yanks & the EU are going to kill them all. They’re over capacitating on the targets they themselves imposed & cause they’ve fallen behind schedule they’re planning that auld colonisers trick of sabotaging the race.
It’d be interesting if Wings took up the mystery of Scotwind. Why was it so low, who has shares & is it tied up in confidentiality clauses?
Yet more of our resources stolen.
Plus, Why on earth would England want independence when they are already? They have the whole running of Westminster, The house of lords, a permanent government (Red & Blue) the entire Treasury, the bank of England, supreme court, the media, the military, the security services, a seat at the UN, NATO, a permanent seat on the UN security council & a permanent seat to bump their gums at the G7 to re-enact PlayStation games & until recently, a judge on the Int court of Justice, a seat at the European council & EU membership.
It only has all of that because of the UK name tag. Little England would have to reapply. Farage isn’t stupid.
“deriving from differing definitions of sovereignty in the two respective states when the Treaty of Union was struck).”
Don’t perpetuate a myth.
Scotland is a sovereign country. It was clearly stated in the claim of right which was a non negotiable terms pre dating the union even taking place.
Because the English now seem to pretend it’s lost somewhere doesn’t mean it’s true or they’ve dissolved the union themselves.
Cherry is a lawyer & a KC at that. She should have used parliamentary privileges. But then she should’ve also used her 10 years & got us independence too but chose not to do that either.
Ruaridh, and many others on here comment on the lack of similar speeches by ALBA MPs over the last few years:
1. Kenny MacAskill made a similar speech about two years ago, upon receiving a dossier of evidence from a whistleblower.
2. Kenny MacAskill, Neale Harvey and Joanna Cherry subsequently went quiet on the subject, BUT:
3. At that point the Newbiggin case, re the Leak, was still live.
4. The perjury case was not yet sat upon.
5. The Civil Action was not yet live OR sisted.
6. ALBA were still actively and publicly seeking some level of agreement or mutual support with the SNP and their supporters.
Thus, it may be that Alex Salmond encouraged all three of them to keep quiet for the time being. So as not to prejudice these cases AND so as not to feed the narrative of two tribes at war with each other.
Breeks may be underestimating Alex Salmond’s grasp of the bigger picture. When legal obstruction became apparent, he may STILL have counselled silence. Putting Scottish Independence unity ahead of his personal vindication.
Ruby Thursday, it would be worth checking that Hansard has been corrected. Sisted is definitely the word intended there.
The cases thus far are:
1. Branchform, into SNP finances, Peter Murrell has been arrested and charged. The investigation has widened beyond Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie. This widening presumably takes in those suspects of the civil case who can no longer be touched upon?
2. Newbiggin, into the Leak to the Daily Record, described by David Davies, and dropped by the Crown Office as either unlikely to succeed, or more likely as not in (their) public interest.
3. The perjury case, into some of the accusers/AlphaBetties, which has been conveniently sitting idle for years, blocking
4. Alex Salmond’s Civil Case, which has been unable to proceed, that is, is sisted, until all of the above cases are completed.
I hope that clarifies for you?
The suggestion that Alex Salmond is being patient here for some reason, is likely true. Fools rush in, as they say. Strategy. The game of chess/politics.
In addition to the considerations mentioned above, it is a changing situation. Once hope of SNP reciprocating offers of working together ended, he has been more openly critical of the SNP, Scottish Government.
The SNP is no longer a major force in Westminster and behaving as the tail of the Green dog in Holyrood, with Nicola Sturgeon fading from public memory. He can afford to be more direct in his pursuit of personal vindication. With Labour on the ascendant in both parliaments, he and his Tory friend can unite in demanding institutional reform, from an opposition position.
Also, many will be repositioning for the 2026 Holyrood election now
I have no doubt that the dossier received by both Kenny MacAskill and David Davies contained much that has not been revealed. Alex Salmond will not escalate his attack fully until milder options are exhausted. Don’t assume we’ve heard it all – yet.
I am unsure whether the Sue Ruddick whistleblower has emerged recently, or was contained in the dossier of evidence?
Sven, it appears the conspiracy was in at least outline process since 2011. A pro-Independence majority was supposed to be impossible. And was a clear threat to Westminster/The Empire/MI5.
Northcode, I agree with your drama. Ms Sturgeon may well have a character flaw making her act very differently once unbounded by a pro-Independence Line Manager. Indeed, she may have subconsciously sought out a replacement ‘line manager’, of a very different hue. We can speculate whether that was effectively what Leslie Evans became.
We very strongly DO need decolonised, beginning with our minds.
Mac, James Hogg, two centuries ago proposed just such a unity in Independence in his song Both Sides The Tweed.
At our recent Gala Day, the Town Crier reminded us how the Braw Lads defeated some English raiders, “thereby playing their part in the age-long struggle for the freedom of their native land”.
At that point I said, audibly:
“We haven’t got there yet, but we’re trying”.
At which point the woman next to me, no doubt trying to elicit The Scottish Cringe, in the form of an apology, replied:
“What can I say? – I’m English!”
To which I smiled calmly and confidently replied without missing a beat:
“That’s all right – you’ll get English Independence out of it”.
She had no reply to that. Why would she NOT want English Independence? Unless she is confessing herself an Imperialist Settler seeking to subjugate the Country she now lives in?
I had failed to Cringe. And I had failed to surrender the moral high ground with any display of racism. And why HAVE the English put up with almost a thousand years of political and economic domination by the descendants of a tiny Norman elite?
This is a decolonised approach I could dae wi’ employin mair after…
“Don’t perpetuate a myth… Scotland is a sovereign country.”
Okay, now what?
Forget it. We know you can’t answer.
Zzzzzzzzz
*The Braw Lads made their contribution in 1337…
“Forget it. We know you can’t answer.”
I can. What sovereign country do you know that let’s a wee poxy neighbour forbid it from holding a referendum?
Why are we even asking them? Why does everything have to be through Westminster via our politicians? They have zero control over us & never did.
Scotland is sovereign & had that guarantee ‘for all time coming’
A sovereign nation doesn’t need anyone’s permission & I get pissed at the arsehole politicians & *usual suspect* on here repeatedly claiming we do.
As the MP Davis said himself regarding Brexshit – ‘there isn’t a single treaty in the entire world that requires a sovereign nation to seek permission from the other side to leave it.’
As usual tho, that doesn’t apply to Scotland. We’ve to be different.
The monarchy takes an oath to Scots. They didn’t/don’t do that to a bunch of peasants. So to say Scots Sovereignty is ambiguous, ancient guff, outdated pish, debatable, too vague or any other such nonsense is to keep that bullshit going.
The claim of right has been ratified in both parliaments. It’s alive & well & if the politicians won’t won’t recognize it then another group will.
Ten years they’ve had & they staffed it up the wall.. now we’ve to trust a plebiscite LOL. Why? We don’t need to if we go right back to the actual contract & the terms & conditions we can have a proper one that’d be immediately internationally recognised instead.
If Cherry is in Westminster as a sovereign Scot with equal rights then she should have used parliamentary privileges & not wasted her time on the LGBTQWERTY crew which was an entirely English problem. Not an Independent Scotland’s.
Yir on fire Geri , Aye aw the usual suspects want to claim Sovereignty when it suits them as exemplified by Cherry and the prorogation of parliament, Dae these arseholes think bojo and the rest of the tories wouldn’t have run roughshod over Cherry and Scotland’s courts if they could have
THAT result in itself showed that the COR and Scots sovereignty is meaningful, YET we have clowns on here siding with the engerlish and denying their birthright
Twathater
Aye,
& Going back to Scots Sovereignty. Her territory remains intact & that includes her vast waters. That also means the very lucrative new business of wind & tidal.
Oh deary, England has no waters to speak of. It’s diddy wee. Where can they plant turbines?
