List Voting For Cretins
This week The National published a poll it commissioned from Find Out Now for this May’s Scottish Parliament election, alongside a seat projection from Sir John Curtice. Here are the list-vote figures from the poll.
The seat projection calculated that the election would result in 59 SNP MSPs (six short of the number John Swinney says is the minimum needed to force a second indyref), 25 for Reform, 13 for the Greens, 12 each for Labour and the Tories and eight for the Lib Dems.
It didn’t specify how many of the seats were constituency ones and how many were list ones, so we dropped Sir John a line and asked him.
If we say for illustrative purposes that turnout is the same as in 2021, the SNP’s 30% share of the list vote will be 815,420 votes. The combined 31% for Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems would be 842,600, and Reform’s 21% would come to 570,793.
Here’s a chart of how those votes translate in the projection.
Because Sir John told us that the SNP’s 30% got them just ONE list seat in his projection – most likely in the Highlands, though he didn’t say. That means they’d have failed to win 15 constituencies, which we’ve given here to the three traditional Unionist parties, as they already hold 13 and it seems pretty unlikely that Reform or the Greens will take any.
(If Reform did snag a few Tory ones, which is a massively better bet than the Greens winning a constituency seat anywhere, it’d make no difference to the overall point.)
So we’ve deducted those 15 from the Lab/Con/LD total of 32 in the projection to leave them with 17 on the list. And what that means is that the price of each list seat for each party is as follows:
What that means is that by voting SNP on the list you’re ensuring that every Unionist list vote effectively counts as either 17 votes for Labour/the Tories/the Lib Dems, or a whopping 37 votes in the case of Reform.
(Because in terms of delivering list seats their votes already count for more than those of the other Unionist parties who have some constituency seats.)
If you care at all about getting “pro-independence” MSPs elected in May, that is a folly of monumental, galactic proportions. Anyone doing it is a demonstrable imbecile who shouldn’t be trusted not only with a vote, but with buttering a slice of bread, because they’d likely somehow contrive to set their own face on fire and stab any nearby small children in the eye with a garden fork.
Readers will be only too aware by now that in this site’s view, casting ANY votes for the SNP in this year’s Holyrood election is an act of sabotage against the independence movement. Voting for literally anyone else at all, whether on the constituency or list ballots, will ultimately do a greater service to the cause. (With the possible exception of the Greens, because dear sweet Jesus imagine trying to persuade any halfway-normal human to vote in a referendum for an independent Scotland led by Ross Greer.)
But it is at least possible to construct a coherent argument – not a convincing or a credible one, but one that at least holds up as an abstract theory if you imagine a completely different future SNP – for voting for them in constituencies.
Voting for them on the list, however, is a vote to actively and knowingly usher dozens of Reform, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem MSPs into the chamber on a red carpet, flanked by fanfares of glistening trumpets. (And to do so for the third time in a row, having learned absolutely nothing in the intervening decade, like some sort of moron.)
Anyone telling you to do so, therefore (and offering no better argument than “Oh well, maybe the polls are all totally wrong and something weird will happen”), is a liar and a charlatan whose motives should be regarded with the greatest of suspicion.
How can we get this message across? The SNP keep saying vote SNP 1 & 2. Why has this strategy not been completely exposed as useless. All media are complicit in this deceit. No surprise there.
Ummm because the snp do not actually want independence and their rabbid supporters just want them to get more votes than anyone else because clearly, they are inbred and mentally challenged
Well, when you have Scotland’s foremost pishologist saying that SNP and Greens are on course for a “pro-independence” majority and doing a video to prove it, that is worth a lot of “pro Indy” votes
Just made an extra NY resolution: use the phrase pishologist everyday in connection with a certain poll obsessed blogger with a massively overinflated sense of his own accuracy. Of course it is possible he is now a fifth column as gigantic egos do not take well to not being reinstated to their previous position in a political party. That would of course make joining back up with the party formerly aligned with independence make sense.
Despite your sterling efforts to communicate the bleedin obvious it seems to be futile in many cases, comments online continue to repeat the both votes SNP mantra, while the SNP themselves seem quite happy to see hundreds of thousands of votes completely wasted in order for them to retain control of a devolved Parliament, at the same time generating enough protest votes for the Westminster elections to keep them in the game there so that the cash keeps coming in. As you have said before, and the evidence of the last Holyrood poll confirms, you would have to be a moron or an imbecile to swallow this pile of steaming s**t, but that is apparently where we are.
