The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Let’s just kill ourselves

Posted on September 05, 2020 by

Bad news, readers. We’ve done some research, and it’s our grave duty to report to you that according to the evidence we’ve discovered, there’s a high statistical probability that everyone reading this website will one day die.

Luckily there’s a solution: we can all just commit suicide right now.

Wait – that’s a stupid idea, right?

But it’s not as stupid as what we’re currently being asked to swallow by the SNP.

Because there are only two possible ways to interpret the absolute drivel penned by Angus Robertson in today’s National:

(1) “The Tories will choose to definitely lose a Scottish referendum now rather than possibly lose one at a later date in the future, as they’d rather lose earlier for some reason I can’t even be bothered to make up.”

(2) “The Tories will grant a referendum now because they believe they’d win it, whereas they’d definitely lose a future one.”

If (2) is true, then the last thing in the world the SNP should be doing is agitating for a vote any time soon, because everyone seems to agree that a second defeat in quick succession would kill off independence for decades.

Why would you take that risk when you could just wait a little bit longer for guaranteed victory? Yet in fact they’re insisting that they want one as quickly as possible, so (2) can’t possibly be true unless the SNP are idiots and/or don’t actually want to win.

But that only leaves us with (1), which is really really obviously nonsense. If the Tories think they’re going to lose, then it makes sense for them to do everything in their power to stop a referendum from happening for as long as possible.

Any other response to that situation would be demented, unless of course they actually WANT Scotland to leave and the UK to break up, in which case what the hell have they been doing opposing it implacably for most of the last century? Bluffing?

The scenario we’re essentially being fed there is that the Tories secretly want Scottish independence but the SNP are too clever to fall into their trap by letting it happen.

It is such an extraordinary insult to Yes supporters to peddle this absolute keech that Wings can barely contain its fury. But it’s all the SNP can do, because neither it nor its most diehard cheerleaders can actually name a single consequence that is worse for Boris Johnson of refusing indyref2 rather than allowing it.

(Please, prove us wrong, because we want so badly to be wrong. If you think we’d win a referendum in 2021 or 2022, please tell us in the comments below exactly what you think it is that Boris Johnson has to lose by refusing to co-operate with one. We keep asking and nobody can answer. We’re also prepared to accept any wager of any size from anyone against the proposition “Boris Johnson will never grant Nicola Sturgeon a Section 30 order in the absence of some sort of court judgement legally compelling him to”. Name your bet and we’ll take it. This offer remains open until further notice.)

Painfully, Tom Gordon of the Herald is speaking infinitely more sense on the subject today than the people we’ve entrusted with securing independence:

Which of those two descriptions sounds most like Boris Johnson to you, readers? Yet as mad as it sounds, Angus Robertson and the leadership of the SNP are trying to sell you the first one, because it appears that they think you’re a bunch of absolute morons who’ll gobble up literally any half-arsed bucket of reheated old garbage they feed you no matter how plainly ludicrous it is.

And the prospect of enduring that for several more years (while having furious party loyalists scream abuse at anyone who points it out) is, quite frankly, making suicide start to seem like a relatively attractive option after all.

Print Friendly

    230 to “Let’s just kill ourselves”

    1. P says:

      New SNP have done an unbelievable amount of damage to the independence movement.
      I can’t read anything they have to say without growling at them in anger.
      How fkin dare they, about everything

    2. aulbea1 says:

      Really, really the Robertsons & the hierarchy have no credibility left – perhaps that is their intentions. But I’m just scunnered – we need another route.

    3. Bob Costello says:

      “Angus Robertson and the leadership of the SNP are trying to sell you the first one, because it appears that they think you’re a bunch of absolute morons who’ll gobble up literally any half-arsed bucket of reheated old garbage they feed you no matter how plainly ludicrous it is.”

      Yup,they have weighed up their membership absolutely spot on. Remember, there is still a very large proportion of that same membership swallowing the two votes for SNP nonsense, That gives you the level of stupidity prevalent in the ranks of the membership and also the level of distain they are held in by the leadership

    4. Socrates MacSporran says:

      With their big majority at Westminster, and the even-bigger (proportionally) SNP lead up here, there is no way the Tories will ever agree to a Section 30 order.

      They had to embark on a massive pauchle to win the last one, they will not be caught like that again.

      It might be that the upcoming Martin Keatings case, or any legal challenge from Joanna Cherry, might change the landscape and force a referendum to which London will buy-in.

      However, IF that happens, and the Tories will have to be dragged screaming to the polls, they will do all they can to muddy the waters – perhaps gambling on a multi-choice question, so-designed that Yes cannot win.

      Then, they will probably re-hash federalism, offering perhaps more poweers for Holyrood, but with Westminster’s primacy strengthened.

      I have repeatedly said, and I stick to this view. For as long as they need Scotland’s riches, they will defy all efforts to bring about a painless separation, and, being the evil gits we know them to be, they will do as much damage to Scotland as they can before we go.

      I don’t know what the SNP can do, but, they will definitely need to start thinking seriously about Plans B, C D and so-on probably to Plan Z. Then they had better show a greater appettite for Independence than they currently are.

      Otherwise, it will be the day after the final barrel of oil comes ashore from Scottish waters, before our descendants are offered Independence.

    5. grant says:

      It’ll have to be the court route. That’s only way I can see it happening. Something they should have tested in court when Theresa May said no.

    6. Oneliner says:

      Also in today’s National, Andrew Learmonth reports that Kenny MacAskill has taken the SNP hierarchy to task in the Scottish Left Review.

      Pretty strident stuff – but will they take notice or will Mr. MacAskill break ranks?

    7. Michael Cavanagh says:

      If there is no democratic means of Scotland expressing the right of self-determination there is the right of secession based upon the divergence of Scottish and UK government policies. (Kosovo precedent).

    8. Polly says:

      I agree wholeheartedly about all that. I dislike Robertson intensely now and a few others too. Yet I still feel we have to vote for them next time. It’s too late in the day to get another constituency party up and running, since none seems even in the offing. The best I feel I can do is vote for alternative Indy party on the list.

      Everything is coming to a showdown anyway, with Brexit, Westminster and SNP. So I will vote for them one last time next year. I’m hoping they put something concrete into any referendum decision before then and it will help allay some fears. But I feel win or lose the next election I will not vote for them again unless there is major restructuring and change. And after that I would support any alternative indy party against them.

    9. Tartan Tory says:

      IndyRef2 will be the last one. Regardless of the outcome, there won’t be a third one. I’ve said this for the past six years and have seen nothing to change my mind on it, so we absolutely MUST win.

      Having recently resigned from the SNP for many of the reasons noted by Wings (Hate Crime and Joanna Cherry), I can still play Devils Advocate with impunity. While I’m generally supportive of Stu’s belief that things have gone very wrong in the corridors of Holyrood, I’m not convinced that we are ready to win IndyRef2 at the drop of a hat.

      The polls are not in any way conclusive and I sincerely believe that we need to wait until the impending no-deal Brexit hits the fan before making a substantive move. Scotland will be a very different place when the farmers and fishermen have been royally shafted and this could really make all the difference. If the polling goes beyond 60% and Nicola still sits on her hands, then hell mend her.

      There’s a vast number of people out there who just don’t think about this the way we do! Nicola is currently getting very positive reviews from folks who just don’t normally involve themselves in day to day politics. We here can see lots of (SNP) issues, but the masses generally don’t.

      Shoot me down in flames if you wish, but I’m reasonably content to give the flawed status quo it’s rope until the new year, so we can see the hard Brexit facts. I believe that it may be enough to turn the tide with more significnce than a few percentage points in a few polls.

      Boris may still say No, but even Alex Salmond assured me personally that there will come a point where the UK PM just can’t continue with such a line in the face of sustained polling.

      I don’t know where we go if, post a no-deal Brexit, Boris persists with a negative response, but it will never be UDI. I don’t have the answer! It’s not my place to have an answer, but anyone (Craig Murray included) who proposes UDI still deserves to be housed in a sanitorium.

    10. Republicofscotland says:

      “because neither it nor its most diehard cheerleaders can actually name a single consequence that is worse for Boris Johnson of refusing indyref2 rather than allowing it.”

      The only consequence of this, that I can think of, is the possibility that support for independence might expand beyond what we expect just now.

      Of course that won’t change Johnson’s mind on agreeing to the S30, if anything it might further cement his position against it. The only opposite thoughts that I can give to that, is that hopefully internal forces within his party, or Westminster parties, might persuade him to do otherwise.

    11. Oneliner says:

      HTML help needed for old codger.

      ‘ isn’t enough to stop italicisation – what am I missing?

    12. kapelmeister says:

      I’d at least retain a modicum of respect for the SNP leaders if they were organising a campaign of Scots bombarding London with demands for an S30. The demand in itself would be futile of course, but at least they would be mobilising people. However, they’re not even doing that.

    13. Stan Broadwood says:

      As well as being spineless, gutless bastards, the SNP following have also got to be the most gullible bastards ever to join any political party.

      Sturgeon says jump, and they ask, how high.

      Sturgeon the Dictator has them exactly where she wants them.

      We thought the SNP would be our vehicle to Independence, she fooled the majority of us

      We have recently found out Sturgeon has plans to keep Scotland in this Union so she can then force through her GRA and Hate Crime Bills.

      We also discovered that the initials SNP actually stands for the,,,

      “Spineless Numpties Party”.

      Where many members will still proudly stand by every action their little Dictator takes and will defend her to the end.

    14. Frank Waring says:

      You don’t even raise (because you don’t need to) the question of whether any English poitician of any stripe could get agreement to a Section 30 order through this House of Commons, that House of Lords or any plausible re-stocking of the shelves at either institution. What would be in it for any of them?

    15. Joemcg says:

      I’ll make a prediction. The SNP will win with a majority in 2021. NS requests a S30 probably weeks later. Johnson says no it was once in a generation/lifetime. NS shrugs her shoulders. Rinse and repeat…

    16. Stu hutch says:

      Even prof curtis a staunch unionist says the uk goverment will have to accept they will have to give a s30 if there is a large vote for the snp that may be mute if keatings has a good day in court.i get the fact that you dont like ns or the SNP.however we play with the cards we are the moment that’s vote for the snp in big enough numbers to keep control of hollyrood.all this belly acheing about the snp gets us nowhere where is the alternative ? we are all ears.what we have now is an echo chamber of ns and snp bad.the galloway gang on here are wetting themselves.we all interprate what we read in the msn and on blogs.carping at the side is the easy bit.hows about a bit of this is what we should do now based on the situation we find yourself.tell us your alternative and we will have something to rally behind.

    17. Helen Yates says:

      I’m at the stage now where unless something drastically changes before next year I will cast one vote only and it will be the list vote to whom I shall give to the ISP. I don’t believe we’ll see an indy ref during the next term but undoubtedly we’ll get another carrot dangled at us near the end of that term, that is of course only if we still have a functioning parliament by then, hard to believe that there are still indy supporters who believe that Westminster will have a change of heart, ach what’s the bloody point.

    18. Robert Graham says:

      Oh just in from doing a bit of panting before the rain starts and washes it away it’s a bit of a depressing task but I live in hope it might just work this time fingers crossed.

      Much like the comments from Angus , the first time I heard him say to a baying Tory audience Scotland will not be dragged out of Europe against its will , I thought at last this is fighting talk you go for them Angus aye we’re on the march ,

      What’s the saying about doing something over and over again and expecting a different result , well that’s like listening to Angus repeat, repeat ,repeat, no result just the same pointless threats , ever watch Johnston when our Angus stands up , you can almost feel the anticipation of Wack a Jock coming , he watches the red faced Angus bluster and point and can’t control the laughter , He isn’t listening Angus he’s not taking you seriously , FFS change your approach do something unexpected make the Ducker wonder what is this nutty Jock going to do next .

      A bit of advice Mr Robertson keep yer ample gob shut until you have something interesting to say something different from the endless mouth music the audience have fell asleep z z z

    19. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Even prof curtis a staunch unionist says the uk goverment will have to accept they will have to give a s30 if there is a large vote for the snp”

      No he doesn’t.

    20. Lorna Campbell says:

      Seeking a second indyref was, in itself, the problem, not the issue of independence, from 2014 onwards. By insisting that we need another indyref because it’s oh so democratic and all that s***e – it isn’t any more democratic than anything else – we have cut a stick to break our own back. All insisting on a second indyref has done has been to hand the initiative to the hardened core of NO voters, many of who voted for Brexit, too.

      It also allow the Unionists to take pot shots at the SG, and forge ahead with all they wanted to do, while it hamstrung the independence movement and actually compelled the SNP government to foot-drag, dither and descend into inertia on independence, but, oddly enough, not on mad and deeply undemocratic policies that appealed to half a dozen people who could shout and bully louder and better than anyone else.

      Ditch the feckin second indyref on the grounds that we have asked for one on several occasions and been refused, and go for independence after an election win – completely democratic, with six polls now, I think, showing a majority in support of independence. Make it the main policy in the 2021 Manifesto, so not UDI. If the Unionists refuse to take part, they forfeit the election and Unionism.

      Start building a case now (God knows, it shouldn’t be difficult) on the breaches of the Treaty perpetrated by England-as-the-UK and prepare to take our case to the Floor of the UN General Assembly, with a request for the International Court of Justice to give us a judicial review – as a back-up, if they try to stymie the election. It is fast becoming make or break time and any more wasting energy and time on planning for a second indyref that is never going to come is utterly stupid.

      We will pass the NO Deal cut-off point for Brexit, but we can start thinking about EFTA instead. There is nothing to prevent us from keeping the bulk of the EU legislation that is already in place and with which we are already compliant.

    21. Bob W says:


      this is italics this is not
      To end italics use a backslash then i within the less than, greater than in html tag.

    22. Liz says:

      The UK gov and Boris Johnson are well aware that they could well lose a second indyref. It makes sense then for them to delay it for as long as possible to:
      Extract every possible resource from Scotland in the meantime.
      Sell off everything they can including NHS (including Scottish).
      Destroy Scotland’s food industry by use of the ‘internal market’ and trade deals with countries like the USA.
      The British State is vindictive and they could well instigate a ‘scorched earth’ strategy to do as much damage as possible before we finally gain indy.

    23. Craig Macinnes says:

      We do not need Westminster’s permission. We do not need an S30. If the SNP Government are serious about independence then they can call a referendum at a time of their choosing! We are being sold a pup here by the supposed party of independence!

    24. Robert Graham says:

      A wee thought since I am warmed up

      Ok someone point to the Tablet of Stone where it’s carved

      Thou shall have only one or two goes at breaking free from any relationship any bad deal or situation , where is in said one chance and one chance only , who is writing these Ducking Rules , The people who want you subservient and cowering in fear , get to Duck,

      Playing by English rules gets you the same result every time and that’s Duck all that’s Guaranteed

      As Alex said on more than one occasion ‘ The Dream Will Never Die ‘

    25. Joemcg says:

      Lorna do you truly believe the SNP will enact any part of that? I don’t.

    26. Shug says:

      Stu hutch
      Fully agree, remember wings has a lot of unionist on troll patrol and they need not be taken seriously
      Stu deserves a medal for the work he has done in exposing the BBC and MSN. Without him we would still listen to the bbc
      If boris says no then we keep pushing. It has always been the case they will try and keep saying no if they think they will lose.

    27. Bob W says:


      Just to say, the tag didn’t show up in your post. It won’t even if you put it in quotes, because as soon as you input a less than character a browser is looking for an html tag and will not display any characters within the tag delimiters.

    28. Richard says:

      Forgive me ignorance here, but Smith Commission agreed by all parties says there is nothing to stop scotland becoming Indy if the people wish.

      I am assuming it has no legal basis hence the unionist are ignored it?

      What was the point in it?

    29. Bob W says:


      To be clear, start italics with i as the tag then /i as the end tag.

    30. Intractable Potsherd says:

      To those that insist on giving the SNP blind support even in the face of constant evidence that they don’t support independence, reality (GRA), or liberty (Hate Speech Bill, support for false prosecutions): where are your limits? What would make you actually criticise them? For argument’s sake, let’s accept that the SNP does really have a plan for securing a referendum – what sort of policies would make you start to think twice about giving them your support? What price are you willing to (make others) pay for the merest possibility of an independence referendum?

    31. Josef Ó Luain says:


      Mr Robertson is a far from bright careerist, with all that entails.

      I’ll cast my vote for the SNP at the polling booth in the hope of having them reelected with a massive majority which may possibly, by some metaphysical prescription, force them into referendum-ready mode. If my fantasy were to transpire and independence resulted, I would never be forced, through lack of choice, into voting SNP ever again. A very acceptable quid pro. quo, in my opinion. Vote them in to get them out, sort of thing.

    32. Swedish Chef says:

      Is it just me, or is anyone else experiencing the phenomenon of Wings Facebook posts having so few comments and not being able to see those that are written?

    33. Wee Chid says:

      Helen Yates says:
      5 September, 2020 at 2:08 pm
      Feeling exactly the same and getting the eternal optimists on FB trying to “cheer me up”. I don’t want cheered up. I want a cast iron guarantee that there will be another Indy ref within the next 18 months and another guarantee, as promised by Robertson and Blackford that I won’t be dragged out of the EU against my will. Don’t see either happening any time soon – and – depending on the candidate may also spoil my constituency paper.

    34. A C Bruce says:

      They’re not exactly fighting for independence, are they? No preparations have been, or are being, made. I get the impression the SNP will go along with independence if it happens but they’re not going to break sweat to bring it about.