The race is on in investment & there’s going to be a war cause China, rather than fck about with LGBTQWERTYS2 pish or meddling in other countries wars/parliaments, has actually put its nose to the wheel & is at the top of the charts for production (haud oan, didn’t the propagandists say they weren’t Green?) Now EU & American is wanting a war.
So to think diddy wee England wants independence is complete bullshit. They’re already in charge of the whole shit show under the UK banner & Sir Kid Starver has his beedy eyes on Scotlands vast territorial waters for the next wave of Scotland being pumped dry of its resources.
We mustn’t fret tho…I’m sure a plebiscite will have them quaking in their boots…
Yup, there’s a good chance a few individuals are “going down”.
No sniggering at the back – I mean they’re going to be doing time.
So what?
The SNP are already finished at WM. In less than 2 years, there’s every likelihood they’ll be finished at HR too.
I’d forget about the revenge and whatnot and actually focus on something concrete and practical that could advance the prospects of Indy.
But that’s me all over. Always seeing things as the majority of Scots see things – and seeing a bunch of unlovely and untalented oxygen thieves fighting like rats in a weighted sack as just a pointless turn-off forever tainting the Indy cause.
Geri at 0245am,
You are totally correct regarding Scottish sovereignty. If Scotland had never been a sovereign nation, then Engerland would never have actually needed a treaty of union, would it? Further, the union treaty did NOT in any way remove Scottish sovereignty or Scottish constitutional rights. Indeed, the Scottish claim of right which is enshrined within the Union treaty, is and has been recognized in both Holyrood AND Westminster.
And you are quite correct to raise the very legitimate question, just why would ANY country in the world feel the need to ask freaking permission just to hold a referendum. It is absurd. So, just WHY do the SNP insist we need permission? Nonsense. Utter, utter nonsense.
What we actually need are Scottish politicians with fire in their belly for independence, and big balls. The ones we have right now are all feart of England.
Scotland needs a population with fire in its belly and a judiciary that will stand for the country instead of ignoring the illegality of the rape of our resources.
wullie
Ignored
says:
20 July, 2024 at 7:42 am
Scotland needs a population with fire in its belly and a judiciary that will stand for the country instead of ignoring the illegality of the rape of our resources.
Less Rohypnol in Scotland’s “media” would help greatly too. Some sad individuals actually seem addicted to it.
The source of your confusion is the conflation of the two entities ‘England’ and ‘the UK.’ It’s a common mistake shared by most without these shores.
IN THE MANNER OF SCOTLAND NEEDS….
It needs a «revolution».
Take that how you will but stasis is killing the creature. Acceptance of the status quo, micawberish waiting for something to turn up, playing «what might have been» laments on whisky glasses or dalliances with off the wall schemes is pure self indulgence.
The SNP, in its contemporary form, seems to have gotten nowhere near to understanding the country it was supposed to cherish. It is at best a regionalist party, not the party of a culturally and geographically diverse ancient nation.
From embracing gender dysphoria to Covid to nato it has trodden a conventional path, embracing without question or democratic debate an ephemeral set of fabricated orthodoxies which may lead to its extinction as a political force.
Any successor will have to be everything the current SNP is not.
It is for Scots to work that out, and not take too long over it.
There is no «Scotland for Dummies» or «Idiots Guide to Independence» so it’s going to have to be from scratch.
So let it be done.
The majority of Scottish people (around 65%) believe in Scottish sovereignty. This includes quite a lot of Labour supporters. Few Conservatives hold that view and the number is declining. (McCrone and Keating)
As Sam rightly notes, given that headline support for independence seems (for the present) stuck at around 50% within polling margin of error, and given the recent experience in the Westminster General Election of how parties focused on targeting resources on winning over voters in particular “target” seats, perhaps the focus for pro-independence parties should be convincing more of the pro-independence Labour voters to abandon Labour?
That would gain them enough to push the pro-independence vote towards the high 50’s or low 60’s percentile.
To do that, they have to appeal to “mainstream” Labour voters.
I doubt wedge issues like fluffing for Uncle Vlad, calling for the eradication of the state of Israel, opposing EU and NATO membership and insisting there’s a short non-parliamentary “Cunning Plan for Indy” route is going to do that.
As Sam rightly notes, given that headline support for independence seems (for the present) stuck at around 50% within polling margin of error, and given the recent experience in the Westminster General Election of how parties focused on targeting resources on winning over voters in particular “target” seats, perhaps the focus for pro-independence parties should be convincing more of the pro-independence Labour voters to abandon Labour?
That would gain them enough to push the pro-independence vote towards the high 50’s or low 60’s percentile.
To do that, they have to appeal to “mainstream” Labour voters.
I doubt wedge issues like fluffing for Uncle Vlad like so many of the moonhowlers in here, calling for the eradication of the Jewish state à la Craig Murray, opposing EU and NATO membership and insisting there’s a short non-parliamentary “Cunning Plan for Indy” route to independence, or endlessly repeating post-colonial dialectic and poorly researched and even more poorly argued commentary of the Treaties of Union, is going to do that.
“The source of your confusion is the conflation of the two entities ‘England’ and ‘the UK.’ It’s a common mistake shared by most without these shores.”
There’s no confusion.
England believes it owns the UK & it’s only them that’s smart enough to be in charge of every single decision, department, organisation, international relations etc..
Even the parliament is an entire joke. 533 seats vs 56, 11 & 7 guaranteeing everything will always pass in their interests & securing an always English parliament.
Not content to give Scots what they voted for, a devolved parliament, it wasn’t long before they started to reverse powers if they weren’t going to be in charge while their foreign agents thwarted & meddled in everything.
Holyrood shouldn’t have English yoons in a devolved parliament. They serve a foreign master, not the ppl of Scotland. They should be forced to register here or piss off & take their king with them if he’s not performed his oaths to Scots.
TURABDIN
There were smart people in the SNP who knew their stuff, their history & the direction of travel.
Unfortunately Sturgeon surrounded herself with grifters & woke. Vetting & removing anyone not paying her homage. It’s up for debate if that was pure narcissism on her part to maintain her & her husband’s position without threat or if it was deliberate sabotage to kill the SNP. Or both.
I agree time is of the essence. Over 50% of Scotland is politically homeless & sick to the back teeth of weak individuals suffering imposter syndrome & grovelling, cap in hand, for something that is already in their powers to do. Call a referendum & have external international observers. Head direct to decolonisation.
Nothing will ever be *the right time* because England always has a fecking drama, a war to fight, a crisis.
As for our judicial system – well that’d have a good clean out in the process too.
A plebiscite is a complete waste of time & another dead end leading to nowhere.
“England believes it owns the UK & it’s only them that’s smart enough to be in charge of every single decision, department, organisation, international relations etc..’
Simply not true. The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK. The problem is, they don’t represent their respective nation: they represent their egos.
“England believes it owns the UK” What does that even mean? England is a geographic entity. The UK is a political construct. Do you think the Leeds rioters give a toss about the UK, Scotland and England? But by your logic they are all Englanders.
Sam @9.20am.
Its remarkable that support for indy remains around the 50% mark when you consider the full forces of the Imperial Empire are against it.
The figure would be higher if we didn’t have the entire foreign MSM that attempts to pass itself off as Scottish putting down any notion of the idea.
I personally think that without the foreign MSM pushing against indy along with the House Jock politicians and the English politicians putting it down as divisive and economically unsustainable the figure would be much higher, for there is NO case for the union, its all for indy and they know it and fear it.
Scotland the only country in the world that discovered oil and gas and its people got poorer, Scotland the country that invented tv (patented it first) and Scots don’t even have there own tv channels.
“Simply not true. The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK. ”
533 seats can & will out vote 56. Every.single.time.
Even the argument ‘were bigger than you’ is controlled nonsense when they’re in charge of immigration too.
‘Do you think the Leeds rioters give a toss about the UK, Scotland and England? But by your logic they are all Englanders.’
Leeds is a region of England. Last I looked Leeds wasn’t a country.