Could some crackpot at SNP try to offer what on earth is going through their minds that they cannot comprehend this fairly simple explanation as to how the list votes work and how they are promoting list seats for the unionist parties.
Makes you wonder what else they simply don’t understand with the budget.
Of course they know, that’s the point. The SNP DOES NOT WANT INDEPENDENCE and it certainly doesn’t want a majority and if it look like the SNP would win a majority they sabotage it deliberately.
Which other pro independence party is likely, on current polling, to achieve more than the 1 list seat though?
Every stonking snp win has ended up with list seats adding to the total. Because the unionist vote isn’t evenly spread.
So stand up John Swinney your a moron.
So we have 815,420 votes wasted on a party who just isn’t interested in Scotland or Independence and certainly isn’t interested in woman rights, so why vote for them at all.
I’ve tried to make the point that voting for reform will bring Independence more closer than voting for John Swinneys who’s only interest is staying FM until 2031 and beyond.
Don’t be fooled by the SNP lets stop reform at all cost mantra, because if the NUSNP won the election and no other party other than reform was prepared to work with the SNP, trust me the SNP would work with reform to stay in power.
I only speaking for myself, but I believe the SNP needs stopping and we need to stop them from being able to govern again.
From these polling statistics Your party, Alba and liberate Scotland had joined forces they wouldn’t get a single seat.
The SNP is causing more damage to Scotland than any other party has done in the last 300+ years so for me to vote for reform is a no brainier.
There are others who will argue oh my god why would you vote for reform and STOP INDEPENDENCE these are the same people who are making a living out of Independence and want the status quo to continue so the monthly pay cheque continues as well, I don’t.
If the SNP are successful in may, god help our nation. When the SNP isn’t hiding its contempt for Scotland or our people and to go into another five years with the SNP in charge will put Scotland cause back decades and they know it.
Political predictions for 2026 (and a bit beyond).
The trends currently showing on the best fit curves, Wikipedia, Westminster voting intention will continue (admittedly not a difficult prediction to make).
The more people know about RefUK, the more they learn that behind the culture war BS, there lies a core of mainly off-shore Billionaires tied exclusively to the financial speculation sector. RefUK’s sweet spot has come, and gone.
Labour cannot benefit from RefUK’s decline. Labour will (justifiably) be blamed for the country’s economic woes, as they (inexplicably?) concentrate their efforts on foreign distractions. Starmer will try and stay on after a catastrophic showing at the May elections. His residence in Tel Aviv isn’t ready, and work on his luxury villa on the Costa del Gaza can’t start ‘till some irritating little brown skinned people have either been exterminated or, fully displaced.
The Tories will be the main beneficiaries of what by the time of the next GE could aptly be described as a RefUK collapse. The bourach of Liz Truss will be a distant dot in the rear view mirror by this point.
The rise of the Green Party (England & Wales) started a full 14 months after the rise of RefUK. The natural ceiling of support for the Greens is unknowably. Perhaps their fringe policies will see them plateau at a little under 20%.
There will be no outright majority for RefUK at the next UK, GE. They may be the largest party (just), but the Tories will run them a close, second place. The Tories will benefit from regional concentration which RefUK does not enjoy being evenly spread geographically (this phenomena is apparent also in Scotland). Labour will be reduced to c. 100 MPs, and these will be mainly restricted to the London boroughs, and the Liverpool / Manchester corridor.
Turnout at the next Westminster GE will see the wave of indifference in July 2024 look like an outpouring of enthusiasm. Expect yet another record low turnout. The Short money algorithm will be adjusted yet again, to accommodate that. The parties cannot be punished for their failure.
The Westminster Parliament will be hung. This is very tricky territory to make predictions on. The most likely outcome would be a; “grand, patriotic coalition in these difficult times where we must put aside our petty differences in the name of the national interest”, bla bla bla. Said coalition will comprise the parties of the Permanent State, ie the Tories, Labour, and the LibDems.
The SNP will have c. 50 MPs from default rather than merit. They will settle down to life as grievance monkeys.
In extremis, they’ll either vote with or abstain when it comes time for the coalition government to pass its budget. They may try and extract a few baw bees from Westminster in return, a la the DUP in the fag end of Theresa May’s administration. If they adopt Nicola Surgeon’s petted lip negotiating style, they won’t get even a pittance to add to the block grant. Adjusting for inflation, the SNP will receive c. £1.5 million pa in Short money. Again, a collapse in real term votes won’t be penalised. The party coffers will be replenished. The cocaine dealers, and rent boys of Edinburgh shall rejoice.