      Nothing’s changed with the exception of the mention of a draft referendum bill sometime before the May election which doesn’t inspire confidence particularly as a lot of Yes folk think it was only announced to shut us up.

      Independence should be close given Westminster’s imbeciles, Brexit, Covid etc., but it feels very far away.

      Trying to stay hopeful but not always succeeding.

    35. Gfaetheblock says:

      I think it is wrong to suggest sturgeon and her cliche are not fully supportive of independence, I think they just don’t want to go for it now. They have access to more data and insight than most of us, and I do wonder if they see as the triple economic impacts of brexit, pandemic and indy would be too much to to do in quick succession.

      So they play a tricky game of framing themselves as pushing for a referendum, but always been denied, whilst not really wanting it. Keeps the grievance narrative going, the pay and power intact, but as we can see now, is alienating a section of the support. No big stress, as that section of the support will vote for them anyway.

      If they were honest they might say, ‘keep us in power and we will target indy in 2030’. The opposition is so weak, they would still dominate Holyrood.

    36. CameronB Brodie says:

      British nationalism is the articulation of English Tory ethos and tradition, and Westminster is a rascsit patriarchy that considers itself superior to international law. English nationalism will not voluntarily accept Scotland’s equality in law, as long as England requires Scotland’s resources.

      The Right to Development at a glance

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

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

      Sources for the Right to Development

      The right to development was proclaimed in the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted in 1986 by the United Nations General Assembly (GA) in its resolution 41/128. This right is also recognized in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Arab Charter on Human Rights and re-affirmed in several instruments including the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the Millennium Declaration, the 2002 Monterrey Consensus, the 2005
      World Summit Outcome Document and the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

      Duty bearers for the Right to Development
      Under the Declaration, “States have the primary responsibility for the creation of national and international conditions favourable to the realization of the right to development” (Article 3). According to the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development “the responsibility for the creation of this enabling environment encompasses three main levels: (a) States acting collectively in global and regional partnerships (second preambular paragraph and Article 3); (b) States acting individually as they adopt and implement policies that affect persons not strictly within their jurisdiction (Article 4); and (c) States acting individually as they formulate national development policies and programmes affecting persons within their jurisdiction (Article 2).”1

      United Nations Mechanisms dealing with the Right to Development

      The intergovernmental open-ended Working Group on the Right to Development was established in 1998. The Working Group meets once a year and reports to the Human Rights Council (HRC) and the GA. Its mandate is inter alia: (a) to monitor and review progress made in the promotion and implementation of the right to development as elaborated in the Declaration, at the national and international levels, providing recommendations thereon and further analyzing obstacles to its full enjoyment…; (b) to review reports and
      any other information submitted by States, United Nations agencies, other relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations on the relationship between their activities and the right to development; and (c) to present for the consideration of the HRC a sessional report on its deliberations, including advice to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) with regard to the implementation of the right to development, and suggesting possible programmes of technical assistance at the request of interested countries with the aim of promoting the implementation of this right.

      Until April 2010, the Working Group was supported by the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development, established in 2004 with the composition of five independent experts, to provide expert advice to the Working Group2. At the request of the Working Group, the high-level task force proposed a set of criteria and corresponding operational sub-criteria3 for the implementation of the right to development.

      GA resolution 48/141 which established the post of High Commissioner (HC) explicitly includes the mandate “to promote and protect the realization of the right to development and to enhance support from relevant bodies of the UN system for this purpose.” The right to development has been consistently highlighted by the GA and the HRC which both request the Secretary-General and the HC to report annually on progress in the implementation of the right to development including activities aimed at strengthening the global partnership
      for development between Member States, development agencies and the international development, financial and trade institutions. UN agencies and international institutions involved in the work of human rights and development as well as the right to development include UNDP, UNCTAD, UNFCCC, ECA, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, UNESCO, WIPO, WHO, the Global Fund and ICTSD.

    37. Bob W says:

      Susie Dent’s word of the day seems to describe the SNP’s stance.

      ‘ipsedixitism’: the dogmatic insistence that something is a ‘fact’ without providing any supporting evidence.

    38. Lorna Campbell says:

      joemcg: no, I don’t. Not willingly. Just keep the pressure on them. No letting up. Step it up even. I stopped listening to the false promises long ago. Contact your local MPs and MSPs. I have absolutely no doubt that many of them think as we do even if they cannot say so – yet. The breakthrough might actually come from within their ranks if enough of them see that the party is finished if it does not deliver the goods very soon. That is often how it goes.

      Most of us will vote SNP, I think, at least on the constituency vote, but 2021 will be the last time if they carry on in this negative way. What happens to so many people when they are elected? They lose all sight of the electorate and their own ideals and become just like the barstewards they replaced. I think the pressure has to be relentless now. The Unionists are not in a coma under the cover of the pandemic.

    39. Willie says:

      Ask Boris Johnson for s S30 and if the answer is no then make the 2021 election result the ipso facto referendum result.

      Also we should be commencing legal proceeding through the courts regarding breaches of our sovereign rights.

      The time is now!

    40. Andy Ellis says:

      As an Edinburgh Central voter, I’m not sure I could even bring myself to vote for Robertson now. If Cherry is the candidate the SNP might still get my vote, but if not I’ll probably spoil my constituency vote.

      The dunderheided assurances from Robertson, Wishart and the rest of the unreasoning cadres that if we wish hard enough, it will miraculously occur, is as dangerous as it it pusillanimous. Burns’ words to Cunningham ring just as true for the SNP’s new faith:

      “But of all Nonsense, Religious Nonsense is the most nonsensical; so enough, & more than enough of it – Only, by the bye, will you, or can you tell me, my dear Cunningham, why a religioso turn of mind has always a tendency to narrow and illiberalise the heart?”

    41. Fireproofjim says:

      I predict that there will be a steady rise in support for independence, simply through the demographics of the country.
      The older generation, steeped in Unionism, nostalgic for the Empire and the (genuinely) heroic defeat of the Nazis, are dying off to be replaced in Scotland by younger, open minded, pro European and pro independence voters.
      Much of the rise in the opinion polls may be down to that fact. Every year the maths show about a one percent swing to Yes and there is no reason why this should not continue. Combined with Brexit and the serial incompetence of Westminster, by next May we should be getting close to sixty percent.
      Regardless of their doubts or wishes in the matter the SNP will HAVE to go full out for
      Independence or face an inevitable backlash from furious voters.
      I’m prepared to wait till then but, as I am already well over my four score years, cant wait much longer.
      Anyone saying they won’t vote SNP next May is not interested in Independence, as with independence, comes the right to kick them out if necessary.

    42. Fireproofjim says:

      Andy Ellis,
      Your Burns quote makes so much sense in so few words.
      Why is it that a few folk like Burns and Shakespeare have a way of cutting straight to the heart of the matter.
      I am always in dumb admiration of such gifts.

    43. Polly says:

      @ Josef Ó Luain

      I used to think Robertson good at PMQs too, but then who were his rivals there I suppose. The thing with Salmond and Cherry means I’ll be seriously put out if he gets the seat. So put out that I know already I’ll be irritated for at least a week should he get the nomination and I’d actually hope he loses if he gets it.

      I agree with the rest of what you say. Although I’d not want them out before they negotiated with Westminster on any settlement after we vote yes. I mean is the opposition really up to that task? And where most folk doubt them and have issues is in getting us a referendum and pushing Westminster now, if they succeed in that then I’d trust them to negotiate a fair deal. After independence no doubt there will be realignment of parties anyway and like you I’m hoping for a choice.

      If they fail to get a majority with green support then we’re stuck anyway. And if they win a majority and still seem to sit on their hands then we will need other independence parties anyway and will have the next parliament of Holyrood to get them sorted. I’m generally a cynic, but with you in trying to hope fantasies can come true. Good luck to us both, Josef, in that wish.

    44. Bob says:

      In political terms purely, ignoring growing public anger by the steadily increasing majority in favour of Independence, the situation as I see it is, 1) if Nicola Sturgeon does not deliver a referendum next year she is toast; 2) if Boris Johnson agrees to a referendum for Scotland next year he is toast.

      As Boris Johnson is in control of both events and always has been, then he is safe. A win win you might say for Boris Johnson. It’s never been in doubt that the British state has tight control of Scotland.

      This is reality like it or not. The only power we have in Scotland, the only thing Boris Johnson has NO control of, is for us to deliver such a large majority to Independence supporting parties in next years Holyrood elections that the question in Scotland is settled. If no action follows such a result the marches in support of independence should stop and targeted demonstrations held wherever Scottish MP’s and MSP’s sit and take our case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’s and the European Court of Human Rights.

      We are not alone. We are not beholden to individuals in power and these endless permutations of ways to untangle ourselves from control by the British State plays right into their hands.

    45. Sarah says:

      @ Tartan Tory and the Rev: UDI is not applicable to Scotland. When I get a moment I will find the reasoning for that argument – I can’t find where I read it debated but despite appearances, Scotland is not a colony. It is a country and has as many rights as England in this Union. So it would not be UDI if Scotland’s representatives said we are out of the Union.

    46. Ottomanboi says:

      Scotland’s ears are burning with chatter.
      Its limbs are seizing up through lack of action.
      Is there anybody prepared to drag Scotland, probably kicking and screaming, out of the slough of ignominy it currently wallows in?
      There ought to be no caveats attached to independence. If provisos and such are attached to the case, don’t bother. It’s all or nothing. No half measures. No risk aversion. No belt and braces conditions. No ‘we want our cake and eat it’ (whatever that means) situations.
      Just do it, with or without the politicians.
      Oh, and get that currency thing sorted. Still a lot of fudge…the unionists are still feeding off the last serving.

    47. Breeks says:

      For me, it’s a telling yardstick of the progress we haven’t made, that whenever Boris Johnson is required to answer a Scottish issue at the dispatch box, he just rolls his eyes, refers us to the 2014 Referendum result, and repeats the “once in a generation” lie. Job done, attack from the SNP opposition successfully parried yet again. It’s not even a sporting contest. He could have written his reply on a placard and gone fishing for the last four years.

      His counter arguments and political patter haven’t changed since 2014, because nothing has happened throughout the intervening years which requires a more sophisticated or updated response from him. The “Scottish” constitutional situation has been utterly static since 2014, and surely, that must be considered a damning indictment of the lacklustre SNP. I truly wish it wasn’t, but what other conclusion can be drawn?

      Just imagine in a parallel universe, these past 4 years since the Brexit Referendum, Boris Johnson being forced to confront a Scottish Constitutional Backstop, which presents his Westminster Government with Hobson’s choice between abandoning Brexit and respecting that Scotland has a Constitutional veto in the UK’s Union, or, proceeding with Brexit in the full knowledge that Scotland’s subjugation and non-consensual Brexit constitutes a formal and fatal breach of the Treaty of Union…. Suddenly the Union is in Check, and one step away from Check-mate.

      Do you think we’d still be hearing about the “once in a generation” bullshit if the Brexit marked the end of the United Kingdom? I guarantee 100% we would not be, because the UK Union, and thereby the UK itself would already have ceased to exist on Brexit Day, 30 January 2020.

      As it stands, the only thing which died on 30th January was Nicola Sturgeon’s credibility. She should have stepped down for failing to defend Scotland from Brexit as she pledged to do. For what purpose has she stayed on? There is still no plan, still no initiative, still no direction, and the only sign of movement is a shrinking view Scottish Independence in the rear view mirror…

    48. brian lucey says:

      I have asked this before – what do people suggest if / when a S30 order is refused and no Indyref2 happens?
      What are your options? Remember, to be in the EU, ever, you need to achieve independence by the laws and constitution of the present nation state. The UN wont save that ; nor will constitutional pinhead gymnastics about what makes a state a nation etc.
      Like or not…..westminister acquiescence is needed. So whats Plan B, C etc to gain that?
      Remember, the last time the UK broke up it did so from a civil war. It took a war. Scotland doesnt want to go down that route. So whats Plan B?

    49. CameronB Brodie says:

      brian lucey
      “Remember, to be in the EU, ever, you need to achieve independence by the laws and constitution of the present nation state.”

      Care to site your legal source that UK constitutionalism trumps international law? Are you forgetting Westminster has already accepted the principle that national law can not be used to subvert self-determination (see Kosovo).

    50. brian lucey says:

      CameronB Brodie
      Spain is in the EU.
      To get to the accession stage you need to have unanimity of existing members.
      Spain wont, for very obvious reasons that have been stated clearly, countenance a state that emerges from another *without the acquiescence of the splitting state*.
      Deny that as you will, its a fact.
      Spain *has* agreed that if IndyScot emerges from a uk-legal process, not a problem.

      Westm. can do as it wishes as an independent legislature. It can overturn, ignore, overwrite past decisions. Kosovo was than, this is now

      From the outside theres a whole naeivity and wishful thinking approach to independence in the face of obstructionism in London.

      So, whats your Plan B? UDI wont provide a door into the EU ; Nor would it be greeted as legal by anyone this side of Moscow.

    51. Denise says:


      Establish in court the legality of a referendum on Scottish Independence (May have to finesse the question)
      Establish a strong list party
      Both have the same worded manifesto commitment to an indyref
      SNP win the constituencies
      List Party win half the list seats giving a 2/3rds majority in Holyrood
      Hold indyref
      Yes wins
      WM refuses to recognize or negotiate
      Withdraw MPs from WM
      Hold Nationals Assembly of MPs and MSPs over 2/3rds vote for independence
      Declare independence
      Brinkmanship with UK Government

      Now Boris has something to lose If he doesn’t negotiate then possibly Scotland will be recognised by for example Iceland and then Scotland would not have to take on share of uk debt and other complications
      So he has decide whether to accept Scots Indy and put energies into screwing us over in negotiations.

      Boris capitulates negotiations begin…..

      The problem with this scenario is I can’t for a second imagine Nicola doing this not for second

    52. Lizg says:

      One of the biggest warnings ( the Rev excepted ) as far as I can see,is that the British are slipping the “Boris Johnston can’t refuse a Holyrood mandate this time ” narrative in here and there across the chattering classes.
      Curtis the counting guy and Dugdale are taking this line and it’s slipping in to the US media too.
      It seems to be becoming a ‘will he won’t he’ talking point in the mainstream and looking very much like what the bulk of Scotland is supposed to believe .
      That alone sets ma spidey senses tingling , especially since it’s one of those narratives that either position on Indy can cleave to for some reassurance by convincing yer self that it’s so obvious yer own view will prevail.

      I think we ( the Yes movement) have gone as far as we can with Westminster and we need to turn our attention to Holyrood.
      We all know there’s things the Scottish Government and it’s Westminster MPs could and should be doing, we’ve discussed them here often enough.
      Somebody in the Yes movement once said “think global act local”, and that’s about the best thing we can do in the here and now.

      We should also mibbi keep in mind that it seems a lot of the candidates being put up /coming forwards are relatively young and are looking rightly or wrongly for a career in Holyrood long term.
      That’s a button we can push….we may be out of time to replace the SNP for 2021 but not for 2025.
      Ironically a new list party also threatens those young MSPs from all parties being able to have a “bugging” turn but still have a careers in Holyrood regardless.
      Thats a bit of leverage!
      We should be very vocal that they are out on their arse at the very next vote, and point out we did it to Labour and we’ll do it to you too and we’ve time to be sure it’s no British Natioalists dregs we’re left to vote for.
      Let them know that we’ve time to organise new party’s or join theirs and de select them because if we’re no busy building an Independent Scotland we’ll be busy putting a different set of MSPs in Holyrood and organising is what the Yes movement do.

    53. CameronB Brodie says:

      brian lucey
      Spain may oppose the rule-of-law, but it has no right to determine Scotland future. You appear to be arguing in support of privileging authoritarian English nationalism, over common law principles and Treaty law. Care to name your legal sources?

      The English Common Law as a Vehicle for the Protection of Uncodified Constitutional Rights

    54. The Dissident says:

      @Brian Lucey

      Forget membership of the EU. That is not a prerequisite to Independence and, in fact, Sturgeon’s current economic plan would preclude admittance to the EU anyway because that requires the candidate country to have a currency that it can exclusive manage.

    55. brian lucey says:

      The key here would be the first point. If a *UK* court allows a referendum absent s30, thats a good long way down the legal road.
      What is the prospect of that?
      As for not taking on the proportional share…again, look at the Irish experience. As it happens, we didnt. But that was an outcome 5y down the line in exchange for the parking of the Border Commission. Does Scotland have a disputed border w rUK?

    56. Andy Ellis says:

      @ brian lucey

      You are misinformed. Every self-defining people is entitled to exercise its self determination in accordance with UN charter and groundwork laid as far back as 1941. Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)[24] reads:

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

      The acquiescence or permission of the “metropolitan” state, or larger entity a people are attempting to assert their independence from is very definitely NOT required. Self determination is a “jus cogens” or peremptory norm in international law. As such it takes precedence over all other considerations, including any assertion of constitutional illegality, territorial integrity or history.

      Although it is true that the right of self determination is not unlimited or automatic, neither is it (as you falsely assert) only achievable within the laws and constitutions of the existing states, or with their blessing. You patently haven’t done your homework on international law or international relations theory. The asserted Spanish veto on Catalan self-determination, whereby a vote is only “permissible” if gained within the Spanish constitution which means the whole of Spain has to agree, is not recognised in international law, even if it serves to keep Catalonia from voting in the world or realpolitik.

      The UN, EU and wider international community are wary of secessionary movements, and particularly UDI situations, but that doesn’t mean they will never agree (see for example Kossovo, Timor L’Este, South Sudan, other former Yugoslav republics and former republics of the USSR.