“England believes it owns the UK” What does that even mean?”
I’ve already given quite an extensive list above. 12:36 am but here it is again..
They have the whole running of Westminster, The house of lords, a permanent government (Red & Blue) the entire Treasury, the bank of England, supreme court, the media, the military, the security services, a seat at the UN, NATO, a permanent seat on the UN security council & a permanent seat to bump their gums at the G7 to re-enact PlayStation games & until recently, a judge on the Int court of Justice, a seat at the European council & EU membership.
It only has all of that because of the UK name tag. Little England would have to reapply. Farage isn’t stupid.
I’ll also add the electoral commission & every other commission too. How many Scottish representatives do you see in that list?
The BBC offer two Scottish channels that I know of: BBC Scotland and Alba. The people of Nigeria are no better off for their oil discoveries either.
Don’t put yourself down.
DasBlimp
Your problem is you think Scotland is a region. It isn’t. It’s a sovereign nation in a voluntary union with another one.
London is a region of England. It has 73 MPs that can outvote an entire country.
That’s not democratic.
Geri “I can. What sovereign country do you know…”
Your patter is inspiring… we were sort of hoping for a plan of action though, rather than more patter.
“The people of Nigeria are no better off for their oil discoveries either.”
They soon will be. Haven’t they just told France & the USA to pack their bags & fck off?
I don’t think they’ve even held a referendum. Ellis will be right on the blower to the international community as we speak at the outrage of not asking the French & the Americans if it was okay with them first..,
Geri. I first need to establish what you mean by the generalisation made in your previous post “England believes it owns the UK”
What do you mean by England?
Do you mean the country? How can a landmass own a political construct?
Do you mean the people? Do the people of Leeds, Cornwall, Liverpool and me, or anyone else within England, think we own the political construct of the UK.
Do you really expect the will of 50 million to bend to the will of 5 million.
No. The UK does.
The UK is OUR problem.
No. I don’t
Yes, I know.
<blockquote.
London is a region of England. It has 73 MPs that can outvote an entire country.
That’s not democratic.
We don’t live in a democracy. The ‘first past the post’ electoral system is evidence of that.
Their military bases, yes. But how will that lead to Nigeria’s oil wealth being channelled to it’s people?
Hatuey
“we were sort of hoping for a plan of action though, rather than more patter.”
Didn’t you follow? We go back to the contract & it’s terms & conditions. Doesn’t matter if it was 300 years ago or 3. It’s still a live, Internationally recognised treaty by both parliaments. The UK had zero authority to change the terms & conditions of that contract therefore Scotland, as a sovereign nation & according to Davis, sovereign nations don’t require permission from anyone what it asks its own population or if it terminates a treaty as no longer fit for purpose.
Hope that’s cleared things up for you.. use yer finger to follow along next time lol…
dasBlimp @ 10:54 am
“The BBC offer two Scottish channels that I know of: BBC Scotland and Alba”
Aye, tho nane o thaim are ‘Scots langage’ chennels, are thay. Neither Englis nor Gaelic is the ‘Scots’ langage.
Scots shuirly hiv tae hiv a Scots langage chennel. Langage is a human richt efter aw.
dasblimp.
Broadcasting is reserved, those are only Scottish channels in name only, yes the Nigerians are not that better off either with regards to their oil, I assume they have just one corrupt government (their own government) selling off their assets to foreign oil companies, whereas we have two, the latter full of Fifth Columnists and House Jocks, who sold Scots out in the Great Scotwind Giveaway.
Most aspects of energy in Scotland are a matter reserved to a foreign country.
I’m also pretty sure that the Nigerians have control (where as we don’t) over these matters as well.
link to parliament.scot
Oh and I wasn’t being hard on myself I was pointing out how successful the lies and deceit of the illegal union have been over time.
There is considerable overlap of opinion among Scots who believe in Scottish sovereignty and those who believe in the Union. Some sovereign Scots think the UK should have some role to play in Scotland while some Unionists think Scotland should have more powers than now.
According to McCrone and Keating, a majority of Labour supporters support Scottish sovereignty at present. That might change with a Labour gov. It is unlikely to change mebbe if Labour proposes little change in Scotland which seems the case for now.
A good clean out of some SNP in parliament might allow a different SNP, one perhaps favourable to SNP1 but not SNP2.
My hope is for the Sturgeon cabal to get its jotters and a different SNP or defections to Alba within parliament.
“We don’t live in a democracy. The ‘first past the post’ electoral system is evidence of that.”
Aye & Scots have to suffer until England wants to change it & they don’t want to change it anytime soon because it gives them complete control over everything & a perpetual English government. They rather like it like that.
& Because the BBC see fit to give us two channels at the back of beyond isn’t media content or powers over our own telecoms. It still has to vetted & until recently when Scots dumped the license fee, the license fee didn’t fund Scottish content, it funded Englands.
Sounds like the SNP hierarchy are not prepared to listen to its members even after the disastrous GE results.
“THE agenda for the SNP conference is “no longer fit for purpose” and must be scrapped, the party’s national secretary has been told.
The concerns come because the draft agenda for the SNP national conference – which is due to be held from August 30 to September 1 – was drawn up before the snap General Election, which saw the SNP drop to just nine Scottish seats.
SNP members have raised concerns with The National that the party could also see severe losses in the 2026 Holyrood election unless they take stock and change tack with “urgency”.
But there are fears that no such “vital” discussion will happen at conference as the draft agenda has been set, and party bureaucracy is said to be standing in the way of any additions.
The SNP Tweeddale branch has sent a letter to national secretary Lorna Finn outlining concerns about the conference agenda, which this paper understands reflect conversations taking place across other branches in the party as well.
There are further concerns about a survey sent to party members and endorsed by John Swinney asking for people to give feedback on the SNP’s General Election campaign.
Several SNP members who spoke to The National dismissed the survey as a “box-ticking exercise” and, more strongly, “a joke”.
They raised concerns that the questions were too closed to offer real insight, with one person suggesting it amounted to asking: “How is the Scottish Government’s performance? Good, really good, or excellent.””
link to archive.is
I agree with your post ROS. There are similarities in England: French and Arabic companies own our water. They gleefully pour our sewage into our rivers and charge us an extortionate amount so the CEO’s and the shareholders get their massive bonuses.
In response to Alf Baird: why don’t the speakers of solely Scots (all 5 of them) club together and broadcast their own channel.
I’m going to devote another day of my precious life to explaining to you all why the ‘claim of right’ and the song ‘Scotland the Brave’ contain all the information required (and serve as a sort of step-by-step guide) to achieving our independence…
If only you fuckers would just listen.
I know my stuff… I’m actually a total expert on matters of sovereignty, as other experts in here will agree. Can’t you tell by superior tone that I’m an expert?
Naysayers who don’t want to listen to all this for 8 millionth time are enemy agents, and they’ll be dealt with accordingly…
Say it until your lips bleed: “the Scottish people are sovereign”.
Say it until their ears bleed: “the Scottish people are sovereign”.
Simples.
This is what happens in my home town (Glasgow) when folk demonstrate against G–e-n-oc-ide and those who enable it.
link to archive.is
link to archive.is
I thought Scotland’s electoral system was PR. Why do you have to wait for ‘England’?
Don’t the people of Scotland pay the BBC tax. I never knew that. If that is true why should the BBC fund any broadcast for the Scots? The license fee also funds Welsh and N Irish TV. It’s not all about ‘England’, you know.
Dasblimp
“Their military bases, yes. But how will that lead to Nigeria’s oil wealth being channelled to it’s people?”
Naw. The end of colonisers. The Brits ruled Nigeria until 1960s. The French thought they’d have a go & have been told to get out of their country along with the yanks.
Sure that’s why Macron had a wee episode. He thought uncle V-lad had put them up to it. Colonisers eh & their self entitlement. It couldn’t possibly be because they’re fecking sick of their wealth leaving the country to fund someone else’s.