I’ve offered wondered: what’s the difference between the shadowy billionaires who fund Reform (Boo! Hiss!) and the shadowy billionaires who fund the Tories (just a Boo! for them? Or is it a Hiss!?) and the shadowy billionaires who fund Labour (Yeh!) and the shadowy billionaires who fund the Green Party (double Yeh!). Not sure if anybody well off funds the Limp Dumbs..
Seriously, Viv?
You believe that if you ignore The War, The War will ignore you?
Scottish elections – 1st vote first past the post, 2nd vote D’Hondt.
UK elections – FPTP
Scottish council elections – STV.
Three vastly different voting systems, with the Scottish elections being the most convoluted. No wonder folk are confused. It needs to be made easier to understand and more representative. It needs to be both of these.
According to Chat – ‘the choice of AMS with D’Hondt was part of political negotiations during the devolution process, involving mainly Labour and Liberal Democrat policy preferences — Labour accepted a mixed system to achieve devolution, and the Liberal Democrats strongly favoured proportional representation. Discussions and compromises between parties helped shape the final system.’
‘When devolution was being designed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a cross-party, cross-society group called the Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC) played a crucial role in shaping what a modern Scottish Parliament would look like — including how it should be elected.’
‘The SCC included Labour, Liberal Democrats, trade unions, churches, local authorities and other civic organisations. It pushed for an electoral system that combined local representation with proportionality rather than simple first-past-the-post (FPTP).’
‘Its proposals influenced the eventual system in the Scotland Act 1998, even though not all parties (e.g., the Conservatives and SNP) participated in the Convention.’
Not exactly democratic.
Maybe having a Swiss style referendum system would help in actually having some degree of democracy. It appears that Swiss referendums are used mainly as a check on politicians. So rather than have useless tossers being voted in for five years because of a misunderstood voting system and then just ignoring what voters actually want, voters would have the ability to hold them to account within their period of office. Maybe a Swiss style system of referendums could also help determine what type of voting system should be used.
If Scotland is to ever become a successful independent nation it needs to sort out how it’s parliament operates. Enough flannel, it’s time to grow up.
The SNP stopped working for Scotland the day Salmond stood down.
John Swinney is holding a full deck of cards and no matter what card he puts on that table out of the 52 he’s a winner and he knows it.
This man is working for the British state and he’s not even bothered if you know about it, would he be he’s working in England’s interest.
Here is how the Union wins all the time and its all thanks to the SNP working for the British state.
If the SNP don’t win the British state does, if the SNP does win and forms a government the British states wins, if the SNP goes bust the British states wins no matter which way you look at this Scotland is the loser unless we all get behind reform. Because its only reform who is being opposed by all these other parties and for good reason, and its these reasons I believe will turn a massive majority to want Independence.
The only thing the SNP don’t want and cant allow to happen, is an SNP leader who will actively pursue and active independence.
A front page article in The Guardian this morning reads like Swiftian satire. An exercise in projection, and inversion.
“Populists ‘an existential threat to UK democracy”.
An opinion piece written by Sir Chris Powell, brother of Johnathan Powell, Starmer’s National Security Advisor. The entire Powell family are the epitome of the entitled, British elite. Johnathan has a very spooky background
We apparently have three years to stop the “new, and terrifying threat” of populism.
“We are at a very dangerous moment. We simply cannot afford to allow Reform UK to have a free run, and become established and entrenched as a credible potential government in the minds of disenchanted voters.”
The Spookocracy breaks cover.
Perhaps we should adopt the Romanian model (as endorsed by Ursula von der Leyen, and her dangerously unhinged High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas) where an anonymous bench of Judges in a High Court determine who can, and who cannot stand for election.
a good point : the weasel wording of “populism” is right out of the oxbridge school of sophistry.
While “democracy” is the gold standard of justice and freedom, it is reserved for “people we like”; the problem comes if the – fucking voters – vote the wrong way.
“the people have spoken – the bastards”.
So we get this invention “populism”. And elites get to paint themselves as the “benign elite of the wise” saving our rights and freedoms from “the mob”.
Pretty clever really being able to smear the democratic will of the people.
Maybe voting should be reserved for the right kind of people, with the right values. Guardian readers maybe.