      If your weltanschauung were correct (which is obviously isn’t), the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires (amongst others) would still be in rude health.

      A number of different Plan B’s short of UDI have been proposed. If you’re unaware of them, you haven’t been paying attention, or again are just ill-informed. Or perhaps you’re just trolling pro-independence supporters hoping for a reaction? Consider yourself schooled.

      Scotland’s situation is not Ireland’s in the 1920’s. Neither is it that of Catalonia, Quebec or Kosovo in more modern times. If the British nationalist state refuses to accede to the reasonable demands of the Scots people, and to negotiate in good faith, then UDI is one feasible (and internationally recognised and precedented) route, but it is very much a last resort. If Westminster vetoes a second referendum, plebiscitary elections are quite feasible, and indeed a more common route to independence historically than referendums.

      What we as Scots need to show for international recognition is that we’ve tried all the alternatives and been illegitimately refused. Unionists are already very close to that point. As the Canadian Supreme Court argued in its discussion on the Clarity Act, both parties have an obligation to negotiate in good faith. Failure to do so may make international recognition of UDI much more likely.

    57. Ron Maclean says:

      A political leader trying to break up a three hundred year old union might be expected to have an -ism which sets out a recognisable ideology and answers the predictable, inevitable unionist questions. Does Ms Sturgeon have such a credo? If so what is Sturgeonism? What are the aims of Sturgeonism? Why does she attract such devoted followers?

      ‘Our generation has the opportunity to stop imagining and wondering and start building the better Scotland we all know is possible.’ Alex Salmond in the preface to ‘Scotland’s Future’ which, like Alex Salmond, fell on 18 September 2014. We were, as usual, too feart.

      Six years later where are we? Still feart it appears. Turnbull’s 1979 cartoon as relevant now as it was then. Does Sturgeonism include a vision of an independent, better Scotland or is Sturgeonism really just static Feartism?

      I’ve never been able to identify with Sturgeonism because I’m not sure what it is. I hope it’s more than quasi-devomax or federalism. I am sure Ms Sturgeon wants a better Scotland but I don’t recall her ever telling us how she sees that Scotland or what she’s doing, or going to do, to prepare us for it. Inaction won’t get us further than we are now. I supported the SNP unquestioningly for many years in the naïve belief that our ‘dedicated’ leaders would take us to a land more Utopia than Ukania. No longer. I want answers. I want to see leadership. I want to see action and planned movement towards independence. Now. It’s time the idolatry was earned. I’m tired of being, as George Carlin nearly said, an angry cynic who was a disappointed idealist.

      The complacent will say that now is not the time for Ms Sturgeon or anyone else to set out a prospectus, or even a vision, for an independent Scotland. We can sort it out after independence. I disagree. I’ve seen and heard enough recently to want the detail of future independence subjected to the objective scrutiny of a cross-section of trustworthy people before I vote. In my view Sturgeonism, whatever it is or isn’t, is badly tainted and needs disinfected or replaced, but not with a clone. A better Scotland will not be more of the same and will certainly need early protection from Ms Sturgeon’s Establishment.

      The primary aim of the SNP is still Scottish independence with a requirement for a written constitution to bind parliamentary authority. A political party genuinely aspiring to govern an independent Scotland would have presented its draft Constitution to the people by now. It doesn’t have to tell us how many gold pillar boxes there will be in Brigadoon after the next Olympics. It must tell us that the Scottish people will forever be sovereign and recognise that – ’… Constitution refers always to a supreme law, that as a minimum: (i) defines the state; (ii) regulates its major political institutions and processes; (iii) protects civil liberties and fundamental human rights; (iv) is binding on all institutions of the state, including Parliament itself; …‘ From W Elliot Bulmer’s ‘A Constitution For The Common Good’.

      If Ms Sturgeon was capable of delivering independence she’d have got off her knees and started campaigning when s30 was refused and Brexit was delivered. An inactive Feartism rather than a dynamic Sturgeonism seems likely to be her legacy.

      “… the soul afraid of dying that never learns to live …” The Rose

    58. Garavelli Princip says:

      We know that Angus Robertson keeps really bad company. And as you (Rev) have exposed so mercilessly, he is incapable of expressing logical thought – or unwilling to do so.

      We know that since the NS succession a new dispensation has taken over the SNP that really quite enjoys the reality and the trappings of (limited, devolved) power. They also have a bizarre and un-natural social agenda that appears to trump the ostensible purpose of the party. Mr Roberson and his very close associates are part of that.

      But they are in a bind. They have suborned a party whose express purpose is to end that power by ending the State from which it is devolved – after which it will all be up for grabs (though God knows how any of the deadbeats in the Scottish branch UK parties could hope to run a country).

      But the party that gives them their privileges also contains thousands who want them to fulfil their party’s purpose. And a wider Scottish movement is relying on them to do that.

      Therefore, they must (as you have clearly shown in numerous posts) pretend to pursue the Party’s objectives. And this is what the Roberstons are doing – and in so doing are taking us all for mugs. This is also why potential true and better leaders MUST be confined to Westminster for the foreseeable

      The British state will not under any circumstances acquiesce in its own destruction. If we wish to achieve that (and we do) then we must be prepared to fight for it.

      To hold onto that power, and a nice pad in Bute House and nice dinners and soirees – very familiar to the Robertsons – the present cabal of regicides need to bullshit genuine supporters of independence into thinking that they still share their aims.

      Only by understanding that, do Mr Roberstons words make any sense.

    59. Famous15 says:

      O/T listening to the Holyrood committee on Handling of Harassment Complaints on the Parliament Channel I’m struck by the “given” that complainers are honest and virtuous.

      My experience in the public service is that some,if not many,complainers are not honest and virtuous,but are vindictive revenge seekers.

    60. Andy Ellis says:

      @brian lucey 5.02

      1) You might want to ask the residents of Berwick on Tweed about the border….? 🙂

      2) Spain couldn’t (and wouldn’t) oppose independence gained via plebiscitary elections, as they would be just as legitimate a route as a referendum.

      Everyone sane acknowledges that UDI is very much a last resort, but no self respecting people could or should ever rule it out. However, we’re not even remotely there yet, nor would the international community insist solely on a referendum as the route to our goal: that’s not how international law, or more importantly precedence and realpolitik, works!

    61. leither says:

      some of my friends are SNP……..

    62. Colin Alexander says:

      Who cares what the SNP think or say? I don’t.

      I no longer even care what Joanna Cherry or Kenny MacAskill or Angus B MacLeod say either. They’ve continued to be SNP, so birds of a feather with Imelda Marcos Sturgeon and Ferdinand Murrell.

      So, they can aw get tae…

      I’d sooner vote for Manni Singh or Sean Clerkin.

    63. Garrion says:

      I might be behind the curve here, but surely there are a large enough group or number of SNP MPs and party administrators who are still interested in the primary objective? Or have there been so many nights of long knives and a long slow drip of power consolidation that they are either gone or silenced?

    64. Garrion says:

      LizG @ 4:57. Spot on.

    65. Intractable Potsherd says:

      A terrible “Defence of the Union” here: Apparently, because there are workers in England, workers in Scotland should remain in the Union. This from the outlet that is so supportive of British workers leaving the workers of the European Union.

    66. cirsium says:

      @brian lucey, 4.14
      Plan B would be based on the Scottish constitutional principle that the people are sovereign. If a party stood on an independence ticket at a general election and won, the representatives elected by the sovereign people would approach the UK government to begin negotiations to end the Union. These elected representatives would also invoke the articles listed below and request recognition from the UN. Approaches would also be made to other sovereign countries like Iceland to recognise Scotland.
      The UN Right to Development. Article 1.2
      “The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.”

      United Nations Resolution 1514 (XV) approved 14 December 1960
      “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

      All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.”

      Gareth Wardell’s essay on ending the Union by revoking the Articles of the Treaty of Union outlines another way forward.

      I realise that the newSNP will not consider any of these options and in response, I quote Charles Stewart Parnell “No man* has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation: no man* has the right to say to his country – thus far shalt thou go and no farther.”
      * or woman

    67. Meg merrilees says:

      Dross being interviewed by Nick – he didn’t answer my question- Robertson on BBC R4 now. being given an incredibly easy run. No follow up challenge to any answer given to any question – so DRoss is getting away with saying whatever he wants really.

      Flying the flag for the Union and he’s just stated, when asked, that he would rather become FM than referee the World Cup …. ha ha. We’ll believe that because neither outcome is going to drop into his lap anytime soon.

      I noticed he didn’t say that NS signed the Edinburgh agreement which stated that ‘there would not be another referendum for a generation’ but he did say that we all agreed to abide by the outcome – except the SNP didn’t because they haven’t stopped campaigning for Indy since.

      No mention of Brexit being a material change or any of that discussion.

      Definitely didn’t have his feet held to the fire, not even remotely near any fire!.

      ‘Political Thinking ‘ is the name of the programme if you want to try and catch it on I-Player.

    68. robertknight says:

      Nicola Sturgeon and the Mothers of Invention – these clowns just make it up as they go along.

      Throw any old bone to quiet the hounds baying for IndyRef2 – more jam tomorrow!

      Who do these f***wits like Robertson and Wishart think they are? More importantly, who do they think WE are? Bloody idiots apparently.

      Snake Oil embrocation salesmen, the lot of ’em!

      “Get your independence here, ladies and gentlemen. Step right up! Just place your X in the box marked SNP and we guarantee no more democratic aches and pains. Instant relief from a bad case of the Johnsons, Gove itch, Priti Patels and chronic Yoons. Available now but for a limited time only folks. Step right up! Read the label Sir to see our guarantee… “We will never allow our voters to be disappointed! And you can take that to the bank!”

    69. kapelmeister says:

      Johnson’s power grab legislation all lined up, so what does Sturgeon tweet about today, September 5th?

      Her da’ gave her a tomato plant and she’s been watching the tomatoes turn red the last few weeks.

      Fuckin’ hell.

    70. Andy Ellis says:

      @Garrion 5.28pm

      If there are such people they’ve been remarkably quiet over the past few years. I’ve seen very little outrage and even less action from members and activists, still less office holders, councillors, MSPs or MPs about a catalogue of pretty indefensible decisions and actions.

      Michelle Thomson being thrown under a bus, the dogs abuse suffered by Joan McAlpine, Joanna Cherry and others for standing up to the Woko Haram Twitler Youth, the defenestration of Gareth Wardell, Neal Hanvey’s deselection, Denise Findlay’s political lynching, and of course the erasure and fit up of Alex Salmond.

      One has to wonder what it is actually going to take to prick the consciences of those who remain inside the party piously hoping it can be changed from within and rescued from its own folly.

    71. tartanfever says:

      stuhutch says:

      ‘tell us your alternative and we will have something to rally behind.’

      For me, the SNP brand is becoming toxic, this needs to be reversed.

      For starters – SNP drop all controversial policy for next years government election (not a referendum) and promise a new Indyref within a year – six months would be better (short committed campaign). No GRA, Hate Crime Bill for the duration of the next Parliament

      Allow current MP’s to stand for Holyrood seats if they want.

      Stay silent and stop criticising new List parties for Holyrood elections. They will be encouraged through a new Yes campaign, see below.

      Immediately (now) spearhead a new Yes campaign – call for it’s set up amongst Yes supporters and then hand over all control to people elected to a new ‘Indy board’ – chosen from the Yes campaign. Ultimately this group will have nothing to do with SNP HQ – they will start to deal with press releases and media enquiries.

      We will fund this new Yes campaign from public support and funding. Importantly it will be independent of the SNP, so free to question policy areas where the SNP have previously messed up – GERS acceptance, currency issues etc. Such a group could include individuals and groups from diverse backgrounds – ex MSP/MP’s, Common Weal, Business for Scotland etc etc.

      All parties and individuals immediately start taking the media to task. Not being rude, but in interview feel free to interrupt, question and highlight media misreporting.

      From now on continually highlight the disaster of Brexit, especially using the London media bubble journalists. If Yes campaigners in Scotland won’t be listened to up here, then use the words and articles of Unionist journalists writing in London based newspapers.

      If possible, quietly drop any action against the campaigners like Craig Murray.

    72. brian lucey says:

      The UN wont come to save you. Not will saying “we want”. A plebiscitary election might be seen as valid internationally but the way forward would be for a single issue – independence. Nothing else. Have scottish nationalists the gumption to put their differences aside and do that? You can split later….

    73. Yoda says:

      I would never say Yes will win a referendum in 2021, 22… but it has a higher chance of winning than NO will. I think the only logic in giving a S30 is that the NO side will have a better chance of winning one through it than being dragged through the courts and then one happening. At least then the NO side can say to some degree that the UK still respects us (long shot). Apart from that there is no logic to granting a S30. Every other referendum comes about through political purposes not respecting the will of the people. Cameron allowed 2014 because we had little chance of winning and he called the EU one because without it he wouldn’t have won the 2015 GE. Politics speaks not the people…

    74. callmedave says:


      England penalty in 90th Minute so 1-0 against Iceland.

      Ref gives Iceland penalty in 91st minute blootered over the bar!

      It was ever thus… 🙂

    75. Famous15 says:

      Though I have left the SNP I am beginning to think some commenters here are pushing me back into the party as they clearly do not share my hopes for Scotland.

      Independence is normal trolling bulldust is what it is.

    76. Polly says:

      @ leither

      Some of SNP’s candidates are narrow agenda, bullying, self-righteous, self-serving careerists, who are at best soft yes on independence and many of whom will vote against my rights as a woman…

      Want to keep going like that and piss off anyone like me who’s just decided they have to vote for that bunch against their better judgement? That feeling of being blackmailed into it is hanging by a thread when SNP ‘activists’ feel they can needle folk for not being loyal enough. Learn your lesson that needling is counter productive and do more to persuade or they’ll lose even more votes.

    77. leither says:

      some of my best friends are women…..

    78. Mike d says:

      Lorna campbell 2.21pm. Exactly my thoughts, well said.

    79. Confused says:

      The idea that Spain, the EU or any other country would get in the way of Scottish independence is deep, fetid, nonsense.

      – the reason is simply : everyone, EVERYONE -HATES- “england”/uk/britain

      the EU are sick of them; totally revolted by Brexit. They never wanted them in the first place – de Gaulle knew they would stir the shit from the moment they joined.

      China, Russia – obviously so, Hong Kong, Skripal, Putin is the Devil …

      Argentina – malvinas

      ex-colonies – they hate the “mother country”

      the USA treats them with utter contempt, like their “bitch”, their gimp; for they are. The USA sees only its interests and if it thought an indy Scotland would better further these, they would go with us; Lockheed Martin, JP Morgan are already here, and post-indy we would still be in NATO. Anglophilia is a quality of only a very small section of their society, east coast, old money.

      Israel; treats everyone with contempt, especially the UK. The UK accepts orders, no matter how humiliating. Scotland had nothing to do with the holocaust and anti-semitism is not much of a thing here – we should get a pass from them.

      Spain is, a very unimportant place. Coming in on the side of the UK, would be bizarre … never mind Catalonia – Catalonia and Scotland are two different things entirely; excuse me … ?


      – seeing the UK “lose” 1/3 of its landmass and trillions of real wealth, hydrocarbons, fish, whisky, cheap electricity – would be enjoyable for them.

      If “the world” was “going down the pub” they would turn and say :


    80. john rose says:

      Don’t laugh, but i suspect the reasoning is along the lines of: your average voter is fond of democracy, and therefor won’t vote for a party that appears to deny democracy. Even johnson has to take account of moderate conservatives because there just aren’t enough hard-core unionists like him to keep winning elections for the tories if he alienates the moderates. The question is which looks worse to the moderates: losing 1/3 of your land mass and a handful of whinging jocks, or being terribly unbritish (I know!) And not playing fair with the natives about that democracy malarkey.
      I think that the calculation is genuinely that brits are proud of giving up the empire and would rather that than appear like a tin pot dictator.

      I honestly don’t know if this point of view has merit.

    81. Stan Broadwood says:

      kapelmeister 6.22pm

      Re Sturgeon and her tomatoes.

      We could call this the great tomato rebellion.

      There is probably more desire from a tomato for Scottish Independence than from Sturgeon.

    82. Daisy Walker says:

      @Gfaetheblock says:
      5 September, 2020 at 2:50 pm
      I think it is wrong to suggest sturgeon and her cliche are not fully supportive of independence, I think they just don’t want to go for it now. They have access to more data and insight than most of us, and I do wonder if they see as the triple economic impacts of brexit, pandemic and indy would be too much to to do in quick succession.

      England is broke. It cannot afford to lose Scotland financially. We are the cash cow.

      The double economic impacts of Brexit and Covid lockdown, mean they cannot afford to lose the only bit of the UK which makes any money for them EVEN MORE.

      If we don’t get out and get out very very soon, Scotland is going to get robbed blind to 3rd world status, in order to prevent any future Indy. And we won’t have a parliament in the current form that’s for sure. The media will blame Scot Gov of course.

      I like Lizg’s suggestion that we keep the pressure on the young ambitious SNP candidates. Could be a very short career if they don’t step up to the plate.

      For those who still believe in Sturgeon – why on earth has she waited until now (if she means it) to get around to doing a plan for Indy. Kenny McAskills comments in todays National are spot on.

      But just think folks, even if NS shouts ‘go’, she will, consistent with her previous comments, be allowed to say, ‘it too soon’ it the polls are not over 60%.

      And that heavy lifting is – and always has been – up to us.

    83. leither says:

      some of my best friends are tomatoes….