Good. Because I am still in the dark as to what the ‘claim of right’ is and what ‘the Scottish people are sovereign’ means.
“Didn’t you follow?”
Funnily enough, no.
Here’s how I generally operate in here…
I scan the first few words of a comment and if I get the slightest hint that I am dealing a “claim of right” crackpot, I simply move on.
When you do this repeatedly you find yourself skipping by the same names over and over again so that they become familiar and you don’t even need to read the first few words of their comments.
Let me spell it out for you: I’m not buying the junk you are selling.
(For the record, I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.)
Nigeria, unlike Scotland, is no longer a colony, Geri. Might be better in future for the Scots to compare themselves to Nigeria as a yardstick of success instead of England because that is aiming far too low.
Republicofscotland
Truly shocking.
Hatuey: I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.
Quite true. Which is why the moonhowlers who inject “claim of right” into everything never link to, or quote the text of, the C of R. For example, The C of R forbids Catholics from holding public office, forbids the publishing of Catholic books. If the C of R is valid law on sovereignty as some moonhowlers claim (it isn’t, BTW), then the moonhowlers have to admit that these anti-Catholic provisions are also law.
I’d add that the C of R was NOT passed, or even voted on, by the Scottish Parliament, but rather by the “Convention of Estates.”
I’ve just got my Hate crime monster badges and I’m chuffed.
RoS, could this police activity be described as a hate crime do you think? or have they immunity against such allegations?
I’d like to see a test case.
dasBlimp @ 12.01.
Whilst it’s true that our devolved administration is elected by the unpopular closed list version of the D’Hondt or Jefferson voting system, the government (ie Westminster) is indeed First Past the Post. And, since Westminster retains absolute authority in terms of its’ reserved powers (Scotland cannot even lawfully hold a referendum on independence without permission) I’d suggest that it’s disengenious to imply that PR reigns supreme as the electoral system, Blimpster.
We may indeed have Single Transferable Vote for our local administrations, D’Hondt or Jefferson for areas within the competence of our devolved bunch of chancers, however for real national powers this region of the UK remains firmly under Westminster control, I (sadly) fear.
“however for real national powers this region of the UK remains firmly under Westminster control, I (sadly) fear.”
naturally. because Westminster (not England, Geri) legislates for the UK. And the only way for that not to be the case is … Here’s a clue – the word starts with “I”.
Dorothy Devine @ 13.07.
And, ain’t they just great !
@ Hatuey
Re. Your current views on The Claim of Right and Sovereignty…
Can you recall who wrote the following?
“I see that interest in Salvo and the Claim of Right has been redefined as ultranationalist extremism, along with referring to yourself as Scottish and so much else.
It’s almost as if the Scottish people are in prison but aren’t allowed to refer to the constitutional chains that restrain them, the institutional walls that contain them, or the miscarriage of justice that put them there.
Sure, parole is possible but if you request it then you’re instantly ineligible. Who drafted this Section 30 process, Joseph Heller?
Why would Salvo annoy anyone that wasn’t a unionist? No harm can come from the Scottish people knowing they have the sovereign right to self determination, which they absolute do in international law (regardless of the Claim of Right).
We are all going to die in this stinking prison if something isn’t done and soon.”
Cough.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
@ Campbellend Clansman
Ach, awa tae fuck with your attempts to use the sectarianism aspect to diminish The Claim of Right. It’s been addressed before ya dolt.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
There’s a few of them getting a Saturday shift in, I see.
Time and a quarter, boys?
Dorothy Devine @ 1.07pm: “I’ve just got my Hate crime monster badges and I’m chuffed.”
I’m soooo jealous. When I donated I didn’t bother asking for a badge, and now I really regret it 🙁
Why do we name things?
Because that way we lay claim to what we name. We assume an ownership that can often be misleading.
The labels ‘Scotland’ and ‘Scot’ are part of my heritage and identity; I would keep them despite the ambitions of another country to erase them.
A country that would prefer the Scots use the labels ‘United Kingdom’ or ‘Great Britain’ or ‘British’ to define themselves; all euphemisms for England and English.
I don’t accept Scotland’s would be new owner’s preferred labels for my country and my people. A country and a people it has no business meddling with and is attempting to assimilate.
I don’t accept being defined by another people whose only interest is the plunder of my country’s resources.
Another people who don’t have the slightest regard for the Scots or their history or their culture.
Another people who place themselves, by some ill-conceived and indefinable measure, higher and more worthy than the people of Scotland.
The labels ‘Scotland’ and ‘Scottish’ and ‘Scot’ belong, through the development of a unique language and culture over many centuries across many generations and by making a land their own, to a people who call themselves the Scots…and to no other.
Why is one nation located in the British Isles so keen to group those other distinct nations geographically located in the same Isles under a single ‘United’ label, a single label that defines a single nation in the eyes of the world; a nation called England?
It can be for no other reason than to claim the wealth and natural resources (and whatever else it can get its hands on) of those other nations as its own. A claim it has no right to make.
My people, the Scots, laid claim to the labels, the names, that help define them over a thousand years ago…and long before the label ‘England’ was even thought of.
@ dasBlimp at 11.54am and 12.01pm: “why don’t the speakers of solely Scots (all 5 of them) club together and broadcast their own channel.”
Have you ever actually been to Scotland? Most people in Lowland Scotland and the Borders speak Scots, despite it being totally ignored and/or regarded as mere ignorant slang in Scottish schools. Multiply your figure by one 1,000,000 and you’ll be closer to the mark.
“I thought Scotland’s electoral system was PR. Why do you have to wait for ‘England’?”
The voting system for Westminster elections is First Past the Post. That for Holyrood is the D’Hondt proportional system. Whether intentionally or by default, both serve to ensure that Scotland effectively has no control over its own affairs. The Westminster system ensures that Scotland always gets the government that England elects, and that Scottish MPs of whichever party are powerless in that parliament. The Holyrood system is specifically designed to make it almost impossible for any party putting Scottish interests before UK ones to gain a majority. The fact that the SNP did so is regarded as a fluke.
So sorry Michael Laing it wa jest a wee joke a jape nae less and a sleekit one fer aw that. Hark at me – I’ve gone all Scots.
As for PR, FPTP is designed to keep out parties like Reform – and it works. There are so many similarities to our struggle.
It’s all in your head mate.
Hey James! You’re out your fartsack early. Did you shit it?
5,000,000! Something wrong there, Shirley.
@Northcode (1.29) –
Hear hear.
😉
I seem to recall it was two different questions.
1. Vote SNP to govern.
2. Keep Alex Salmond as First Minister
That’s why it won a majority & broke the system.
Sturgeon took over & it was SNP 1&2 ..just because.
Das Blimp
Baby face filled with gas. Openly, in plain sight gaslighting. Why does anyone here even bother reading/casting their eyes on what is nothing but empty air.
This person is probably paid by the line, so the more ignorant rubbish that is peddled, the larger the payment.
Not interested in verifiable facts; in fact, any response to the patent rubbish that is posted, only gives another opportunity to gush out more of the same.
“As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.)”
No. It was the laws of the land.
Why would a supposed independence supporter not be interested in the terms & conditions of the treaty that is internationally recognised but not amongst yoons, apparently.
Crackpot.
Text of the 1989 Claim of Right
We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.
We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:
To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;
To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and
To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.
Kenyon Wright: this vote is not just an event…it’s part of a
dynamic process
Sunday Herald
14 September
When the Constitutional Convention that planned the Scottish Parliament met for the first time in 1989, it started significantly, not with a political goal, but with a solemn declaration called “A Claim of Right for Scotland”, that recognised the sovereignty of the people. I
have often wondered how many of those who signed that Claim really understood they were rejecting the absolute sovereignty of the “Crown in Parliament”. Either Parliament in Westminster has the final say, or the
people of Scotland do. It cannot be both.