Ah yes, the Metropolitan Left, Guardianistas being the epitome, spitting their dummies out because the rest of the UK (and much of Europe) has (finally) woken up their harmful nonsense and has emphatically rejected it.
Heh. We can’t all be Far Right®
I may have to hold my nose and have a read for a laugh.
A timely reminder that sticking a label on something (whether that label is “Metropolitan Left” (sic) or “Far Right”) – one example among many being the Scottish National Party; another being any example of self-identity politics – does not necessarily provide a non-subjective description of what’s inside the tin.
As with everything in life, the first question with any label is whether it fits the objective descriptive criteria or not. The difference between the Daily Mail and the Guardian, for example, is that at least the Mail does what it says on the tin.
Even Neanderthals would balk at trying to pass the Guardian off as located on the political left.
Hey Dave, the Guardian is on the political left – like fucking obviously. Too late to disown it now my old China – this Neanderthal ain’t baulking.
Only in your subjective opinion, Cave dweller.
It says Daz on the side of buses, but they don’t sell soap powder.
You are living proof, Captain, of the old saying of ‘stick a few pips on a monkey’s shoulder, and it thinks it’s Napoleon’.
It is certainly the very definition of woke post-modernism to prefer narrative to empirical methods by defining your own labels based on your own made up criteria.
You’ll be telling us next that men can get pregnant.
No Dave. You’re “living proof” of (yet another) Lefty attempting crass revisionism because facing up to reality has become too embarrassing for you. (Can’t say I blame you on that score, mind. I’d be embarrassed too mate).
The Guardian is a left wing rag, which espouses left wing garbage. Fact.
Deal with it.
Yeah, right. A media outlet which has pushed Establishment narratives since its first edition is ‘left-wing’.
One notes that, woke like, you deliberately refrain from making explicit your criteria as to what you classify as “left-wing”.
Until then, go tell it to the marines.
Your swearing black is white won’t save you or your ilk, Dave.
Not interested in your ego-saving crass revisionism, projection nor fantasy.
Deal with it.
5 sec Google search: [emphases added]
‘… Yes, The Guardian is widely considered a left-wing or centre-left newspaper, known for its progressive stances on social issues, support for centre-left parties like Labour/Lib Dems, and investigative journalism often critical of power, although it strives for editorial independence and is a major voice on the left in the UK. It’s seen as Britain’s leading left-leaning paper by many, featuring in lists alongside publications like The Daily Mirror and The Huffington Post.
Key Characteristics:
Political Leaning: Centre-left/Left-wing.
Editorial Stance: Supports centre-left politics (Labour, Liberal Democrats) and focuses on social justice, human rights, and environmental issues.
Journalism Style: Known for fearless, investigative reporting, exposing wrongdoing (like government spying), and giving voice to the powerless.
Independence: Owned by the Scott Trust, aiming for independence from commercial and political influence, but its values guide its coverage.
Audience Perception: Consistently ranks as one of the UK’s most trusted and widely read news sources, with a readership generally on the mainstream left.
In essence, The Guardian is a prominent, respected, and explicitly left-leaning publication in the British media landscape …’
Well, I guess that just about covers it, Dave.
Remember, Google is your friend.
Once you’ve stopped being embarrassed for everyone else Tory Boy you should try Socialist Worker, it’s a good read.
Don’t choke on yer cornflakes.
See you up the dole office once you’ve lubricated Fish Face’s entrance [into Downing Street].
Oh do shut up, you fat, useless moron.
One thing’s for sure though, no one is going to g to argue with your expertise of the dole office, matey.
LOLZ. Works every time.
Swinney wants to win this time and next time – he’s said as much. So there will still be a devolved administration for all that time and, perforce, no independence. The SNP’s clearly stated intention to thwart independence for Scotland is in plain sight, and not even hiding.
“The SNP’s clearly stated intention to thwart independence for Scotland is in plain sight”
That’s just plain silly, Andy.
The SNP has no intention of thwarting Indy.
The SNP is hamstrung by precisely and exactly the same incontrovertible fact that thwarts the most rabid carpet-gnawer on Wings BTL.
There is no majority supporting Independence for Scotland. There never was, even at the high point for Indy support – the 2014 referendum.
It matters nowt how rabid your support for Yes is, Andy. You’re still in the minority, and until that changes, the SNP will remain a prisoner of Scotland’s ingrained fear of going it alone.