    84. velofello says:

      Thumbs up to the folk waving saltires on a bridge over the Irvine by-pass in Ayrshire today. Chuffed to see some activity. Next time i’d like to join you, post on Wings?

      The S30 route implies authority at Westminster. Why not go down the divorce route of detailing the the number of occasions the Treaty between Scotland and England has been abused by England? The McCrone report a good starting point.

      If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck…. the parliament at Westminster is an English parliament.A parliament that has abused the Treaty.

    85. Lizg says:

      John Rose @ 7.14
      It does indeed have merit John the question is will it, or can we , give it some teeth?
      That’s where our MPs could have done much more when all the attention was on Westminster during T Mays time there and it was one farce after another.
      We were entitled to bring that place to a halt on a regular basis and obstruct anything Brexit related as we had voted twice in two years for our EU membership…. those of a democratic mind set would have understood that, and probably agreed that the two votes were incompatible.
      They’d probably have also agreed that , the only democratic solution was to pause Brexit and test what Scotland wanted to do.
      But we were let down and I doubt if we would now manage enough attention from the voters Boris Johnston has to be mindful of to have it make a difference .

    86. Liam Grant says:

      The SNP manifesto should make clear that if a pro-independence majority is elected in the Holyrood elections in 2021 it will be regarded as a mandate for independence. However, the SNP would be willing to have that mandate tested in a second independence referendum that replicates the question and franchise of the first. Should the UK government reject that offer of a second referendum, the SNP will proceed on the basis of the mandate secured in the election.

      I dare them…

    87. Mags says:

      Many think Boris wont be PM much longer, I can see him going not longer after he ushers Brexit over the line (tho Dominic Cummings will want someone like Gove to replace him so he can continue his long desired bonfire of the civil service) so will probably someone else saying no to s30 should it be asked for

    88. Daisy Walker says:

      @brian lucey says:
      5 September, 2020 at 4:14 pm
      I have asked this before – what do people suggest if / when a S30 order is refused and no Indyref2 happens?
      What are your options? Remember, to be in the EU, ever, you need to achieve independence by the laws and constitution of the present nation state. The UN wont save that ; nor will constitutional pinhead gymnastics about what makes a state a nation etc.
      Like or not…..westminister acquiescence is needed. So whats Plan B, C etc to gain that?
      Remember, the last time the UK broke up it did so from a civil war. It took a war. Scotland doesnt want to go down that route. So whats Plan B?

      The request for a S30 order – and its reply – have got to be in time for the SNP to make HE 2021 a plebecite vote for Indy.

      Request it now, get the knock back now, display that democratic outrage and open up the chance for a plebiscite HE mandate now.

      And please remember, the request for a S30 order is not tied to a specific date to hold the Ref, you don’t say ‘we demand an Indyref and we promise to hold it a week on Tuesday.

      The HE does not have the minimum 6 month set up time a Referendum requires, and they cannot stop a HE vote.

      At the moment the SNP leadership can argue that with less than 60% support for Indy, ‘now is not the time’. Which is why the pressure is on us to get it over that line – before 1.1.21 Brexit Day.

      Political ‘moral pressure’ can be as much for our own reps as it can be for Boris – plus it is ground we need to travel anyway.

      After Brexit – we lose our parliament, in all but name.

      If we get it over the 60% mark – and if Sturgeon and co have been nobbled – we can expect January – May to be an exercise in her throwing the election big time, and be seen to be beyond the pale.

      Luckily a campaign between now and then, particularly one with strong local candidates – do not underestimate them for a HE election – should identify some very good candidates (just as it did with Indyref1). and that gives us a chance to still vote for an alliance for Indy, and /or the SIP’s wherever is more appropriate.

      The British Establishment is bricking it about HE because of the 2 votes. We can still vote SNP and then express a difference on the next vote. Belt and Braces.

      One thing no-one from YES – on any side of the NS divide – can take any umbrage at, is the need to get Indy support to over 60% as soon as possible.

      We also want to make the very

      Best of Boris – he is the very pinnacle of a British PM, inflicted on Scotland.

      And we can do so much better than Boris.

    89. Stan Broadwood says:

      Sturgeon truly is the “enemy from within”.

      She is doing the damage to the Yes Movement that any Unionist scumbag would be proud of.

      I fuckin detest the little self serving dictator.

      She has no opposition in Holyrood, she has no Unionist media hounding her, she has no voices of dissent from within, she has a clear run to do as she pleases.

      And still we hear of voters who say they will blindly vote SNP 1 and 2 next year.

      We are our own worst enemy.

      Well I for one can see through her plans to keep Scotland in a permanent state of limbo.

      She needs to be exposed to as many outlets as possible.

      She has decieved a large number of Scots with her being this Covid 19 street fighter.

      Her true aims have to be exposed to our hard of thinking Scots.

      She is a decietful little bastard and we have to become the champions of Scottish Independence.

      The word has to be spread throughout all sources of media that the sweet little first Minister is infact a dirty little fraud.

    90. Muscleguy says:

      For a start in the 2nd Quebec referendum the Canadian love in was really, properly meant. Their equivalent of the Smith commission actually paid out dividends for the PDQ in terms of real extra powers of the sort the SNP would salivate over (well the old Salmond led one would).

      What did the PDQ do? keep fostering the Oui alliance? No it went all French language fascist over everyone & especially civil servants. Being bilingual became a firing offence in effect.

      The PDQ lost power over it and is currently languishing in political obscurity. I don’t think the SNP are going to do that with gaelic but PC in Wales might be tempted but they really shouldn’t be.

      So the supposed rule that ‘lose a 2nd ref & its all off forever’ only applies if the party of independence behave like absolute dicks promoting senseless deeply dividing policies. Oh, wait . . .

    91. Rm says:

      Now their saying 60 percent to go for Independence yet 66 percent voted to stay in Europe why didn’t the SNP government go all out and do what the people voted for, if they’d fought to stay in Europe they would have had more than 80 percent of Scotland’s people behind them that would have been enough to end the union and stay in Europe, can’t understand it and they squandered 4 years doing nothing, no explanation, nothing.

    92. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      I don’t even understand any of this madness anymore. Can’t even be bothered saying anything angry or caustic. All been said before far more eloquently and forcefully. So here’s something lighthearted instead: maybe they’ve all been drinking this New Zealand wine, which I learned of tonight, to come up with this dribble of drivel.

    93. Ronald Fraser says:

      Stan Broadwood 7.47pm

      Spot on Stan.

      Nicola Sturgeon has had six years to put a strategy together to win our Independence and yet the silence coming out of Bute House is deafening.

      I will not support a Party who has no plans for Scottish Independence in their manifesto.

      And when I talk of a plan, I mean a step by step plan with real dates and timelines in it.

      Otherwise I will not vote for them.

    94. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      On a different tack. I actually had an interesting random conversation with a woman in her 80s today at a Stirling supermarket aboot the SNP. She had an SNP bag with some sentiment aboot the SNP representing Scotland in Westminster or something, and I said that it should talk aboot getting Scotland the Hell OUT of Westminster.

      She quickly came up with the way you know what side any Scottish person of, by saying that she hated what had happened to Alex Salmond and couldn’t believe it. I said it was a disgrace. She hesitantly offered that she didn’t like Nicola Sturgeon. I said I hated her. “I was being careful,” she said, and the reasons were obvious.

      We talked of how disgraceful what had happened to Salmond was, how she couldn’t believe what they had tried to do to him, how the party has stalled and changed, how she regarded Sturgeon as a dictator, and how she was disgusted with the GRA. We agreed on everything. And this was a random woman in her 80s!

      So the information aboot all this yankee intersectionalist madness is penetrating far further into society than the sleekit furtive SNP gives it credit for. We only talked for five minutes, but it was very interesting to hear a woman of her advanced age talk aboot this stuff, how excited she had been during the run-up to the indyref, out knocking doors and delivering leaflets and manning stalls, to…this pish.

      I felt heart-vexed for her, the poor woman, wanting nothing but her country to be independent, lied to and treated like oafish filth by the government of a country she loves. Sighing here. Just a random conversation, is all…but how many of these random conversations are being held more and more now round the country?

    95. Stan Broadwood says:

      The SNP



    96. Stan Broadwood says:

      Would you honestly admit to being a member of the SNP???

    97. Neil In Glasgow says:

      I would liken this to Walter smith’s tenure in charge of the national team. One strategy and when that was blown, didn’t have a clue on how to proceed. Case in point – 2005, we went ahead against Italy at hampden, were absolutely hammering them. They were there for the taking. But Walter’s game plan wasn’t to attack and take advantage. He hadn’t expected to have such a great start. We ended up retreating, they scored and the we didn’t win a game we had great chance to. We didn’t qualify for the finals either (Germany 2006 I think).

      NS had no intention to deliver independence any time soon after 2014 (I wouldn’t say never, but no time soon). But then brexit happened. And THAT line in the manifesto became a reality. She wasn’t ready and has spent every minute since fighting against it because it didn’t suit her ‘progressive’ plan. But now we’re on the cusp of the country having any meaningful clout being pulled and potentially the parliament being closed if you believe some folks. How the hell do you meaningfully call for a referendum (if that’s what we have to do) if we don’t have a legitimate platform to do so?

      My point is you can’t be a one trick pony and hope to win. You need to be able to change your strategy. As with old Walter, I don’t see that happening with NS.

    98. Daisy Walker says:

      Dear Stan,

      Those are very strong emotions you are expressing – and I’m not blaming you for having them.

      But is it the best use of your energy?

      Independence is about more than NS, more than the SNP.

      We have a country to save, and we need to get over 60% on board before the end of the year.

      If NS had been organised, or more committed, or, or, or, etc and the start button pressed, we would now be campaigning and making the case for Indy.

      That she has not, will be down to one reason or another – meanwhile the need for over 60% support for Indy really has to be done, and done soon, and we are the only ones to do so. And we don’t need NS to tell us to start. Our country needs for us to get it done.

      Being pissed off, disillusioned, betrayed, let down, etc by NS and or SNP (while it is arguably important to note) isn’t the issue and is potentially a really big distraction and a really big waste of time.

      The more support there is for Indy, the more untenable it is for NS, and co, not to put it to the voters – in one form or another, or indeed in any democratic form that circumstances permit.

      Just assume for a minute, that some of the SNP leaders have been got at by the British Estate. That was always going to happen, to some extent. The British Estate would not be doing their job if it didn’t.

      And if they cannot Bribe, or seduce, or corrupt, then they will kill and/or threaten to kill. They have form for this.

      We will never get enough evidence to prove it. All evidence will be deemed Conspiracy and only come out long after the event.

      Meanwhile the power lies with you, with me and with the people in our country. Lets get 60% support for Indy before 1/1/21.

      And if you are correct in your assessment of NS and co – watch them as they chew wasps trying to find a way of expressing disapproval at our actions, while at the same time not really being able to do so. Now won’t that be moral boosting.

      Best wishes.

    99. Stan Broadwood says:

      Daisy Walker

      You seem to be in the “one more push, one more Mandate” Brigade.

      I’m way past that stage Mrs.

      You go down your Gradualist route and I’ll go down my, hopefully more direct route.

      One that is hopefully without your hero Sturgeon.


    100. bipod says:

      Very interesting article here about the terminology being used about covid cases and how this effected the imperial models predictions.

      Also provides a nice reality check for those who still think covid is a death sentence.

    101. iain mhor says:

      I have been blethering about outrageous scenarios for a while. The scenarios are outrageous, but the premises are entirely valid. They are valid because, it is the exact same machinery under which the UK is Governed and from which its Authority, its Legislation and entire Rule of Law derives.

      So if its not a majority of MP’s on an Indy ticket and not a referendum and meekly remaining suborned to Westminster legislation, then the outrageous scenarios are what is left.

      It’s not a judicial matter either.

      Do I think it would ever occur? No, there is no politician smart enough, or with courage enough to pursue such scenarios – but they are the only ones which could be levered to create ‘worse consequences’ for Boris.

      The first is a direct attack on the Crown of Scotland – or rather a ‘challenge’ to the Scots Crown to defend itself. The second is the rejection of Monarchy entirely.

      We know Westminster’s authority derives entirely from the Crown, it isn’t any more complicated than that. It’s only other authority – is that ancient authority – Force of Arms.

      Every Commonwealth country with the current Monarchy as Head of State knows this. Without Monarchy their legislation holds no authority until they declare Republic (historically, at least two did precisely that) Then it was effectively over for Westminster and the Crown – finis – their writ no longer ran.

      @ mr thms, linked to a piece yesterday (from 2014) where Australia let that cat out the bag:
      [If the Scottish independence vote is successful the political and legal ramifications could flow to Australia, leaving it without a head of state, a constitutional expert has warned.
      Associate Professor Iain Stewart from Macquarie University said a ‘Yes’ vote in Scotland could “set adrift” the Queen’s representatives in Australia.
      “It could remove our head of state, the monarch, and thus, at least legally, make government in Australia impossible,” he said. “We need to think ahead. We may need to move to a republic and soon.”]

      Scotland uniquely has her own head of State whose authority derives upwards, not downwards. The rejection of Assent for any Bill, Act or Proclamation to the Crown in Scotland by her people must be defended. As we well know (or you should by now) it is indefensible – except by declaration of suzereinty over the Scots Crown, by the English Crown.

      In effect that has already ocurred without challenge. Scotland has had Bills ‘not Assented to’ and that can only occur if one Crown has rejected it, the other has no authority to do so.
      In tacitly accepting that situation, Scotlands representatives have accepted, either the suzereinty, or that the Scots Crown can reject the direction of her Parliament.

      It is a sorry, craven and ignominious state of affairs; any other time would have seen both Parliament and Crown cairted by Scotland’s populace for it.

      I would still not put money on any MP/MSP or Scottish Parliament pursuing the outrageous There is nothing however, to stop Scotland pursuing it without them – politicians are not required. A proclamation backed by a majority of Scots will do it.
      Will that happen? No, but I actually think there are better odds of it ocurring, than of any Scottish politician doing anything other than accepting Westminsters narrative and legislation in its entirety.

      What are ‘Worse consequences’ indeed? The removal of power, the removal of authority to wield it – there is nothing else remotely as harmful.

      tl;dr – Fundamentally it is to direct the Scots Crown to Assent to a Bill for eg a referendum or, defend the reason for refusal.
      Or, win an election on Republic – Or (left field odds) sans politics or parliament, the collective majority of Scots publically proclaming whatever they require.

      Gibbering pish ends.

    102. Daisy Walker says:

      Dear Stan

      I am not a Sturgeon fan. I very much share the concerns about her raised in this and other articles.

      We are all gradualists to one extent or another.

      I am making, or trying to make, a very clear call to ‘campaign arms’ now, without delay, and as a matter of urgency.

      It is going to take all our energy, all of our commitment and enterprise. We don’t have time, or the luxury of fighting unnecessary battles.

      It is also going to need all the Yessers, putting aside the differences that they can, and concentrating on the common ground that needs covered.

      We need to get support for Indy over the 60% mark before year end. And we need to campaign for that to happen. We cannot now wait in hope for NS – or AS to ‘lead’ us into doing that.

      Hope that makes sense.

      Kind regards.

    103. Dogbiscuit says:

      Angus Robertson is an unconscious comedian who gives expression to the most ridiculous ideas.

    104. Kenny says:

      Asking (politely!) for a S30 is just part of it.

      You also need to campaign for indy! You need to be telling Scots all the time why Scotland is wealthy in natural resources, why the union does not work, why pensioners get the worst pension in Europe, refute the constant unionist lies and myths…

      Do you see the SNP doing this? Nicola Sturgeon?

      Now, if only the leader of the SNP had a daily platform with the chance to bang on about indy…

    105. Daisy Walker says:

      Dear Stan,

      I am reminded of the scene in Life of Brian where he has been sentenced to death and his girlfriend goes along to the committee to argue that they really really need to beak him out of jail now, before its too late.

      Anyway, if you’ve seen the film, you’ll know the rest.

      Anyhow that’s enough ‘time of the month’ from me tonight.

      Cheerie to all.

    106. OldPete says:

      I am a member of the SNP and was happy to campaign for Philippa Whitford to be elected as MP for Central Ayrshire last December.

    107. Craig Murray says:

      Lizg @ 4.57

      You are absolutely correct. The unionist media are increasingly saying “Boris will have to grant an S30 due to moral pressure” you know they are leading us down a blind alley.

    108. Daisy Walker says:

      And one last one @ Kenny ‘do you see the SNP, or Nicola doing this’.

      No, I don’t, and its disgraceful.

      But don’t let anyone tell you that it has to be her, and only her, and only the ‘snp’ who are qualified and able to do so.

      That is bollocks.

      It is up to you and me, and every other yesser.

      The snp campaign in 2014 was poor. The YESSERS campaign was inspiring and creative.

      You did that. We did that.

      Now we have to do it again, and do it better.

      And we have to do it now, and we have to get yes over the 60% before years end.

    109. McDuff says:

      We need a credible alternative party. After many many years of supporting the SNP they now quite honestly make me sick.

    110. JG says:

      There’s a lot of talk on here about spoiling ballot papers. I disagree with many policies SNP are putting forward however independence is the priority over everything else until it’s done. In 2021 it is vital everyone who supports independence votes for SNP as there is no other show in town if there is to be a majority. So I plead with anyone who genuinely wants independence to swallow the grievances for now and give SNP every vote possible…. if they don’t secure a referendum date during 2021 only then, should we be looking to oust those who don’t deliver. After independence they are gone anyway and the ballot box will then be about policy. Don’t forget independence is, by a huge margin, the main priority and everything else pales into insignificance….for 2021

    111. Daisy Walker says:

      And another ‘one last one’ @ McDuff ‘we need a credible alternative party’

      I understand this argument, and I’m not against it, if it forms up.