Daily Excess reports:
“Mridul Wadhwa has reportedly been suspended by the centre until a probe takes place into her treatment of staff after it lost an employment tribunal for forcing out a gender critical counsellor.”
New Board?
Did the events referred to predate government by deleted WhatsApp messages and burner phones?
I wonder how many labels generously given to the places and things of former British Empire colonies, by the former British Empire, have been restored to the original labels given them by their indigenous peoples after they managed to get rid of their interloper.
There must be thousands considering the extensive ambition of the British Empire to lay claim to everything it could get its paws on.
There are probably quite a few labels given to Scotland’s places and things by England we can rename after independence – perhaps we should set up a commission to look into it in preparation for that happy day.
I expect there will be quite a few statues and monuments needing to be ‘re-purposed’, too.
Scotland’s ‘Department of Cultural Restoration’ (once we create it) will no doubt play a major role in such matters.
It’s the 1689 Claim of right. Not the shortened on for Holyrood.
Scotland had a constitution.
That constitution was part of the Act of Union. Non negotiable.
Nothcode;
Amen to that, brother, all street names in Scotland referencing the rancid ‘union’ must be changed post-independence. Craig Murray has discussed this previously.
George Square, Hanover Street, Union Street – ugh! – and all the rest.
How Embarrassing! Cringe-worthy.
And for good measure we can dump all their statues of queen Vikki and the others over the border on the A1/M74….
@Northcode (3.04) –
Hear hear again…
Top of the list should be Fort William and Fort Augustus.
Frank Waring: your sarcasm and superiority are misplaced. What I said applies to all countries and to all politics. Yes, things can be covered up, but not entirely. Someone always cracks or whistleblows. The truth always seeps out, if not the whole truth, then a good part of it. As we all know from Nuremberg, many escape justice, most, in fact, for their vile deeds. I appreciate that Mr Salmond wants to exonerate himself completely, and I hope he does. Nobody here, or in the wider Scotland is under any illusions about what Scottish politics have become, or, perhaps, always were, but thank you for your concern about our native naivety.
@dasBlimp;
“The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK.”
That’s only one interpretation, but it’s a misleading one because it does not correctly reflect the formal constitutional truth of the Union; that the Union consists explicitly of two sovereign Kingdoms, and its parliament at Westminster thus contains two distinct bodies of MPs, which separately represent them.
Under that Treaty, the two kingdoms are represented in the Union’s parliament by two bodies of MPs, one body representing the sovereign Scottish half of the Union, the other body representing the sovereign English kingdom’s half of the Union, and that half includes MPs from England itself, Wales, and nowadays, MPs from Northern Ireland.
Neither of the two kingdoms agreed to give up their sovereignty, and Scotland’s sovereignty is in no way subsidiary to England’s sovereignty.
So while Westminster as a whole governs the UK, its governance is constrained by the twin authorities wielded by those two MP bodies. It cannot claim a power over Scotland that was never granted to it by Scotland. England’s authority doesn’t cover Scotland at all, and it doesn’t cover the UK either.
In particular, the English kingdom’s MPs (including MPs of Wales and NI) do NOT possess any formal authority over Scotland’s MPs, as they represent not just a different group of constituencies, but an entire sovereign Kingdom, country, nation, territory, and people, AND that kingdom’s full sovereign authority on its behalf in the Union’s parliament.
As such Scotland’s MPs are not in the least obliged to defer to a foreign kingdom or country. Any foreign kingdom or country! Thus England’s domination over Scotland and her MPs is utterly unwarranted, ultra vires, and thus unlawful.
@Campbell Clansman;
“Hatuey: I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.”
That’s because it was never about Scotland’s relations with England in the first place; it was about how James VII had breached Scotland’s constitution in a number of regards, and for those breaches it then formally kicked him off Scotland’s throne. It was a demonstration of that constitution’s authority over those that hold offices of state in Scotland, and that governments, parliaments and monarchs do not get to exercise authority over the Scots without their consent.
Its significance with regard to the Union was that it cited many key aspects of Scotland’s constitution including that constitution’s declaration that Scotland’s sovereignty as a nation is held by its people. The ‘Tenor’ attached to Scotland’s Act of Union with England was put there specifically to cite the Claim of Right and oblige the Union and its parliament to guarantee the permanence of Scotland’s constitution as cited by it as a condition of ratification of the Treaty. Since both parliaments did ratify the Treaty along with the Tenor, that obligation became binding.
“I’d add that the C of R was NOT passed, or even voted on, by the Scottish Parliament, but rather by the “Convention of Estates.””
I see you carefully overlooked that in 1703 the Scottish Parliament formally declared that the Convention was a parliament.
From Salvo’s website;
15. 1703 High Treason and Ratification of Convention of the Estates:
Act ratifying the turning the meeting of the estates in the year 1689 into a parliament – Popular Sovereignty, Scottish
Constitution:
William’s attempts to have the Claim of Right amended were directed through the ‘Court faction’
which began arguing from 1699 onwards that: a. The Convention of the Estates wasn’t a
parliament so the Act didn’t really count as binding and b. the Convention of the Estates was a
parliament and so parliament could just rewrite it. A year and a half after William’s death, the
parliament of Scotland ‘put a period on the end of that sentence’ by passing an act which
recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made
it high treason to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of
Right. Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions
quite as much as for its religious provisions.
“Our sovereign lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratifies, approves
and perpetually confirms the first act of King William and Queen Mary’s parliament, dated 5
June 1689, entitled act declaring the meeting of the estates to be a parliament, and of new
enacts and declares that the three estates then met together the said 5 June 1689,
consisting of noblemen, barons and burghs, were a lawful and free parliament, and it is
declared that it shall be high treason for any person to disown, quarrel or impugn the dignity
and authority of the said parliament. And further, the queen’s majesty, with consent
foresaid, statutes and declares that it shall be high treason in any of the subjects of this
kingdom to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking, or
other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the Claim of Right or any article thereof.”
Mia: the reason no Scottish MP has revealed what DD revealed is because they are almost all gutless and/or bone-headed. They have no honour. Most of them are so jealous of Salmond’s abiities that they would rather see him in hell than back him because they, no more than NS, want him back at the forefront of Scottish politics. Mr Salmond is a difficult character. Most people of great ability are, wherever they are. They are not infallible, just difficult. Being everyone’s friend, in politics, as in every other walk of life, inevitably leads to a mess. That was Sturgeon’s downfall. Sooner or later, you have to choose, and you must choose wisely even if that makes you unpopular.
Pereat mundus,fiat justitia.
Ya bass!
@dasBlimp;
“The UK (Westminster if you like) consists of representatives of all four nations of the UK and controls the UK.”
That’s only one interpretation, but it’s a misleading one because it does not correctly reflect the formal constitutional truth of the Union; that the Union consists explicitly of two sovereign Kingdoms, and its parliament at Westminster thus contains two distinct bodies of MPs, which separately represent them.
Under that Treaty, the two kingdoms are represented in the Union’s parliament by two bodies of MPs, one body representing the sovereign Scottish half of the Union, the other body representing the sovereign English kingdom’s half of the Union, and that half includes MPs from England itself, Wales, and nowadays, MPs from Northern Ireland.
Neither of the two kingdoms agreed to give up their sovereignty, and Scotland’s sovereignty is in no way subsidiary to England’s sovereignty.
So while Westminster as a whole governs the UK, its governance is constrained by the twin authorities wielded by those two MP bodies. It cannot claim a power over Scotland that was never granted to it by Scotland. England’s authority doesn’t cover Scotland at all, and it doesn’t cover the UK either.
In particular, the English kingdom’s MPs (including MPs of Wales and NI) do NOT possess any formal authority over Scotland’s MPs, as they represent not just a different group of constituencies, but an entire sovereign Kingdom, country, nation, territory, and people, AND that kingdom’s full sovereign authority on its behalf in the Union’s parliament.