      But time is running out and the argument against, is it gives the British Nationalists a single target to aim at.

      In my opinion Scottish Voters hold the HE above the council elections and just under the GE’s.

      They vote for local councillors ’cause they know them locally, and they’re fairly decent’. Party loyalty is not such a big thing.

      The same can be true on the second vote for HE.

      A loose alliance of local independence candidates creates numerous individuals to attack – in their local area, where awbiddy kent their father….

      And you identify those credible locals candidates in a campaign, and that is also where you get them elected.

      While at the same time getting yes over 60% before years end.

      And while your doing all that, you don’t have time to be sick…

    112. Beaker says:

      Wtf is Pete Wishart gibbering on about? I could accept that comment from a neutral commentator or someone opposed to independence. But from a long term SNP MP?

      O/T, I have a week’s leave ahead of me. Going to be bloody weird given that I’ve been working from home since March and probably not going anywhere since Lanarkshire is about to be locked down.

      I like writing so anyone got ideas for a Scottish-themed short story? I’ll try anything, even fantasy such as Willie Rennie being First Minister in 2021 🙂

    113. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Craig Murray –

      The idea that Boris Johnson even registers ‘moral pressure’ is hilarious.

      It’s just a shame that some indy supporters are repeating the same line and going in a big huff with those of us who call them out for talking such fantastical shite.

    114. Dogbiscuit says:

      Beaker how about the story of a democracy that became a tyranny overnight while the people slept in front of their TVs?

    115. Beaker says:

      @Ian Brotherhood says:
      5 September, 2020 at 9:48 pm
      “The idea that Boris Johnson even registers ‘moral pressure’ is hilarious.”

      Someone would need to explain “moral” to Boris first. He probably knows all about “pressure”, but decorum dictates I do not explain this any further, as I do not want to upset the delicate constitutions of readers 🙂

    116. Jimmock says:

      It’s simple. SNP says election 2021 is independence election. Every day SNP says “if you want independence vote SNP 1 and 2. If you want to stay in U.K. vote for someone else. Repeat this mantra day after day so that no one can ever say they did not know. Every leaflet and every broadcast says the same. TV Debates the same. Every question about health, currency, law, education etc gets the same response. “ this is the independence election and any other question is dependent on the post independence Scottish government.

    117. JG says:

      Also looking at a few of the posts, while there are many that quite rightly question SNPs drive for independence, there are quite a few that are obviously from unionists trying to stir shit.

    118. Andy Ellis says:

      @Brian Lucey 6.37pm

      I didn’t say the UN would, nor would I depend on it. “Real life” will be somewhat more complex than your simple formulations. We’ve already established you have no idea about the subject you’re bloviating about, because like so many you simply haven’t done your homework. You don’t understand, not have you taken the opportunity to be schooled by those of us who do.

      If Westminster refuses to “allow” #indyref2, and Martin Keating’s legal case results in a decision that Holyrood has no right to do so, the movement has a choice. It can accept that our self determination is indeed forever “in the gift” of Westminster (which is essentially Madrid’s argument on Catalonia or the Basques) or it can change tack.

      I have zero faith that the current SNP is in a place to abandon the “Gold Standard” referendum yet, but that could change quickly when the yoons say (as they inevitbly will and have) “now is not the time, get back to us after a generation has passed since 2014….so….2029?”.

      Many of us would like and are pushing for Holyrood 2021 to be made a plebiscite, but it’s probably too late to force the SNP to change. Realistically therefore, we have to wait for the full dystopian brexit nightmare to hit, more Tory misrule and post Covid-19 economic problems, and build support internationally that it is unconscionable for Westminster to stonewall ad infinitum.

      The next available opportunity after Holyrood 2021 will be the Westminster GE in 2024. Hopefully by then ordinary SNP members will have cleansed the party of the current gradualist leadership and their Wokus Dei cadres.

      I seriously doubt many in the international community will be motivated to do favours for the UK.

    119. OldPete says:

      Well posted Jimmock, pity more on here don’t think the same.

    120. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Just throwing this out there – genuinely curious for thoughts…

      If, say, IndyLive organised an online ‘debate’ and invited the top Scottish bloggers to try and thrash out some of the issues dividing us right now, would you watch it?

      Could you suggest questions for the host to ask?

      If so, let’s hear them.


    121. Jimmock says:

      Sorry, did not complete previous post. So, SNP gets 50% plus in election, then we know yes will win referendum. Voters will know they have won. Positive feedback comes in. This will increase yes vote. Boris says NO , he will! SNP government holds referendum without section 30. Unionists abstain to delegitimise vote, but Yes already has legitimacy from election.

    122. Andy Ellis says:

      @Jimmock @Old Pete

      Not going to happen. Like many, I’ll vote ISP or WoS on the list if Stu stands up a party for HR2021. My constituency vote might go to the SNP in Edinburgh Central depending who the candidate is: definitely NOT if Robertson is gifted a run at the seat.

      The SNP don’t have the political cojones to go for a plebiscitary election, so absent some palace coup in Bute House before HR2021 we can kiss goodbye to #indyref2 anytime soon. The logic of that is actually the OPPOSITE of your cunning plan. Far from voting SNP 1 & 2, we should all be voting for alternative indy parties on the list, particularly those immune to the Woko Haram contagion.

      Since we aren’t getting an indyref anytime this decade, we need to start preparing alternative forces to keep the SNP honest. The gradualists in charge aren’t to be trusted.

    123. CameronB Brodie says:

      I wish I could be more tolerant of your ideological determination to undermine a respect for public health ethics and global health law, but you are actively undermining democracy and the rule-of-law, which can’t survive without a legal respect for the “Right to Health”. Suggesting that medical opinion which is clearly unhealthily libertarian in nature, is anywhere near legally credible, indicates you are unable to argue within the bounds of legal reason. You lack competence in public health matters, so gonna just stop wasting btl space? Please.

      A Reference to the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion over COVID-19 Pandemic

      ….Requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ would be a desirable route to clarify, for instance:

      1. The international obligations of States in the face of an international spread of disease, and, in particular (here, here, listen, and listen):

      When these obligations arise;

      Whether the provisions of the International Health Regulations are legally binding;

      Whether the WHO guidance and recommendations fall within the scope of the International Health Regulations; and

      The extent of national legislative power in pursuance of health policies “in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law” (Art. 3(4) International Health Regulations).

      2. The legal consequences for both the WHO and its Members arising from the failure to perform their respective obligations owed under international law relating to the international spread of disease (here and here); and

      3. The way in which States should balance their competing international obligations, such as international human rights, when confronting an international spread of disease (see e.g. here and here).

      These kinds of questions do not appear to exclusively fall within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. As they are questions of international law, they fall within the sphere of issues on which the ICJ could exercise its advisory jurisdiction (see Interpretation of Peace Treaties).

      The framing of the question is vital. Where the question is unclear or vague, the Court may interpret the scope and meaning of the question and a great deal will depend on how it proceeds to do so. In the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, for example, how the question was drafted enabled the ICJ to avoid inquiring into the precise status under international law of a declaration of independence and to focus on narrower questions relating to the consequences of declarations of independence (here, here and here)….

    124. Andy Ellis says:

      @Jimmock 10.18

      The international community won’t recognise a non-sanctioned referendum. It’s literally pointless. If British nationalists fail to honour the 2014 precedent, and the courts back them up, we need Plan B. The SNP don’t have a Plan B, indeed the hard of thinking gradualists booed the very idea at their conference.

      Gaining 50% in an election is only a mandate for independence if pro-indy parties specifically stand on that mandate. Clueless SNP loyalists would be better occupied changing their leaderships approach than continually spouting this magical thinking.

    125. Jimmock says:

      Listen, “who rattled your cage”. I am 80 years old and have been an SNP member since I left the forces in 1964. Political parties change their leadership and their policies over time. The SNP is the only way to independence. Nicola sturgeon will not be there forever but she is doing a great job in differentiating us from England. Your job and my job is to push her towards independence. This will not come by section 30. See my previous posts. Be positive. Work towards independence. Don’t undermine the movement.

    126. Jimmock says:

      Andy Ellis, you haven’t seen my previous post re 2021 election. This would legitimise referendum.

    127. mike cassidy says:


      Beaker 9.48

      An idea for a Scottish story.

      I was always intrigued by the fact that Scottish sports journalist, Glenn Gibbons, spent a year at a high school in Portland Oregon in 1959/60 as part of a school exchange when he was 15.

      I have no idea if there was some official Scottish exchange programme on the go

      Or whether it was something specific to his Secondary school

      Certainly never came across any reference to such a thing

      But there has to be some scope for a story either way

      A 15 year old Scot in an American High School as the Sixties began

      The mind boggles.

      And if anybody knows more ….

    128. Margaret E says:

      @Ian Brotherhood 10.27
      The Dangerfield article is a long and difficult read but believe me, it is worth it. I have read all the drafts that were released in the FOI documents but did not get the significance of the omissions. Dangerfield’s two final questions really need an honest answer.
      It’s too late where I am to go into further detail but perhaps some of the night-time posters could have a look.

    129. Jimmock says:

      Andy Ellis, you haven’t seen my previous post re 2021 election. This would legitimise referendum. You say SNP “ do not have the political cojones” I hope you are wrong but fear you are right. So we must work to make them see the light. An alternative list party as you propose can ONLY work if led by someone like Alec Salmond. Otherwise it will get less than 5% along with the other three parties set up by the unionists.

    130. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Margaret E –

      Thanks for the feedback.

      Yes, not a quick read but I suppose that’s where its value lies – the context and detail is all there. I daresay this helps us at least select another piece of the jigsaw Craig Murray and Rev Stu have been alluding to. We may not – yet! – be able to tell if this is an ‘edge’, a ‘corner’ or just a bit from somewhere in the middle! but we’re getting there!


    131. Jimmock says:

      Macduff at 9 37 oh fuff off macduck

    132. Stan Broadwood says:

      MacDuff 9.37pm

      You say Sturgeon makes you sick.

      I know how you feel.

      And even after that admission, you get Sturgeon fanatics telling you to never have those feelings ever again.

      How dare you feel like that about our glorious leader.

      She is Nicola Sturgeon and you are not allowed to have such feelings.

      Jimmock was the Sturgeon fanatic who told you off.

      He is a member of the “Spineless Numpties Party” aka the SNP.

      So MacDuff, you can either get angry at him,,,or feel sorry for him.

    133. Ian Brotherhood says:

      This is the concluding passage from a lengthy blogpost, published today, by Gordon Dangerfield, Scottish Solicitor Advocate.


      ‘On 24 August 2018, Leslie Evans issued a statement in which she confirmed that the new procedure approved by Nicola Sturgeon on 20 December 2017 had been used to process two formal complaints against Alex Salmond. That procedure was, in all essential respects, the Richards recast of 5 December 2017.

      Evans stated that she had advised Salmond two days previously of “my conclusions” and that “I was considering the public interest in making the fact of the complaints and investigation publically known.” She continued, “I am now able to confirm the fact of the complaints”.

      The First Minister, she said, “has had no role in this process. I advised her of the conclusions of my investigation on Wednesday and she is of course aware that I am making this statement today.”

      Salmond raised judicial review proceedings over the procedure used against him and the Scottish Government was subjected to a humiliating defeat. Again, Nicola Sturgeon, it would appear, played no role in that matter either.

      Just as Leslie Evans, an unelected civil servant, had made all the decisions about the Salmond complaints so, it would appear, she made all the decisions about the judicial review too. It is a “well established principle,” the First Minister told the Parliament in her Statement of 8 January 2019, speaking of the Salmond complaints process and the Scottish Government’s concession of apparent bias, “that such a process must not just be impartial in fact, but must also be seen to be so. It was on that basis that the Permanent Secretary decided to settle the case…”

      This is not the only part of Sturgeon’s Statement that seems other-worldly. There is a firm conviction of self-righteousness in all that she says, as if the Richards recast was something that came down from the mountain on tablets of stone, and that she had no choice but to accept.

      Yes, she happily agrees with Jackson Carlaw, she didn’t know what was going on in her own Government but that was right and proper because she was forbidden from knowing by the procedure.

      Yes, “of course” the Permanent Secretary did not inform her of the complaints against Salmond, because that would have been contrary to the procedure.

      Yes, she was finally informed of the complaints by Salmond himself on 2 April 2018 but the “important principle” on which she was “absolutely satisfied” was that she did not “seek to intervene” because that was forbidden by the procedure.

      And so on.

      It is hard to know if she even remembers that as recently as 24 November 2017, when there is no doubt she saw and discussed at length Hynd’s fifth draft of the procedure, it was just as obvious that she would be informed of such complaints as soon as they were received, that she would have had a positive duty to “intervene” in the process in order to ensure Salmond’s cooperation, or even that she herself and not an unelected civil servant would have been the one to make the all-important decisions on the complaints.

      But as is vividly demonstrated by the history of the drafting process set out in the documents now made public, the procedure used against Salmond did not come down from the mountain. It was recast dramatically on 5 December 2017 by mere human beings.

      So again the questions arise:

      If it was Sturgeon’s own idea to suddenly remove herself from the complaints process for former Ministers, why did she do it?

      If it was not her idea, why did she go along with it?’

    134. Stan Broadwood says:

      Spineless Numpties Party members seem to think they have a God given right to come onto sites like Wings Over Scotland and tell non believers how to think.

      This is maybe why their Party are losing members by the bucket load.

      It is like they are trying to censor the comments that you Post on Wings. Trying to stop any critisisum of Sturgeon getting out to the general public.

      It doesn’t work that way.

      This maybe explain why many of them are in favour of the Hate Crime Bill.

    135. holymacmoses says:

      I have a feeling that the difficulties being encountered in the Brexit negotiations are making many members even more timorous about embarking on a similar exercise for Scotland.
      MORE than anything though, I keep asking myself
      “Whose idea was it to attack Alex Salmond in such a profoundly destructive and unfair manner? One would have to be foolish not to realise that it was a calculated assault on a man who had raised the profile and confidence of Scotland to new heights. If Mr Salmond had been genuinely dangerous and offensive towards women it would have been unearthed and he would have been annihilated with or without ‘me too’. BUT someone in the SNP hated/feared the ex-leader and/or Scotland so much that they were prepared to risk a great deal by using ALL the political and legal forces available in an attempt to disgrace him and thus weaken the status which Scotland had achieved. There, indeed, was the passion which is required by SNP, sadly focused on the destruction of one man.

      Mr Robertson became mysteriously wealthy after the equally mysterious losses by the SNP in the North East in 2017 and set up ‘Progress Scotland’ alongside the Ipsos Mori polster Mark Diffney.
      It’s an interesting pro-independence party in that it seems to dwell on telling folk where the ‘yes’ voters go wrong and in tandem say that they’re there to ‘progress towards Independence’ . This timid caution is reflected in the’lack of fire in the belly’ display of the SNP party AND YET I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some people in Scotland working against Independence with a cruel, violent and impassioned determination.

    136. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @holymacmoses (12.09) –

      ‘…someone in the SNP hated/feared the ex-leader and/or Scotland so much that they were prepared to risk a great deal by using ALL the political and legal forces available in an attempt to disgrace him and thus weaken the status which Scotland had achieved.’

      Even worse, it appears that they went to all the trouble of creating tailor-made powers to seal the deal.

      I hope Craig Murray and Rev Stu feel able to give us a few more morsels.

    137. bipod says:


      I am not really sure what your complaint is about that article. He is making a factual scientific argument about terminology and statistics, not a legal one. Unless you are suggesting his writings should just be dismissed because of some political motivations you have just guessed at it, that would be very narrow minded of you. And frankly I don’t think your experience or qualifications make you any more of an authority on this subject over me or anyone else on this site. So I will continue commenting and maybe you can tone down the gatekeeping?

    138. holymacmoses says:

      Ian Brotherhood.

      Thanks for the Dangerfield link Ian

      Even worse, it appears that they went to all the trouble of creating tailor-made powers to seal the deal.
      I hope Craig Murray and Rev Stu feel able to give us a few more morsels.

      More than anything, I hope that the people responsible for trying to destroy a great man with paltry lies, cooked up from vile imaginations, are totally unmasked and made to stand to public account for their treachery. I AM sure that they will be terrified by now – and rightly so.

    139. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m suggesting your sources are at least ideologically influenced, where as you appear to be entirely ideologically motivated. You’ll need to show a better understanding of science and stuff, if you want me to give your opinion more weight.

      Globalization and Health volume 16, Article number: 70 (2020)
      The International Health Regulations (2005), the threat of populism and the COVID-19 pandemic


      The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare weaknesses and major challenges in the international approach to managing public health emergencies. Populist sentiment is spreading globally as democratic nations are increasing their support for or electing governments that are perceived to represent “traditional” native interests.

      Measures need to be taken to proactively address populist sentiment when reviewing the IHR (2005) effectiveness in the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss how populism can impact the IHR (2005) and conversely how the IHR (2005) may be able to address populist concerns if the global community commits to helping states address public health threats that emerge within their borders.

    140. defo says:

      ‘I say tomayty, you say tomato, let’s…call an EGM, & resign’.

    141. Beaker says:

      @Ian Brotherhood says:
      5 September, 2020 at 10:07 pm
      “If, say, IndyLive organised an online ‘debate’ and invited the top Scottish bloggers to try and thrash out some of the issues dividing us right now, would you watch it?”

      I’d watch it. However, being serious (for once), you would need someone to act as a Chair for the debate, otherwise it would likely get heated. It’s a good idea and relatively easy to set up I would imagine.

      @mike cassidy says:
      5 September, 2020 at 10:47 pm
      Beaker 9.48
      “An idea for a Scottish story.
      A 15 year old Scot in an American High School as the Sixties began”

      Grease meets Gregory’s Girl meets The Krays? 🙂

    142. David Caledonia says:

      Robert Graham I salute you sir, at least you know what’s what, half of them on here could not tell there backside from a big empty thing in the ground

    143. David Caledonia says:

      In favour of the bill, what planet are some of you people on, Its going down the pan where it will never show its face again
      Do some of you people ever pay attention to anything, as my old mate use to say, if you had brains you’d be dangerous

    144. Lukas Scholts says:

      “ in which case what the hell have they been doing opposing it implacably for most of the last century? Bluffing?”

      It is possible that the Tories want rid of Scotland or will want rid of Scotland in future. From an English nationalist perspective it makes sense and England is going through one of those phases right now… hence brexit.

      There’s also an economic case which should make sense to many Scottish Indy supporters as well as English nationalists. If you believe they’ve only clung on to us for oil and other economic reasons, it’s implicit that you believe they might want rid of us if or when the economics change, oil runs out, and Scotland becomes a clear economic burden.

      It’s odd all this. I think we have a greater chance of achieving independence if Tory thinking changes along the lines suggested above than through any plan or machination that the current SNP puts up. That’s not to say I believe it likely; but the SNP have really got no means at all of getting us there.

      The SNP is hamstrung right now. That’s a major failure of leadership. A business or organisation that can’t deliver its core service or product has no reason to exist.

      Imagine McDonalds couldn’t come up with a burger, cineworld was unable to show films, Hamleys had no ham, etc. That’s the position the SNP finds itself in today. And it’s the position the Labour Party has been in since it sold its soul in the 1990s.

    145. twathater says:

      David Caledonia (are you really my bungo pony) because like him you like to throw the same insults around , many people who have been on WOS for ages recognise similarities in posters methodologies and techniques and yours mirrors MBP in his and your inability to recognise that NS is being disingenuous and misleading in her VAGUE ahem promises

      Surely if NS were being serious and GENUINE in her proclamations she would at LEAST have included a tenuous timetable for her proposals but NO let’s just keep stringing the sheep along with the carrot of indy

      Also many people are INSTRUCTING voters to PARK their objections to the reviled policies to engender togetherness and civility in our mutual quest for indy

      I have ASKED on numerous occasions and on numerous blogs if cohesion and togetherness is SO important to the indy cause why is Nicola Sturgeon not doing THAT EXACT THING why do we voters have to swallow these shite policies but saint Nicola won’t relent in her woke progression

    146. Col says:

      I was rounded upon, abused after Nicolas terrible defeat in 2017. All for asking her to step aside. Anyway, I’m thick skinned! I think her strategy is just waiting and waiting and then some more! I understand that they need Scotland to be behind them but ffs make a big chess move at least when the UK government makes one?! They’re acting more like rabbit in the headlights than a government willing to fight for our rights.

    147. twathater says:

      Ian B thanks for that link to Gordon Dangerfield’s article, what strikes me is the DESPERATE collusion to headhunt A Salmond and the desperate lengths they went to to do that, 8 draft bills were drawn up by Hynd and the ninth one written by Richards was chosen
      which included
      (For harassment complaints against current Ministers, the First Minister remained, as she always had been, the “ultimate judge of their conduct”, both of whether a complaint was to be upheld and of what the consequences would be if it was.

      But for harassment complaints against former Ministers, she now had no role at all: “The Permanent Secretary will … decide whether the complaint is well-founded.”
      And also (And then: “The Permanent Secretary will also determine whether any further action is required…”)

      An UNELECTED civil servant doing the FM job where else in the world would that happen OH WAIT

    148. Wee Chid says:

      Fireproofjim says:
      5 September, 2020 at 3:30 pm
      “Anyone saying they won’t vote SNP next May is not interested in Independence, as with independence, comes the right to kick them out if necessary.”
      How does voting SNP get us to independence if independence is no longer the goal of the SNP?

    149. Dogbiscuit says:

      I’m still enjoying my coffee.

    150. Robert Louis says:

      No Tory Prime minister is going to openly help make indyref happen if they think they would lose. The more likely a YES win, the less likely will be co-operation from London. I hate to say it, but even in Westminster, they aren’t that stupid.

      Either Nicola Sturgeon is shockingly naive (hint: she isn’t) or she is taking indy supporters and the people of Scotland for fools.

      I genuinely despair when I see seemingly intelligent folk buy into this latest p*sh from the SNP. It is wishful thinking, hoping beyond hope that this time, she really, really means it. Her track record shows she doesn’t, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.

      Sadly, Scotland’s chances to break free from this hell, are rapidly vanishing, while an SNP Scottish government sits and watches, doing nothing.

      Like REV Stu, my anger at this shower of lying SNP ‘leaders’ is hard to contain. I have nothing but contempt for Nicola Sturgeon’s latest little ‘show-piece’ of indyref lies.

      So, here we are, in 2020. We have the most corrupt government in the history of the developed world in London, with the most inept and corrupt prime minister in UK history. Polls are now consistently showing a majority for independence, and people are literally screaming out for change. Scotland is about to be forcibly removed from the EU by England, leading to sustained and damaging poverty and recession. The SNP should be charging on for independence by any route possible (if one route is prevented by London, then the next taken and so on). It should be ALL they are focussed on. BUT THEY ARE NOT. And that, I am afraid, tells us everything.

      We will not get independence with Nicola Sturgeon in charge. She is a coward, weak spirited, and a liar. Rather than try to save Scotland from our fate at the end of the year, she worries about her personal career.

      Nicola Sturgeon will be remembered for one thing in Scottish history, letting the people of Scotland down in its moment of greatest need. Brexit will literally destroy Scotland. Nicola chooses to ‘look the other way’. Any political leader anywhere, who was geuinely desperate for the restoration of independence in their country would be charging onwards with it, right now.

      The SNP and its ‘leader’ are utterly, utterly pathetic. They have betrayed Scotland. They promised a referendum and promised that Scotland would not be taken out of the EU against its will. They have full, uncontested, democratic mandates for both, but CHOOSE to do neither.

    151. Contrary says:

      @Wee Child – the cognitive dissonance of the populist argument is rather unsettling isn’t it – they can’t prove in any way except through unerring belief that the SNP plan to take us to independence – in fact many of them agree that continued waiting is a good strategy (when it evidently is not) – but still try to bully people into the SNP vote because, they claim, otherwise you don’t support independence. There is no logic to the argument and while there is doubt about the SNPs intentions it’s madness to suggest such a thing. Why are these people putting all their efforts into bullying normal voters into staying silent and believing what they believe, and not into trying to get the SNP to commit, or give answers, or improve in some way? And it is bullying – no one should be telling anyone else how to vote. And certainly not doing it in a threatening manner or suggesting moral baggage attached to it.

      @ Ian Brotherhood – thanks for the Dangerfield link, I’ve still to catch up and watch the latest committee stuff, but that clarifies for me some of what was bothering me about Hynd’s evidence the other week – his plausible ‘gap’ in the procedure,,, none of his reasoning sat right with me.

      There wasn’t a gap, and there wasn’t any need to add previous ministers – why add such a complex and redundant section to a harassment policy – a policy that ensures your working environment is free from harassment – so if a person is no longer present to do any harassment what is the point in bringing it up, they don’t affect your employment. I cannot believe HR and legal minds thought that was grand. If complaints are serious enough for a witch hunt after employment has ended, it should go to the police. You can’t complain about harassment when the person is no longer present! The whole premise seems bonkers, yet James Hynd kept saying it was his decision alone and ‘in light of me too’ it was needed – no it wasn’t and he should have been told straight off that it had no place in a harassment policy. If it was purely a minesterial code thing, maybe – but not a civil servant harassment policy. All the people involved in it – though there were somewhat less people than would normally be by the sounds of it – you’d have thought they’d have mention how non-sensical it was.

      If a person is completely removed from your working environment then any harassment complaints are already resolved – they are gone, there is no longer any harassment – there is no such thing as retrospective harassment, because these policies are there to ensure you have a fair working environment, not a way to bitch about someone once they’ve gone.

    152. Robert Louis says:

      Muscleguy at 0754pm,

      I totally agree. I cannot fathom the way in which indy supporters gladly re-gurgitate the UNIONIST lie that losing a second indyref would destroy all hopes of independence. This fetish of citing Quebec, is as you say, absurd. Quebec literally gained Scotland’s ‘vow’ in full, plus more, as a result. That is why the desire for indy dried up there. It was not because people lost interest.

      Had the central Canadian government NOT given massive new powers and autonomy to Quebec, then I do not doubt their would have been a third, fourth and fifth indy referendum. Unlike London, Ottawa was smart, after the indyref, they GAVE significant new powers and autonomy. The ‘vow’, if you like, was delivered in full, and more.

    153. Robert Louis says:

      cynical highlander at0724am,

      Thanks for that important link.

      MacAskill takes aim and doesn’t miss.

      Here is a short selection

      On the Salmond stitch-up

      “The suggestion, or solace, perhaps sought by some, that this was a British civil service conspiracy was always fanciful.
      “The fingerprints of senior party officials are all over this, and truth will out”

      On indyref and the SNP’s incompetence

      “Rather than stitching up selection ballots, members were rightly expecting preparations were begun to achieve and win indyref2”

      Since I have quoted text, here is the full link to the National

    154. Margaret E says:

      You say that those involved (I think you mean \evans, Hynd and Richards) are terrified. No, they are not terrified. I watched the judicial enquiry proceedings and their collective demeanour was anything but.
      Richards laughed about her role and said that the only thing she had learned was perhaps she should find a new job. Her laugh showed her sense of absolute security in that job.
      Hynd was exactly like Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes Minister (down to his finding and reiterating the mysterious gap, solution to all the Holyrood questioning).
      Evans was as smooth as silk except right at the beginning, when she was unable to take the oath and had to be taken through it word by word. Perhaps in her ethical universe, that absolves her from actually having taken the oath. I don’t know. It was certainly very strange to watch it live.
      Perhaps also, with regard to the involvement of Sturgeon, they are all using the word know to mean something other than what it usually means. Perhaps to’know’ in Scotgov t4erms means ‘to be informed officially’.
      But then, why the enormous amount of redactions in the released documents, and the adamant refusal to release any more of them. Playing for time, perhaps?
      But this is being undertaken with the long-term financial, mental and physical torture (and I do not use that word lightly) being daily inflicted on the former First minister, Alex Salmond, the former ambassador Craig Murray and the owner of this blog, Stuart Campbell.
      Now even the tiny offenders are being targeted. Whoever heard of someone being arrested at DAWN (!) for the breaking of a bye-law???
      Every day I say to myself, This cannot be serious, this cannot be happening in my country. And that is without mentioning the grossness of the attempt to deny the scientific foundation of all human life on this planet. Which will entail the rewriting of a great deal of legislation.
      So, ultimately, I despair of my fellow citizens who are going along with these fully preventable events (but only if we are prepare to stand up and be counted).
      I very rarely comment as I don’t have much time (I can and do donate) but the Dangerfield analysis, brought to our attention by Ian Brotherhood, needs to be read and understood by a much wider audience.

    155. Breeks says:

      twathater says:
      6 September, 2020 at 3:40 am
      Ian B thanks for that link to Gordon Dangerfield’s article, what strikes me is the DESPERATE collusion to headhunt A Salmond and the desperate lengths they went to to do that, 8 draft bills were drawn up by Hynd and the ninth one written by Richards was chosen…

      Well, if I’m understanding correctly, the gist is, it’s meant to be credible that Sturgeon was Party to, and indeed was ultimately in charge all 8 drafts of the complaints procedure as they evolved, except the final 9 draft that was ‘recast’ (a word which implies reinvented rather than an evolving distillation of the 8 earlier drafts – a new script rather than a rewrite), with and coincidentally went after Salmond?

      I don’t believe that’s true for one second, but even if it was true, it would be a stunning stab in the back for Nicola Sturgeon to be set up like a patsy by her own civil servants, and frankly, she simply hasn’t reacted in a way to make that version of events credible. She promoted Evans! It also seems incredible for the FM to be in charge of the process for 8 drafts, but she doesn’t even know what the 9th draft says before it’s in effect and going after Salmond?

      Instead, it absolutely reeks of ‘plausible deniability’, “Oh dear I never knew!”

      What a pit of vipers. I wouldn’t trust any of them. It reads like setting up a political assassination, making sure the target is set up to in the right place at the right time, choosing the assassin, providing the weapon, but suddenly, when the shot fired wasn’t fatal, the shit suddenly hits the fan, the conspiracy is undone, everybody needs an alibi, and she’s pleading innocence because she didn’t physically pull the trigger.

      What seems incredible too is Sturgeon would throw the likes of Neale Hanvey or Mark MacDonald onto the political scrap heap for the mere suggestion of flimsiest indiscretion, while happy to exempt herself from such standards of conduct. Alex Salmond don’t forget, a man of integrity, stood down to clear his name and defend himself. Sturgeon hides in Bute House, digging in, behind redacted evidence and anonymous conspiracy.

      No wonder she admits to suffering from Imposter syndrome, but is it appropriate to call it “Imposter Syndrome” when it’s proper old fashioned name is a “Guilty Conscience”?

    156. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Beaker @ 9.48pm Saturday

      Re your idea for a Scottish short story, that one has, to an extent been done.

      Go and watch the wonderful Dirt Road to Lafayette.

    157. brian lucey says:

      I have to say reading these comments is both funny and depressing

      Mike Tyson said everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.the thread running through all of these approaches is that because Scotland has a moral, are unimpeachable democratic, inalienable, historic, right to be independent then somehow the English establishment will recognise that and play fair. This is terribly terribly naive.

    158. Pete says:

      Somewhere earlier you posted a link on a report by Dr Malcolm Kendrick which blows a massive hole in the conventional thinking on Covid.
      This is just so worth reading.
      It puts into a cogent form exactly what my instinct has been telling me.
      Thanks for that.
      Brilliant stuff.
      Afraid I couldn’t make the rally in Edinburgh yesterday.

    159. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Out of touch comment of the day. Can I nominate Henry McLeish, commentingt on the current travails of Rheingold Leotard, the Labour Party in Scotland’s spokesman.

      The bold Henry says: “We keep changing the manager, but, nothing changes on the pitch.”

      Surely, the fact that the manager(s) are 400 miles away is a factor. Leotard is not the manager, he is wearing the captain’s arm band, and he is not even the best player int he team.

      Until the Labour Party in Scotland becomes a truly Scottish Labour Party, they will continue to go down the stank. Some day, they might waken-up to this and recover to challenge for relevance in Scotland.

    160. Rm says:

      Don’t think the rot within the SNP can be got rid of it’s too deep rooted, has to be a new Independence Party with a mix of people who were or are blue and white collar workers that’ll represent the whole of Scottish society, the longer we wait the less chance we have of ending the union, the SNP are giving the unionists far to much time to think, Scotland needs different leaders.

    161. Ian McCubbin says:

      I have switched off to anything SNP put out now. It all sounds like slow steps to nothing.

      They even put out a YES branded pledge to membership for their new ‘campaign’ for Independence.
      We in the YES Movement need a new route

    162. rob says:

      Lets have our own referedum in case the SNP fail to deliver.
      Sign the Digital Covenant. 2.2 million sign ups required.

      You need to forms of ID

    163. Ross says:

      The Catalan question, amongst other complications, was not given any credence by the EU and other countries because it could not be proven beyond doubt that a majority wanted independence.

      Confrontation is coming and we need to build the majority to get that support.

      The next vote will be a confirmation of the perceived will of the people, not a free hit like last time based on a question of principle.

      Other than external influences, once unionists feel like a minorty in Scotland and yes is a clear preference , this strengthens the case for wildcat referendums within our own population. Doing it while it’s fifty fifty weakens the case in our own population and the international community.

    164. Denise says:

      So if I understand the Dangerfield analysis
      The starting position was Ministerial Code Harassment breaches responsibility of FM

      This was changed to include Harassment include former ministers – against WM advice
      Then Head of Civil Service given joint responsibility for harassment breaches as it might involve a civil servant
      Then FM removed from any responsibility

      Sounds like a Yes minister script
      It was a sinister plan to take down Alex Salmond while allowing the FM to claim no knowledge or responsibility- in fact claim she knew nothing about it.

      She has been running a massive PR campaign since the verdict, pretending to be oh so compassionate but hopefully the truth will out when Salmond gives evidence. I hope justice will e done.

      Its infuriating that so many are taken in by her.

      My family are of the ‘only the SNP can get us independence, so you have to vote for them’ and ‘Nicola is responsible for the 55% Yes and she is bringing over no voters’. They love Nicola and think she is brilliant, they also live Alex and think the uk civil service set him up. There is no reasoning with them it just degenerates into a massive argument.

    165. Ross says:

      Scenario (3)
      The Tories are stating to realise that saying no to Scottish voters isn’t the same as saying no to Catalan ones. The Scots might actually give credence to a Scots govt sanctioned vote if polls keep showing a clear majority want independence. The fear on both sides is how the Scots public react to such a vote. The Tories are feeling less sure than before.

    166. Mac says:

      If I was in charge of the SNP I’d make every election going forward a rolling independence referendum.

      I’d do that by having a one page manifesto that said…
      “Independence, if you want it vote for us if you dont, dont.” (I exaggerate but not by much.)