As such Scotland’s MPs are not in the least obliged to defer to a foreign kingdom or country. Any foreign kingdom or country! Thus England’s domination over Scotland and her MPs is utterly unwarranted, ultra vires, and thus unlawful.
@Campbell Clansman;
“Hatuey: I read the ‘claim of right’ a few years ago. As I recall, it was more concerned with papists and catholics than relations with England.”
That’s because it was never about Scotland’s relations with England in the first place; it was about how James VII had breached Scotland’s constitution in a number of regards, and for those breaches it then formally kicked him off Scotland’s throne. It was a demonstration of that constitution’s authority over those that hold offices of state in Scotland, and that governments, parliaments and monarchs do not get to exercise authority over the Scots without their consent.
Its significance with regard to the Union was that it cited many key aspects of Scotland’s constitution including that constitution’s declaration that Scotland’s sovereignty as a nation is held by its people. The ‘Tenor’ attached to Scotland’s Act of Union with England was put there specifically to cite the Claim of Right and oblige the Union and its parliament to guarantee the permanence of Scotland’s constitution as cited by it as a condition of ratification of the Treaty. Since both parliaments did ratify the Treaty along with the Tenor, that obligation became binding.
“I’d add that the C of R was NOT passed, or even voted on, by the Scottish Parliament, but rather by the “Convention of Estates.””
I see you carefully overlooked that in 1703 the Scottish Parliament formally declared that the Convention was a parliament.
From Salvo’s website;
15. 1703 High ‘Treesn’ and Ratification of Convention of the Estates:
Act ratifying the turning the meeting of the estates in the year 1689 into a parliament – Popular Sovereignty, Scottish
Constitution:
William’s attempts to have the Claim of Right amended were directed through the ‘Court faction’
which began arguing from 1699 onwards that: a. The Convention of the Estates wasn’t a
parliament so the Act didn’t really count as binding and b. the Convention of the Estates was a
parliament and so parliament could just rewrite it. A year and a half after William’s death, the
parliament of Scotland ‘put a period on the end of that sentence’ by passing an act which
recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made
it high ‘treesn’ to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of
Right. Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions
quite as much as for its religious provisions.
“Our sovereign lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratifies, approves
and perpetually confirms the first act of King William and Queen Mary’s parliament, dated 5
June 1689, entitled act declaring the meeting of the estates to be a parliament, and of new
enacts and declares that the three estates then met together the said 5 June 1689,
consisting of noblemen, barons and burghs, were a lawful and free parliament, and it is
declared that it shall be high ‘treesn’ for any person to disown, quarrel or impugn the dignity
and authority of the said parliament. And further, the queen’s majesty, with consent
foresaid, statutes and declares that it shall be high ‘treesn’ in any of the subjects of this
kingdom to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking, or
other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the Claim of Right or any article thereof.”
Sorry, Rev Stu, I thought the first version didn’t go through because contained what I had understood to be a banned word, so I reposted a variant which deliberately mispelled it.
By all means delete one of them.
“As such Scotland’s MPs are not in the least obliged to defer to a foreign kingdom or country. Any foreign kingdom or country! Thus England’s domination over Scotland and her MPs is utterly unwarranted, ultra vires, and thus unlawful.”
” England’s authority doesn’t cover Scotland at all, and it doesn’t cover the UK either.”
Thanks for the reply, Xaracen, and I can agree to most of what you write. But, I still do not understand the above two extracts. How does England dominate Scotland? What do you mean by “Englands authority”
On the Claim of Right (First link) and the second is on the fraudulent union.
“The Claim of Right
For centuries, our political and legal character before the Treaty of Union in 1707 has been sneered at. Apparently, we were a nation dominated by English-style nobles where the rights of the ‘small folk’, the ordinary man and woman, were virtually non-existent.
But it’s not true.
Scotland’s history of popular democracy, of human rights, of a code of justice and of a principle of equality puts anything in Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights into the shade. So far into the shade that it makes English democracy boasts look foolish and hollow compared with the record of its northern neighbour.
Scotland was a nation that held power to account, that saw to the needs of the poor and the rights of everybody. It tells of the right to rebellion against tyranny and of the care of a people for the education of the poorest as well as the richest. Of the right not only to justice for all but of the kind of justice that applied to king or a candlemaker alike.
It’s about time we all knew true history of our constitution. And be proud of it. And once you know about it, to join Salvo to get it back.
Scotland’s Missing Constitution
The UK constitution is just England’s constitution. The forced union of 1707 made sure of that. But the commissioners who negotiated on Scotland’s side were no mugs, and it’s thanks to them that our centuries-old Constitution was protected from an enemy fixed on dominating Scotland.
The principles of our constitutional law were protected as a condition of the Treaty of Union and the Union itself. They are contained in the Claim of Right Act, 1689, which was named in the Preservation of the Presbyterian Faith Act of 1706 to be ratified and guaranteed to remain in force in Scotland after the United Kingdom was created.
Why does a 300-year-old Act and a condition of the Union matter today?
It matters because the Claim of Right sets out a Scottish constitution
It matters because it tells us why we hold certain values so dear
It matters because it provides an ‘opt-out- from the Union if the government (any government), ruling in Scotland violates the principles in the Claim of Right
It matters because it empowers our Convention of the Estates to reinstate civil rights and freedoms, to act as an ‘ombudsman’ over any elected government; to ensure that the principles of the Scottish Constitution are upheld; and to protect the people from injustice, hunger, inequality, austerity and desperation being visited on them by the powerful, the wealthy, the privileged and the greedy.
It matters, above all, to the kind of world and the kind of nation we have the right and the power to choose and to create for ourselves.
An Ancient and Modern Blueprint
Sovereignty Remains with the People – this is the doctrine of popular sovereignty. It is also the purpose of government to serve the ‘common good’ by upholding the rights and interests of the people. This is the principle of the Primacy of the Common Good. So there is a compact between the lenders, (the people), and the borrowers, (the government).
This is the heart of the Scottish constitution and is as relevant today as it was when the Union ended government from Scotland, for Scotland and by Scotland.
Restored, it holds out the possibility of a political and legal system where the rights and interests of the people and the land replace the greed and self-interest of the privileged few. A Scotland where everyone benefits from the resources of the nation, where no child is hungry, and a food bank anywhere would be seen as a national disgrace.
The compact was embodied in two separate assemblies. One which represented the people called the Convention of the Estates, (Assembly of the Communities), represented the lenders, the nation or people, and the other, the Parliament, or Three Estates, represented the ‘borrowers’ of power, those who made the laws and conducted the business of government on behalf of the nation.
This Convention has no parallel in the English system, where popular sovereignty is an alien concept. But through a Scottish prism, this Assembly represented the ‘lenders’ of power (the people), and their rights and interests. It could ensure that the compact was observed; that the government did not overstep its limits and that there was a means of veto, sanction and redress for the people if it should do so.
Imagine what that convention could do today?
Imagine justice, transparency and accountability and country run with the direct input of the people, for the good of all.
From 1592 to 1707, the Scottish Parliament acknowledged the sovereignty of the people by offering ‘salvo’ at the end of every session: any person who wished to do so was invited to challenge any legislation that prejudiced their civil rights or freedoms. It was made law by the Act salve jure cujuslibet in 1663.
Imagine a parliament today that acknowledged the authority of the people and deferred to the rights and liberties they are guaranteed.
Imagine power that was limited and directly accountable to the people
What Makes It All Possible?
The Claim of Right Act, passed in 1689 to depose James VII and II, affirms the existence of an enforceable, Scottish constitutional arrangement where the sovereignty of the people limits the power of government. And this constitution is still the Scottish constitution and still in force, in principle if not in fact, today.
When the parliaments of England and Scotland ratified the Treaty of Union in 1706 and 1707, a new state came into existence, the United Kingdom of Great Britain. In the difficult negotiations for this single, unified state there was one, especially thorny, obstacle: the two nations had opposing and irreconcilable constitutions. In England, (from the Bill of Rights in 1689), parliament and the crown were ‘sovereign’ over the people. Parliament was in charge (and still is). But in Scotland the pretension of a government or a parliament to be sovereign over the people was not just an alien idea, it was unlawful. It got James VII deposed!