      If that means losing power, great, the SNP have become really shit at it anyway and it is making them increasing intensely dislikeable with every passing day. Take away the lure of Independence and I think they would get slaughtered at the next election. They are arrogant authoritarian boring woke arseholes. I am sick to the back teeth of them quite honestly.

      We’d also find out where we really are. It means no limit to the number of referendums, every election is one because a vote for the SNP is an explicit vote for YES. If enough folk vote for it it will then somehow happen IMO.

      I also sure don’t trust indyref2. They fucked us on the first one so why on earth would you want to put all our eggs into one remaining basket in the form of indyref2. They will be well prepared for us next time, you can bet on that. Naw…Fuck indyref2. Too risky.

      But if every election is indyref-recurring. They cant stop that and it never dies… just like the dream.

      One reason I know (among many reasons) that the SNP are not interested in winning Independence is they don’t make the case for it. That all went out the window post 2014 and the reign of NS. If NS gets indyref2 it will be to lose it. Another reason not to rely on an indyref2. Does anyone really trust the current SNP regime with it after seeing the last few years. Not me for sure.

    167. Andy Ellis says:

      @Ross 9.37am

      You are right in as much as the Catalans failed to convince the international community that they had majority support. The perceived difference with the Scottish situation is that Cameron’s government (like other UK governments before it) accepted that it had no selfish interest in keeping Scotland in a union against the wishes of a majority of Scots, hence the Edinburgh Agreement and #indyref1.

      Madrid however does NOT accept that any part of Spain is entitled to self-determination unless it can gain approval under the Spanish constitution. This amounts to a perpetual veto, as the rest of Spain is never going to vote in favour of Catalonia (or the Basque country) becoming independent, even if 90% of Catalans or Basques voted for it.

      Of course, May and Johnson would argue that they aren’t saying “never” to #indyref2, just “now is not the time”. This still represents a shift of course, in that the underlying position is now that Westminster is asserting its rights to decide when we are “allowed” a vote, and will probably also argue that it is not bound by the 2014 precedent and may well insist on different terms with respect to the question asked, the voting age, who is eligible to vote etc.

      These pretensions should be vigorously opposed by any Scottish government worth its salt, and rejected out of hand by the broader movement of course, but like many others I have little confidence that a quasi-devolutionary party like the current SNP has the political chops to face British nationalist pretensions down.

    168. Rm says:

      Why can’t the SNP ask their members to vote SNP for the first vote then use the list vote for another Independence Party, Independence should be what the SNP are going for but they don’t seem to want any competition, it’s looking like their running the party as a Buisness, get Independence first then run the whole of Scotland as a Buisness without interference from another foreign country.

    169. Republicofscotland says:

      “The perceived difference with the Scottish situation is that Cameron’s government (like other UK governments before it) accepted that it had no selfish interest in keeping Scotland in a union against the wishes of a majority of Scots,”

      I beg to differ on that, Cameron allowed the referendum because he thought that yes didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning it. But when a poll showed that yes had closed the gap all manner of British nationalist chicanery was deployed, peaking with the huge lie the Vow.

      The British nationalist bias was unprecedented from you’ll not get the BBC if you leave ( A bonus I think), to you’ll not be defended from attacks from outerspace, and we might need to bomb Scottish airports, and Scottish independence would lead to the Balkanisation of Western Europe.

      Yet even though the entire force of the British establishment and all the media,( though not including all of social media) and the supposedly meant to be impartial Civil service, all colluded to spread lies and fear on what would happen if Scots chose independence, the desire for Scottish independence has kept on growing.

      Lets not forget Cameron’s speech outside No10 the day after no won, his lead us Scotland not leave us pre- referendum speech, turned into EVEL English Votes for English Laws.

      Scotland is an after thought on the minds of English prime ministers, that will always be the case.

    170. Did Joanna Cherry try to put an amendment into brexit act/law that the UK couldn`t leave with `no deal` and Knight of the Great Brutish realm Sir Keir Starmer told her to f@ck right of,

      trying to find it on Hansard but not been able to as yet.

    171. Colin Alexander says:

      Stock up on tins of soup. No deal Brexit is coming in a few months time along with winter, a surge in unemployment and further benefit cuts in bankrupt Britain.

      When the Imelda Marcos Sturgeon anti-independence colonial regime are fighting the hungry people of Scotland on the streets of Glasgow etc in the winter / spring of 2021, those tins of soup will come in handy.

      But don’t throw them AT the Polis; that would breach the principles of non-violence.

      We might need to throw them TO the Polis, as they might also be going hungry, and need tins of soup.

      If the supermarket shelves are empty, they can’t eat their 30 pieces of silver for acting as political Polis for the Sturgeon colonial regime against the sovereign people of Scotland.

      But, don’t buy the overpriced watery soup from the dirty Tory Baxters.

    172. Contrary says:

      Denise, indeed if sounds like a fictional Yes Minister script – have you read this, purely fictional, Yes Minister script?

      Quite interesting how fiction can SEEM to mirror things in the real world – but Yes minister was always like that. Obviously with that piece being the subject of a court case, it would be prudent not to comment much on it, even when it is complete fiction.

      The details of the committee investigation are revealing enough to be unsettling, even if they don’t reach a conclusion or do anything in the end.

    173. Andy Ellis says:


      I’m not sure what it is you’re differing on? The point I made was twofold:

      1) There is a difference in principle in the approaches of London and Madrid to potential self-determination of part of their respective “unions”. Madrid’s position is essentially that none of the Spanish “communities” can exercise self determination unless the whole of Spain consents, as the Spanish constitution adopted post Franco dictates that is so. They’re not saying it’s impossible, just that they have a veto. It’s likely that this position infringes international law however, as self-determination takes precedence over and can’t be over-ruled by constitutional prohibitions. The UK position however has (for a long time) been that it had no selfish interest in forcing Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK if a majority of the people in any of them wanted to become independent. Your points about Cameron’s motivations and bias, whilst no doubt true, are besides the point.

      2) The UK position post #indyref1 has shifted, in as much as while London still insists it is adhering to the principle of having no selfish interest in maintaining a union the majority of Scots want to leave, it is now trying to assert conditions which differ from the Edinburgh Agreement precedent. That’s why we’re hearing “noises off” from the Unionists about changing the question asked, allowing Scots in England to vote, changing the voting age back to 18, excluding EU nationals and – most importantly of all – making the calling of referendums contingent on Westminster allowing it, rather than being more or less to automatically approve a Holyrood request if it has a specific mandate as in 2012.

      I don’t actually agree that Scotland is an afterthought. No British PM can afford to be seen as the one who “lost” Scotland. Rump UK would face a much less certain political, economic and diplomatic future without Scotland, irrespective of any bleary-eyed emotional nostalgia from unionists about being British and Scottish.

    174. Colin Alexander says:

      Spain won’t let Catalonia be free because Catalonia is a cash cow for the Spanish state.

      In complete contrast, the UK state is desperate to keep control of Scotland because Scotland is a desperately poor nation that only survives because of the altruism and cash subsidies from UK Govts – so, out of kindness and compassion the UK Govt is opposed to Scotland’s independence.

      (And if you genuinely believe that about the UK, you earn my sympathy, cos you are incredibly gullible).

      But, get in touch with me, I have a Nigerian friend who has £1 million of gold but he needs a cash advance to pay customs fees for it to be released. Then he will give you half of the £1 million in gold. You can pay him just £50,000 via Western Union. (For those gullible enough to believe the UK Govt, I better explain: I am joking about a Nigerian friend: it’s a well-known con.

      Before Humza Youseless gets me done for racism I better explain: conmen and conwomen (or however they gender self-id) also come from lots of other races and nationalities. I am not branding all Nigerians as scammers.

    175. liz says:

      I now cannot stand NS.
      I don’t listen to a word she says, the sermon from the mount micromanaging everyone’s lives.

      I won’t vote SNP 1st because we would be given them a mandate to do nothing about indy, and everything to proceed with GRA and the Hate Bill.

      They need a lesson.
      I will vote ISP on the list.

      I agree with an earlier post about NS s own brand on 77th brigade.
      They’re all over Twitter casting doubt on the ISP.
      I despair at the gullibility of those who think she can do no wrong.

      Kenny McAskill is like a loan crusader at the moment.
      I back him fully

    176. Phydaux says:

      I listened to the interview with Eileen Spence and Barrhead Boy and urge everyone to do so. Ms Spears and Ms Somerville are a serious danger to all children of school age with their so called “ sex education “ in schools. The SNP have infected itself with poison from the lobbyists Stonewall, LGBT etc and are hellbent on destroying the innocence of children, causing serious harm and endangering their health, wellbeing and development.

      They are not listening to womens groups and others who have expressed their concerns. I don’t know what’s wrong with them and it scares the shit out of me.

      There is no transparency, they deliberately ignore concerns from members, they are arrogant and devoid of any decency, morality or integrity. I voted SNP because I want Independence. I have been duped before and now no longer believe or trust in anything they say. Like many others, I have not renewed my membership. I am disgusted with their abuse of power, orchestrated by SNP Mission Control HQ. I will never forgive them for trying to destroy Alex Salmond and can’t see myself voting for them ever again.

    177. CameronB Brodie says:

      This is going to become boring for most, but the woke perspective supports inclusive social practice that seeks to empower the politically marginalised. It does not deny biological reality. So “woke” is not what afflicts the SNP. What we are facing is government by ill-informed and narrow minded fans of MISOGYNY and authoritarian legal parochialism.

      Note on the Legal Doctrine of Proportionality
      February 2007

      The dictionary defines proportionate as “properly related in size or degree or other measurable characteristics”. The term “proportionate” is usually employed as a qualifying adjective and refers to the relationship or balance among the parts of something.

      As a general principle of law, the concept is introduced as a way of addressing tensions and conflicts between individuals and groups and balancing their competing claims and aspirations. In criminal law, it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime.

      Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, proportionality is an important factor in assessing military necessity, where the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved. As its most abstract level, the principle of proportionality requires that action undertaken must be proportionate….

    178. mike cassidy says:

      Take time out this fine Sunday morning

      To see what horses think about the whole genderwoowoo business

    179. MaggieC says:

      Article from The Sunday Times ,

      “ Alex Salmond inquiry team angry at Snp chief executive Peter Murrel’s response to information request .

    180. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Contrary, Margaret E, Breeks et al –

      Discussing this with a friend last night, she raised a point which is so basic it hadn’t even entered my toty mind…

      Aside from anything this might have to do with fingering Alex Salmond, what on earth is the First Minister of Scotland doing handing away such important powers to a civil servant?

      For those who haven’t seen the blogpost we’re discussing, here it is again:

    181. Contrary says:

      Phydeux, I haven’t listened to the interview, but I saw a couple of the videos, a few months back, that they present in school for ‘sex education’ – even with the caveat of they should always be part of a guided discussion – I’m not sure ‘have a rake around the Internet to find some porn to wank off to’ is really what children should be taught is the ‘right’ thing to do. In general porn is demeaning to women, and no one in their right minds rakes round the Internet looking for that stuff – you aren’t going to just find the ‘soft’ stuff – and there are plenty of studies that show it can be addictive. There has to be something better than that to teach children about sex and relationships. I admit to being shocked, horrified.

    182. Stan Broadwood says:

      The reason Sturgeon was never front and centre of all the INDY Rallies was because she didn’t want to be seen with these uppity Nationalists.

      She knows when it comes to the Holyrood elections that she gets the votes not only from nationalists, but also a large number of Unionists.

      The Unionists enjoy the freebies they get in Scotland, hence the strong backing they give to Sturgeon.

      Sturgeon is playing us all like clowns.

      The Murrell’s are laughing all the way to the bank.

      The LAST thing they want is Scottish Independence.

    183. CameronB Brodie says:

      IMHO, the Lord Advocate is either a complete Muppet, or he’s a friend of fascism. Probably a bit of both.

      Constitutional Rights and Proportionality


      There are two basic views concerning the relationship between constitutional rights and proportionality analysis. The first maintains that there exists a necessary connection between constitutional rights and proportionality, the second argues that the question of whether constitutional rights and proportionality are connected depends on what the framers of the constitution have actually decided, that is, on positive law.

      The first thesis may be termed ‘necessity thesis’, the second ‘contingency thesis’. According to the necessity thesis, the legitimacy of proportionality analysis is a question of the nature of constitutional rights, according to the contingency thesis, it is a question of interpretation. The article defends the necessity thesis. | A previous version of this article was published in Chinese Yearbook of Constitutional Law, Vol. 2010, 221–235.

      principles theory, proportionality analysis, constitutional rights, necessary connection, human rights, dual nature

    184. Contrary says:

      @ Ian Brotherhood

      Yes, a pertinent point, and I suppose that is the one being made in the article, what is meant by the final questions (the article is fairly circumspect, the way it is written).

    185. Stu hutch says:

      Just listened to barrhead boys blog with eileen Spence would urge everyone concerned about the welfare of woman and children to listen.i was not surprised to hear the name Rihanna spear brought up as she is part of the alyn daddy Smith gang.i would particularly hope that snp members of dunfermline and west fife should listen as there msp ms summerville seems to be in the vanguard of this cult.200 meetings with gra trans lobbyist groups and 0 meetings with womans and children’s groups looking after their also seems that john swinney our most decent man in the world was asleep at the wheel while ms spear and summerville were secretly putting into the schools curriculum for excellence what could be described a charter for the abuse of children.again I ask the snp members of dunfermline and west fife to be aware of what your representative is doing in your name.

    186. Ross says:

      @andy Ellis
      I don’t disagree at all with your points there. The point I am trying to make is confrontation is coming and international sympathy and Scottish public general agreeableness will be needed. There’s no point threatening an unsanctioned vote on 52percent. Wings keeps talking down the current approach but does not offer his own. How do we get to a vote? It’s going to involve pressure on London from the two influences mentioned and inevitably the threat (if not the implementation) of an unsanctioned vote.

      How we get there is to build a larger majority , win handsomely next year on a manifesto and build the pressure. Which to my eyes is what we’re doing. It may take another 5 years to build the general consensus that there now exists a clear and obvious majority for independence that even unionists can’t deny. That’s when you make the threat.

      Ultimately the only people holdinf Scotland from independence is our own people. Convincing the tipping point is within reach but isn’t round the corner.

    187. Lorna Campbell says:

      Phydaux: I, too, think that there is more going on here than we are seeing. The fact that some of these are women is even more perplexing. You are right, though – would recommend to anyone who is supportive of independence to listen to the podcast – that this goes well beyond normal lobbying and normal behaviour.

      There appears to be nothing inclusive about it. No one has been able to explain why the GRA reform is necessary, since Trans people already have all the rights that you and I have. For Rhiannon Spears and Shirley-Anne Somerville to try and push this stuff through sex education in schools is deeply disturbing.

      Who are these people? What are their plans for the Equality Act 2010, which protects women’s sex-based spaces, and for other conflicting legislation? I think the longer term aim must be to topple them and have them repealed, and to ensure that women and girls are marginalized in every area to allow trans representation everywhere. This is the stuff of nightmares – a totalitarianism that touts itself as liberalism.

      This is the stuff that the SNP has been concentrating on instead of independence. This is the real reason – or, certainly, a major one – why we are still in the doldrums. The SNP, the party, is merely the vehicle they have chosen to deliver their totalitarian nightmare, and there must be money behind it somewhere. To think that the ‘buffoon’, who is no buffoon, Johnson, body swerved this but the oh-so-liberal, whiter-than-white, stupider-than-stupid SNP fell for it, hook, line and sinker to the actual detriment of their raison d’être, is almost, but not quite, incredible.

      No, the loss of over a dozen of the ‘old guard’ is no co-incidence. They know the party is destroyed. They will be replaced by these totalitarians and the remaining wiser heads will be engulfed.

    188. Stan Broadwood says:

      The Yes Movement is an embarrassment to the Murrell’s.

      She can’t be seen mixing with such lowlife scum.

      She has become a Unionist establishment snob.

      She has become a Tartan Tory.

      She doesn’t need to reply to the likes of us.

      We are a nuisance to her now.

      We are expendable.

      We are an irrelevance to her.

      She has become everything that normal Scots detest.

      She holds us at arms length,

      The only thing she needs us for is to put an “X” next to SNP 1 and 2 at next year’s Hollyrood election.

      Then you won’t hear from her until another election comes along.

      How fuckin thick are we???

    189. kapelmeister says:

      Ross @12:40 pm

      But what is going to happen to Holyrood during your 5 years of consensus building? You left that out of consideration.

    190. kapelmeister says:

      Silly-Anne Dumberville and Spear of Density would have been expelled from the SNP in earlier times, even quite recent times. However, in Sturgeon’s SNP they thrive.

    191. mike cassidy says:

      Lorna Campbell (and others)

      Who are these people, you ask?

      Here’s who they are

      Resisting TERF’s and Transforming Their Organizations

    192. Robert Graham says:

      I am pretty sure all you folks here Ears are Burning

      The Usual suspects are watching and Tut Tut commenting at all your disgusting conversations

      Aye so any particular off the wall ideas or comments the more bizarre and under the skin annoying get them out there it’s guaranteed to keep the curtain twitchers busy , Oh well nothing going on , no Election imminent very few soft Nos present or likely to be , so fill yer boots , have some fun , if that’s all these idiots have to talk about well keep them occupied

      Oh By the way Colin yer getting close to a Humsa yellow card there boy just thinking about eh anything is pushing it so curb yer thoughts boy ha ha , maybe not as daft as it first seems you have been warned all is not as it seems over at HQ ,

      How did it happen ?