The incompatibility of the constitutions was never resolved. Instead, the two nations agreed to keep their two constitutions, with a guarantee that in post-Union Scotland the Claim of Right would continue.
The guarantee was that an insertion was made into the Treaty and ratified, along with the articles of the Treaty by the parliaments of Scotland and England.
But somehow, the condition of the Union and the Scottish constitution disappeared over time.
The Union, however, remains based on a contract between two sovereign nations. The terms of that contract and what they mean can be and have been disputed. And the pre-condition of that Union, the get out clause that says the Union is over if this is ignored, is not up to Westminster – or anyone else – to remove. It will be up to us, however, to enforce it.”
link to salvo.scot
“The important word here is ‘sovereignty’. The transfer of the sovereignty of the nation of Scotland to the newly created United Kingdom did not happen because a Queen decided she would like it, had it put into a treaty and got it ratified by two Parliaments. Only an absolute ruler could have done so and Anne was not an absolute ruler in either England or Scotland. Nor, in Scotland, was the Parliament. There had to be a precise and lawful mechanism for transferring national sovereignty to the new ‘kingdom’, so allowing the primary purpose of the Treaty of Union to be realised:”
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
A Scottish Clarity Act, SCA?
One that gives definition to when and how we get independence?
“The adoption of an SCA would represent a stabilising and democratic response to agitation for secession by a significant portion of the population within Scotland. It would, at once, provide greater stability to the UK’s constitutional arrangements, while also providing the Scottish people with a legitimate avenue to determine their democratic future. This does not represent an explicit constitutional change, given the widespread political acceptance that the Scottish people have the right to determine their democratic future, but merely a clarification of the existing constitutional settlement within the UK.”
link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com
It sounds wonderful ROS. Please invade England, usurp our monarchy, bring our elites to heel and impose your Scottish constitution upon us.
I’m up for it.
Anyone unclear about the origins of Scottish speech could do worse than study the following ‘Dictionaries of the Scots Language’ (DSL) webpage:
link to dsl.ac.uk
And just for supplementary fun, try researching the question:
“Why was Johannes Scottus Eriugena given those last two parts of his name?”
Aye, Ian, Fort William and Fort Augustus were a couple of places that popped into my head straight away.
And James – George Square, Hanover Street, Union Street; embarrassing right enough.
There’s no doubt Scotland’s Department of Cultural Restoration will have its work cut out for it.
I’ll tell you what is embarrassing and cringey. It’s being a colonised, subjugated people that has been subsumed by it’s colonial masters and having a national anthem that glorifies the condition of being a “subject.”
The CI–A/FB—I linked cyber security firm CrowdStrike that helped create the fake R000shh-ia-G-ate DNC hack scandal cause the enormous cyber crash that began on Thursday into Friday around the globe it was one of the largest crashes ever.
link to consortiumnews.com
link to wikispooks.com
Fafafa away in Caledon where Unicorns have sex in public and the word union has a different meaning than anywhere else. The thistles softly sway to the soft sound of Anika my south Vietnamese boy/girl.
Al Jazeera reporting air strikes on the oil terminal in Yemen’s port city of Hodeidah.
It was the fuck aroundest of times. It was the find outest of times.
An amazing post! Inasmuch that I am amazed you think someone would pay for the drivel I write.
That Rape Crisis centre – Man in Edinburgh who runs it has been suspended.
XY chromosome. Tiny tiny penis and little balls. Who gets an errection when putting women’s nickers on. But he doesn’t have a gender certificate. So technically and legally still a man.
He’s been suspended for the treatment of his staff.
Ahaha. That guy Luke Warm Dave has made a Leaky Liz Lloyd music video!
JAIL HER. JAIL LEAKY LIZ! AND THE ALPHABETTIES SHE ENLISTED!
I suspect Leaky Liz Lloyd will through Sturgeon under the bus.
Who would ever trust leaky Liz again? In her future employment?
Knowing she breaks GDPR? And she breaks THE LAW. With her conspiracy attempts to destroy a man.
A man hater and evil cow. Send her to jail.
Why would any man want to date Leaky Liz Lloyd.
Now that we all know what leaky liz lloyd is capable off.
She sleeps with the gutter press. Filthy! A bunny boiler of the highest order.
She’s unfaithful to her employer. She can’t be trusted. If I was her husband. I’d be running for the hills. He could be in a toxic abusive relationship and he doesn’t even know it.
Shame on Leaky Liz. The criminal. Lock her away!
RepublicofScotland @ 4.08pm.
Exactly! And it needs to be made clear to all Scots far and wide!
What prevents that happening is the control over the press & media.
If we can solve that, we’re independent!
[DELETED BY REVSTU]
“The Ge–n0ci-de committing Zzzz-i-io-Mon-ste–rs were ruled against by the I_C_-J.
“The Int–ernati–onal Co–urt of Jus–tice said Friday that IzzHhel’s decades long occupation of Ga_z–a and the W-es-t B–an-k, including E-as-t Jer–usal-em, is unlawful and must end.”
What in the FUCK makes you (and the others who do this sort of thing) think this is acceptable behaviour? If you have to go to this sort of lengths to try to evade the filter, how do you think I’m going to react to it? The filter is there for a fucking reason. TAKE THE FUCKING HINT.
Matters on here seem to have reached their usual equilibrium, save that a ‘new’ (1989) ‘claim of right’ has emerged. Since the original from 300-ish years ago has-according to leading authorities on here-never been expunged, which is to take precedence ? And on what authority ?
Meanwhile I gather from an article this evening that a Mr Wadwa of the RCC has been suspended. Perhaps another front- runner will emerge in the Deviancy Derby that the SNP has become.
Thanks to all true Scots who posted the history, meanings and excerpts from the COR it is reassuring that no matter the arsewipe usual suspects non stop insistence that the ANCIENT GUFF isny worth a fuck or disnae matter, it DIS matter but unfortunately the politicians we have are too COWARDLY or too CAPTURED to UTILISE IT
People can deride or denigrate SALVO,SSRG,or Liberation.Scot but all they are doing is showing THEIR ignorance and betrayal of THEIR HISTORY
WM, the establishment ,the English political parties, revere and hold in great esteem the magna carta,it might be a load of pish to ordinary English people, BUT it is a document of ANCIENT GUFF that is heralded and adhered too
HR, our politicians and political parties seldom even mention the COR and TBQH few of them even know what it is or means because it is shunned and derided by people who are ASHAMED of being Scottish and prefer to be british
Ever notice how Moonhowlers like “Xaracen” copy-and-paste endless, repetitive, unsourced stuff from their fellow Moonhowlers at Salvo?
And when challenged, they link to the same Salvo silliness, and start telling people to “feck off?”
A few years down the line young Scots will wonder at how the fcuck it took us so long to regain our independence.
If they can read without retching, captured shit stirrers like “Tommo” and “Tory Clansman” will give them an inkling, as they are multiplied x100 in the English run ‘media’.
I don’t want to be a politician I want to be a porn Star.
“the reason no Scottish MP has revealed what DD revealed is because they are almost all gutless and/or bone-headed. They have no honour”
I agree that most of them have demonstrated to be gutless, hopeless, with no principles and having no honour or pride. However, I am not convinced there is no more to it than a question of character of the MPs themselves.
If you take a look at both, article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the equivalent in the Claim of Right 1689, you will notice a very significant difference:
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights states:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”
However, the Claim of Right states:
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members”
As you can see, the English Bill of rights specifically confers, by statute, legal immunity to England MPs from impeachment in an English or Welsh court for what they say in parliament or parliament proceedings.