      We weren’t watching and definitely not listening maybe it’s time all of us started and mak the effort and getting off of our fat arses and instead of moaning do something constructive any ideas for anyone who has difficulty getting about and who’s only weapon is their Keyboard because there is a Whole Army out there , we must be able to annoy some clucker

    193. Ross says:

      @kapel 5 years was just a number. It’s when there’s an undoubted majority known by both sides of the argument. Anything that tries to diminish the parliament or Scottish democracy feeds the independence argument – which is the point Angus Robertson is making.
      Fundemantally I believe the next vote will be a confirmation of what is thought to be a known will; not the free hit of last time.

    194. Wee Chid says:

      I’ve just watched an horrendous video on “The Dice game” being used to teach sex education in English schools. Don’t know if it happens in Scottish schools. Tried to post the link but it doesn’t seem to have posted. You’ll find it on Youtube in the Kellie-Jay Keen channel under sex education.

    195. CameronB Brodie says:

      It is difficult to defend human rights and democracy, without a legal regard for “Tort law”. The legal endorsement of genderwoowoo is incompatible with a respect for “Tort law”.

      The Tort Duty of Parents to Protect Minor

    196. Lets face it we need a new party to win us our freedom the SNP is full of mi 5 plants it has been infiltrated by the unionists although some have been there from day 1 we need to admit to ourselves that we are never going to be free unless we start a new party and vet every candidate closely we are assisting Westminster by marching blogging but at the end of the day changing nothing and if we are in an equal Union why does one halfe have to ask the other for permission to do something ???

    197. CameronB Brodie says:

      Tort law is compatible with the Common law, unlike the proposed GRA amendments. Or contemporary British constitutional jurisprudence.

      The Potential of the Law of Torts to Assist in the Protection of Children

    198. Colin Alexander says:

      Before the Union, Scotland was ruled by an unaccountable corrupt ruling elite. The Union didn’t change that. The Union made use of that. England was also ruled by a corrupt ruling elite headed by the same epitomy of corruption: the monarchy.

      The SNP are elected to represent the people. Once elected, they represent the ruling elite.

      Scotland is run and controlled by unelected and unaccountable judges, civil servants, council officials, NHS officials, quangos, and increasingly the private sector for profit and to evade Human Rights liabilities that public bodies are subject to.

      Naive, well-meaning councillors, MSPs and MPs come and go. The Establishment continues.

      These corrupt administrators and their judicial and political cronies are inter-connected. They are the British-Scottish Establishment. The SNP became part of that Establishment with Imelda Marcos Sturgeon residing in a colonial slave owner’s mansion. How appropriate.

    199. Robert Graham says:

      Mike thanks for the link

      I suggest everyone reads exactly who these people are how they have managed to worm their way into established political parties and by the looks of it it’s not just the SNP they are targeting , they are after political power in order to change or influence their own twisted agenda ,

      These Two controversial pieces of legislation most people are viewing as Two Separate Bills I believe they are both interconnected and are meant to operate in Tandem , anything one fails to cover the other comes into play ,

      Both Involve Social Engineering at its core , that’s why it’s being moved in Secret because these deviant twisted characters won’t be able to function if the General Public get wind of their intentions, most things done in Secret have a dark underbelly that needs to be hidden because most folk might not agree with the strange methods that are being used .

    200. cirsium says:

      @republicofscotland, 10.46
      Scotland is an after thought on the minds of English prime ministers, that will always be the case.

      Scotland may be an afterthought but Scotland’s resources certainly aren’t

    201. kapelmeister says:

      Ross @1:04 pm

      “Anything that tries to diminish the parliament or Scottish democracy feeds the independence argument”.

      Strengthens the argument certainly. But also greatly increases Westminster’s power. And decreases Scottish morale if the power grab is meekly accepted, after a few token protests, by a wimpy, self-preoccupied leader like Sturgeon.

    202. JGedd says:

      @ mike cassidy 1.02pm

      Thanks for that link, though it’s pretty hair-raising stuff. Standard presentation of themselves as reasonable & non-threatening while ignoring the hate-filled rhetoric & aggressiveness of their supporters. Especially chilling is the section about infiltration & entryism. We knew that this was happening but breath-taking to see them acknowledge that these are their tactics.

      The co-opting of women friendly to their cause is indicated as essential & nowhere is it suggested that discourse should take place. Instead it is all predicated on simply using their numbers to out-vote & control & gain leadership roles. If there is anyone who can’t see that this has been happening in the SNP then they haven’t been paying attention.

      I notice that any notions of social justice, that is, what is happening to the poor & disadvantaged, gets scant attention from these supporters of GRA. Does anyone think that Rhiannon Spear & her sisterhood are interested at all in those struggling to survive in the present economic climate? They give every indication of being privileged & middle class, typical of the careerists who poisoned the Labour party.

      In their circles, traditional activism on behalf of social & economic justice is old hat & boring. Being a right-on supporter
      of currently fashionable gender politics is more to their taste. They obviously feel that they are on the crest of a wave & can look down with distaste on the rest of us unawakened ones.

      I know who looks authoritarian & right-wing & it isn’t the feminists demonised and dehumanised as Terfs. We know whose cause is in the ascendant & who are being disempowered & marginalised, denied platforms & have their careers threatened. It is not democracy to impose on people by stealth something that they have not been consulted on. (The supposed GRA consultation was anything but, since it was open to people who live outside Scotland.)

    203. Alec Lomax says:

      Stan Broadwood. The answer is quite thick . How’s the alternative independence party coming along, by the way?

    204. Kate says:

      @ Lorna CAMPBELL
      “ Ditch the feckin second indyref on the grounds that we have asked for one on several occasions and been refused, and go for independence after an election win – completely democratic, with six polls now, I think, showing a majority in support of independence. Make it the main policy in the 2021 Manifesto, so not UDI. If the Unionists refuse to take part, they forfeit the election and Unionism.

      Start building a case now (God knows, it shouldn’t be difficult) on the breaches of the Treaty perpetrated by England-as-the-UK and prepare to take our case to the Floor of the UN General Assembly, with a request for the International Court of Justice to give us a judicial review – as a back-up, if they try to stymie the election. It is fast becoming make or break time and any more wasting energy and time on planning for a second indyref that is never going to come is utterly stupid.

      We will pass the NO Deal cut-off point for Brexit, but we can start thinking about EFTA instead. There is nothing to prevent us from keeping the bulk of the EU legislation that is already in place and with which we are already compliant.”
      Agree with every point made here, have been saying this myself for years now, there should NEVER be another referendum, 1 they will just refuse it anyway..2 it is open to corruption, as WM thrives on corruption. I will vote SNP ONLY if they make it clear in their manifesto that a majority win for them, is a win for INDEPENDENCE.. Then DISSOLVE the bloody UNION that is now just a dictatorship..Also NO more signing up to UNIONS including the EU..EFTA would be my choice anyway..

    205. CameronB Brodie says:

      It is difficult to defend public health and democracy without legal regard to the Law of Torts, which Brexit rejects TOTALLY.

      Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, Volume 10 | Issue 1 Article 4

    206. Andy Ellis says:

      @Ross 12.40pm

      I’d venture you’re either woefully unaware of what WoS and other who support his outlook have been saying for many months (even years), or simply trolling for the lolz. Neither is a particularly good look on here, and you can’t really be surprised if folk in here point and laugh at your stupidity.

      It’s quite clear, and has been since the first “now is not the time” response from Teresa May, that a Plan B was required. Many of us advocated testing the validity of the “Holyrood can’t hold a referendum without a S30 Order” trope 5 years ago. The SG, SNP and broader Yes movement are all culpable in leaving it to an individual activist to crowd fund the attempt, even at this late stage.

      Similarly, it is a relatively simple message to say to the British nationalists that if they fail to honour the 2014 Edinburgh Agreement precedent, we will simply treat every GE at both Holyrood and Westminster as a plebiscite, with >50% voting for pro-independence parties as de facto independence.

      None of this is rocket science. None of it is new. If you’re unaware of it, you must have been asleep for the past few years. An independence movement which has accepted Johnson’s formulation that we need permission to hold a referendum is already lost. It won’t matter if we’re polling at 80%, London will simply say “now is not the time”, or impose other unacceptable restrictions to ensure the vote won’t happen. That can’t be done for a General Election which is regarded as a plebiscite.

      The question you and other gradualist political cowards have to answer is why aren’t we preparing for a plebiscitary independence vote at Holyrood 2021?

      The answer of course is that the SNP don’t have the balls for it, because they are at heart quite comfy being a big flaccid middle of the road political fish in a small devolutionary pond.

    207. Stoker says:

      Richard says on 5 September, 2020 at 2:38 pm:

      “..Smith Commission agreed by all parties says there is nothing to stop Scotland becoming Indy if the people wish. I am assuming it has no legal basis hence the unionist ignoring it? What was the point in it?”

      That’s another good point the snp disregard frequently, they helped to con everyone into participating in The Myth Commission con, along with the ‘Holyrood is permanent’ lie.

    208. Michael says:

      I think your fury and impatience is blinding you to the wider picture. As Holyrood and Westminster don’t exactly see eye to eye on the constitutional issue (or anything much else), what is crucial to the SNP Scottish government is that any pitch for independence is recognised by the EU and wider international community. To justify this, its essential that the SG gives Bojo every opportunity to cooperate. Of course everyone knows he isn’t going to, but the important thing is giving him the opportunity in advance of HR21. After that, plan B, à pro-indy majority followed by a confirmatory referendum would be all the more watertight. Everyone in the SNP knows that we don’t require his assent, but we do require international recognition

    209. Michael says:

      Kate @2.55pm….absolutely spot on!

    210. Ross says:

      @andy ellis
      Do you conduct all your arguments by trying to insult people?

      I’m happy to debate the points but I’m not stupid thanks. I want independence as much as anyone.

      I say what I believe and I’m in hock to nobody. I don’t see anyone pointing and laughing haha but neither would I give a monkeys if they did! What a weird comment.

      I’ve said why I think building support at the moment is the best route to success. Of course a plan b is required . Have I said otherwise? It’s how you play it and the timings that are under consideration. Id take a gradual approach to success than spunking it all for self gratification. You can only be as ballsy as the people allow you to be. This idea that sturgeon is timid is for the fringe here. She’s going to put a vote on the manifesto and leave it in the hands of the people. Judging by polling Scots agree.

    211. David R says:

      The SNPs support for a second independence referendum seems to be dependant on how close we are to an election. They, like Labour before them will continue to spout their nonsense safe in the knowledge that they’re the only show in town and will get back in.

    212. Ross says:

      @michael thank god somebody gets it.

    213. Andy Ellis says:


      If you don’t want to be taken for stupid, don’t act it. you criticise WoS and others for attacking the SNP’s strategy and not offering alternatives, when anyone with an ounce of awareness of this site and the debates around this issue knows it’s total bollocks. Don’t act all butt hurt when called out for your crass lack of awareness.

      Of course you’re in hock: from your own comments you’ve obviously drunk deep of the gradualist Kool-Aid. “Trust Nicola, she knows what she’s doing!”. Aye right.

      When we’re sitting here in 2029 listening to the SNP telling us they need just another mandate, we’ll know it’s thanks to you and your like minded gradualist shills that we’re still part of the British nationalist dystopian nightmare.

    214. Ross says:

      @andy “butt hurt”. What are you ? A 14 year old from LA?

      If wings or any other party want to put forward their plan b they’re entitled to do so and I might vote for it. Ive not seen a clear alternative with the pros and cons laid out by Wings. if he has – fair enough – it doesn’t mean I’m “stupid” for not seeing it. I don’t hang on every word or spend all my time on “here”. I’ve seen enough over the last while to see a lot of moaning and little substance. Ironic given that’s the charge sheet he sends the SNP.

      As things stand I see the strategy moving forward for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. Michael above has iterated as I see it with the wider picture being considered . And the Scottish people are backing it in increasing numbers.

    215. Ross says:

      I’ll criticise whoever I want. I criticise sturgeon on a lot of things. I want to see Indy achieved , which involves a strategic consideration of when to deploy certain ideas. That’s it. If that’s stupid to you random Angry Andy, so be it.

    216. AWoLsco says:

      Blair Paterson has it @6/9/20 at1.25 pm

      ” we need a new party to win us our freedom the SNP is full of mi 5 plants it has been infiltrated by the unionists although some have been there from day 1 we need to admit to ourselves that we are never going to be free unless we start a new party and vet every candidate closely”

      Ever heard of the SS and the gestapo? That’s what Scotland needs if it is ever to go independent.
      I feel I should make clear, absolutely clear, to all on this forum that I am a holocaust denier, racist and bigot. For those reasons you can count on me ,and the like-minded, to fight and if necessary, sacrifice ourselves, for the cause of Auld Scotia. Much more so than the many huggy, fluffy, pinko, ever-so law-abiding freaks that inhabit this den of iniquity and defeatism, and many others like it, over all Scotland.

    217. AWoLsco says:

      If you’re a huggy, fluffy pinko you’ll NEVER get independence for Scotland. Turn nazi, get a gun, and you might just be in with a chance.
      A lot depends on just how much Scots want independence.
      It might just be easier going down the ‘Dignitas’ route….and dying….unhonoured and unsung…… watching the latest offering from the BBC(Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation) like a fanny pad soaking up the detritus of a useless uterus.

    218. AWoLsco says:

      Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
      Who never to himself hath said,
      This is my own, my native land!
      Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
      As home his footsteps he hath turn’d
      From wandering on a foreign strand!
      If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
      For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
      High though his titles, proud his name,
      Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;—
      Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
      The wretch, concentred all in self,
      Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
      And, doubly dying, shall go down
      To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
      Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

    219. cirsium says:

      @Lorna, 2.21 (5 Sept) and @Kate, 2.55 (6 Sept)

      Well said.

    220. stonefree says:

      @ OldPete at 9:28 pm
      Philippa Whitford is one of the SNP decreasing assets,
      How do you feel about Gavin Lundy getting the chance in your constituency for Hollyrood?

    221. Jason Hoffman says:

      “Rethinking your thinking could cause you to change your mind. And changing your mind is uncomfortable.”
      JP Spears

      Unfortunately the SNP big knobs can’t do the re-thinking about how to get the Section 30 Order and make Indy happen – so they peddle the same old crap. And a large chunk of the SNP membership are also stuck in the same old same old.

      One of the reasons that I wanted Indy in 2014 was the chance to do something different – a new politics.

      Now though I just look at the moribund nature of Scottish politics – all of the parties – and think it would be better to just emigrate.

      My big concern is that once we become independent have the SNP got a vision for what iScotland will be like. Or have they not thought that far ahead?

    222. June Maxwell says:

      Hello Stuart

      If you ever get to read this far down, I’d like to accept your bet. Like you I firmly believe BJ/WM has no intention of ever acquiescing to a S30 request. However, we live in the weirdest of times; ‘President’ Trump, an SNP who actively block Indy progress, men who are women, etc. So, yes, I will bet you £1 the unthinkable will happen. 🙂

    223. CameronB Brodie says:

      We got lock-down because Whitehall civil servants were most probably ignored, by Tories who are ideologically opposed to the “Precautionary Principle”, which is part of international law.

      The precautionary principle:
      protecting public health, the environment
      and the future of our children

    224. CameronB Brodie says:

      Oops, wrong thread.

    225. David Caledonia says:

      Sam Levenson for his granddaughter

      For attractive lips, speak words of kindness.
      For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people.
      For a slim figure,share your food with the hungry.
      For beautiful hair, let a child run his or her fingers through it once a day.
      For poise, walk with the knowledge that you never walk alone.
      People, even more than things have to be restored,renewed,revived, reclaimed and redeemed, never throw out anyone,remember,if you ever need a helping hand,you’ll find one at the end of each of your arms.
      As you grow older,you will discover that you have two hands,one for helping yourself,the other for helping others.

    226. David Caledonia says:

      The latest from the circus that is Inverclyde

      From the Greenock Telegraph 17/9/2020

      A Tory MSP from Greenock has blasted a local councillor’s call for bars to be closed down amid the rise in coronavirus infection rates
      West of Scotland list Conservative Jamie Green hit out after the SNP’s Chris McEleny said consideration should be given to shutting pubs down once again.
      Mr Green highlighted the Scottish Licensed Trade Association making it clear that up to 12,500 jobs remain at risk across Scotland in the hospitality sector.
      He said calls from Councillor Chris McEleny for west coast pubs to close could be taken as a massive kick in the teeth by the landlords and hospitality staff across Inverclyde who play by the rules and are busting their guts to recoup a living.
      Perhaps he ought to feed his views to his own SNP First Minister, rather than tweeting willy-nilly about why he wants to shut business down, when he doesn’t have all the scientific facts and advice that the government has at its disposal.
      Mr Green spoke out after Mr McEleny was quoted as saying it was not compatable to have pubs across the country open when we are seeing new new cases at a rate that previously we where in a country wide lockdown to get them under control.
      Councillor McEleny had said Pubs being open has clearly desensitised our caution at a population level with people regularly asking why can I not visit a family member . why can I not go to a funeral,or go here or there when pubs are full across the country.

      So there you have it, this clown is going to stand against the sitting SNP MSP in next years elections, and the sitting MSP is part of the circus in Inverclyde

      And there are people on this site that have a go at people like me, as if we don’t know what’s happening with the SNP today.
      Why do that, cause we are all going to vote SNP anyway, or maybe all of us NIcola Sturgeon fans as we are mistakingly called are to thick to have an opinion on Independence and not give a damn for individual circus performers

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

    ↑ Top