The Claim of Right warrants freedom of speech and assembly, but it does not state categorically, like the Bill of Rights does, that it confers legal immunity against impeachment. It is left to the interpretation of the COPFs. And we all have seen the catalogue of malicious prosecutions under the COPFS belt, we have seen what the COPFS has done to Mark Hirst, Craig Murray and Alex Salmond, and we have also seen how it abused its power to silence witnesses during Fabiani’s farce.
The COPFS have demonstrated to be a rogue institution that is clearly operating for the interests of something else other than the Scottish people and it is engaged in the pursuit of what looks like political persecution rather than justice.
Even if you were to consider that Scottish MPs, as members of the UK parliament, should enjoy the same rights as their English counterparts, it is likely that this legal immunity against impeachment can only be guaranteed in England/Wales’ courts, not necessarily Scottish ones, particularly if the crown agent or Lord Advocate of the day is a particularly vicious one.
The following two quotes were taken from the Memorandum written by Mr Geoffrey Lock and submitted as evidence to the the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed in 1997-98 to review parliamentary privilege:
“7. Difficulties over Article 9 of the Bill of Rights stem partly from its origin. The Bill does not cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but only England and Wales. The corresponding Article of the Scottish Claim of Right is narrower in scope, and Article 9 does not apply to Northern Ireland”
“Territorial coverage: In general, the Bill covers only England and Wales. The greater part of the Bill has never applied to any part of Ireland—and this non-application continues with Northern Ireland today… The exceptions were the references to the Irish Crown and to electoral laws (ie including Articles 8 and 13) applied to Northern Ireland under a Section, now repealed, of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
As for Scotland, Article 25 of the Claim of Right corresponds to both Article 13 and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It reads (the spelling is modernised):
“That for the redress of all grievances and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech secured to the members.”
“My comments refer to the last eight words. The scope of the Scottish Article is narrower than that of the English one: it covers only members, not, say committee witnesses; it does not mention “Proceedings in parliament” or forbid their being “impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. Thus, for example, if the Pickin case had taken place in Scotland rather than England and if the court had been guided by Article 25, it might have been willing to review the validity of parliamentary proceedings on a private bill. (The main authority relied upon by Mr Pickin’s lawyers was an old Scottish case.) The effect of the Scottish formulation is broadly similar in scope to the interpretation of Article 9 by Hunt J in R v Murphy in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. A leading Scottish text book, which is however 30 years old, notes that on freedom of speech “the Bill of Rights is much more specific than the Claim of Right”. Although parliamentary privilege was different in origin and development in Scotland and England “as a general rule the law must be taken as uniform, though in particular cases where procedure rules of general law are important there may still be differences. There is, however, little modern authority in Scotland and the weight of English authority as forming a pattern of thought must be regarded as substantial”. There can, however, be no guarantee that a Scottish Court would follow English precedents, as the statute law is plainly different”
-end of quote-
Mr Geofrey Lock’s memorandum can be accessed here
link to publications.parliament.uk
The following quote is from the memorandum submitted as evidence by the Law Society of Scotland to the same Joint Committee:
“The main privilege is that, subject to the rules of order in debate, a Member can say anything in debate however derogatory or scathing on someone’s character, without fearing an action for libel in England and Wales or for Defamation or Convicium in Scotland…The scope includes freedom of speech in debate, freedom from arrest other than under criminal law”
It seems that in Scotland it protects against being charged by defamation, but not against a criminal case. What could constitute a criminal offence would be key on this.
The Law Society of Scotland’s memorandum also states:
“6. What are the issues arising out of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688) and freedom of speech?
The Article states that freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. It protects a member as regards criminal law in respect of anything said as part of proceedings in Parliament. It is doubtful whether it covers criminal acts committed in Parliament.
As legislation, it cannot be waived or not insisted upon and it can only be removed by an amendment to the statute. By implication, the article has been amended by various statutes which have imposed penalties eg for irregular voting in the House, false evidence given on oath before Committees of either House.
However, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights does not apply in Scotland whereas the Claim of Right (1689) does. This document by a Convention held in Edinburgh on 14 March 1689 and adopted 11 April 1689 asserted certain rights and offered the Scottish Crown to William and Mary. The Claim of Right is remarkably concise on the point—”That, for redress of all grievances, and for the amending and preserving of the Laws, Parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members.”
The Law Society of Scotland’s memorandum can be accessed at
link to publications.parliament.uk
The following quote is taken from the actual report published in 1999 by the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed to review parliamentary privilege:
“133. The Scottish `Claim of Right’ of 1689 contained a provision narrower in scope than article 9. It provided that `for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, parliaments ought to be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of speech and debate secured to the members’.[185] The Bill of Rights was not enacted in any part of Ireland, although the Irish Parliament prior to the Union assumed similar privileges to the Parliament of Great Britain, and the Northern Ireland Parliament enjoyed the same privileges as Westminster by virtue of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
134. Doubts have been raised on whether a law passed for England and Wales in 1689 would apply in other parts of the United Kingdom.[186] Despite the absence of case law, both the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Robert Carswell, were convinced that the law would be interpreted in Scotland and Northern Ireland so as to reflect closely the interpretations placed upon parliamentary privilege by the English courts, even though the interpretation in every case might not be precisely the same.[187] Although an element of doubt must remain, the Joint Committee has proceeded throughout this report on the basis that the privileges of the United Kingdom Parliament will be interpreted and applied in a similar fashion throughout the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, if there were to be legislation on privilege, we recommend that the extent of freedom of speech of the United Kingdom Parliament in the laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland should be expressly harmonised with the law of England and Wales. The opportunity should also be taken to declare that the other existing rights and immunities accorded under the law of England and Wales to the two Houses, their members and officers are likewise applicable throughout the United Kingdom”
The report can be accessed at
link to publications.parliament.uk
So how that parliamentary privilege will be interpreted in Scotland, in the context of legal liability, is not as clear cut as it appears to be in England.
Campbell Clansman said;
“Ever notice how Moonhowlers like “Xaracen” copy-and-paste endless, repetitive, unsourced stuff from their fellow Moonhowlers at Salvo?
And when challenged, they link to the same Salvo silliness, and start telling people to “feck off?””
Unsourced, CC? The last paragraph I posted was a direct quote from the ‘1703 High Treason and Ratification of Convention of the Estates Act’ of the Scottish Parliament confirming that the 1689 Convention of the Estates was a ‘lawful and free parliament’, and fully entitled to pass Scotland’s Claim of Right.
Oh, and Feck Off!
James
Ignored says:
20 July, 2024 at 6:45 pm
If they can read without retching, captured shit stirrers like “Tommo”
Well- it’s kind of you, James, to trouble to respond but that said I haven’t been arsed to post on here for -months ?-and I have always said I am for the Union. My mother was a McNeill of Gigha and I have just as much right to post on here as you-unless of course you cannot brook other views, in which case you doom your cause.
Dan @ 1.19pm
If that’s supposed to be a “gotcha” it is missing an important ingredient; a point.
As I said;
“No harm can come from the Scottish people knowing they have the sovereign right to self determination, which they absolute do in international law (regardless of the Claim of Right).”
My problem with the claim of right crackpots is A) we have been listening to this junk two thousand times per day for several years, and B) precisely fuck all has come from it or ever likely to come from it.
Any right of self determination contained within the claim of right has been superseded by laws elevated & enshrined by the League of Nations and the UN — you won’t find any reference to papist plots or anything like that in the UN charter but since we all moved on from that sort of thing (eh?), why don’t we stick to established and accepted principles, rather than patter that will offend about 30% of the population?
The argument, of course, is that the references to papists in the claim of right reflects the concerns of the period and we shouldn’t hold them against anyone or take them too seriously. Okay, I accept that, but to accept it is to admit that the document is inappropriate to Scottish society today.
And we don’t need it. We don’t need to offend anyone. We don’t need to explain or hope nobody notices… because the principle and right of self determination is established in international law.
My fingers are close to fucking bleeding with scrolling past this crap.