Yes. Swinney of course. But he is just the current stooge. We can assume that since 2014 the comprehensive re-emasculation of Scotland has been the English State’s most pressing priority. Nothing more existential. And they are global pros, dontcha know. Presumably we only got as far as we did because somebody fumbled…
We also have to remember that the UK devolved assemblies (unlike Westminster) are required to use ‘local government’ electoral franchises, not national franchises.
Which explains their ‘regional’ government status as far as the ‘mother country’ is concerned.
The critical importance of such an irregular franchise being used for national elections or referendums is ignored by WoS, by political parties and by British establishment figures such as ‘Sir John’.
On the matter of independence, the use of a ‘local government’ franchise will always fail a peoples ‘inalienable right’ to self-determination:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
VOTE for the Scum Nonce Party OR Alba if you WANT to remain tied to this VILE , ABUSIVE uk (engerland) , a vote for either is a vote for continued DEVOLUTION and BEGGING WM for a section 30 which will never come because they KNOW Scots would destroy the FAKE union
VOTE Liberate Scotland for TRUTH , HONESTY , DIRECT DEMOCRACY and REAL independence FIGHTERS
.
Dear Stuart,
What are the odds that Jimmy-The-Holiday-Grifter over at Midden Mansions in Crowdfunder Street by ScotPhut Town’s head just exploded?
Methinks the word “triggered” as in a hissy fit and stomp out of the room, should have a picture of James G. Kelly next to it.
For sure, Crowdfunder-Kelly will have been triggered by the facts in today’s Wings Over Scotland feature article: “List Voting For Cretins.”
Jimmy cannot help himself. He will pop up on his YouTube channel like a balding, lobotomised canine chewing a bone, to and argue “Stew, make mine a double” as in VOTE for BOTH Constituency AND List SNP.
Jimmy really has no clue at how thick he is.
At least his camera angle has changed for Kelly’s YouTube “Mogadon Monologues.”
Seeing Kelly’s boxers drying out on the curtain rail on his YouTube channel was quite distracting.
SNP = devolutionist grifter paedo advocacy woke nutter pension and caravan afficionados
Green = life hating death cult which wants us all cut our dicks off forthenetzero-tostopthetransmenopause
Reform aka “Destroy” = the bring back the empire little englander keep kenya british bumpton trumpton party of middle class southern tax dodgers who also think the anglo is the chosen master race people
Tory/Labour/Libdem = undifferentiated yoon slop, not a rizla paper between them
there really is no one to vote for; someone mentioned lesser evilism, well, duh; it’s been that way for a long time and it’s a feature not a bug.
Democracy is hacked, as the anarchists would say – if voting changed anything, they would abolish it. It’s sad – they said this 50 years ago, but there WAS then more than a rizla paper between the parties; notice how all across the world, everywhere, all at once, politicians push the same unpopular policies, acting like the voters don’t matter (apart from odd holdout countries) – it’s the same shit sandwich with a different rosette on it :
looting/rentierism as economics (neoliberalism)
warmongering as foreign policy (neoconservatism, globalism, new world order, liberal humanitarian democracy)
degeneracy as social policy (diversity, gender rights, pride, wokism, identity politics and a neo puritanism), and you get to choose the implementor. Fights are vicious, and about nothing.
Charles Shaar Murray, on Question Time, before some election, famously told a story about a young musician going to sign a contract with a music producer : he signs, and the guy then says “you know I’m screwing you, right” … whut … “but the difference is – Im screwing you with grease, James Brown would screw you with sand … ”
grease or sand. That’s politics.
Farage is definitely, a gritty type of sand. He is a conman, a snakeoil salesman; he won’t do anything about mass immigration (hint : its the legal that is the problem, another 10M by 2030) – what he might do is whatever it needs to create a short term “boom” (like maxxing out the credit card) in the south east, for his people – then let everyone else, mainly you, Scotland, to pay for it all … by the time people figure out his game, he will be on his way, job done; then some new “saviour” will appear, in the big neverending con
I might spoil my ballot in a creative way; a lot of this happened in Ireland lately – and it worried the authorities. It sends a message if there are 1000 ballots with essentially “you are all corrupt and need to fucking DIE” etc, on it.
I would vote for anyone who is sincere about indy. It doesn’t matter if they have no chance of winning; everyone has got to start somewhere and it takes a lot of balls to step up as an independent or for a small party. The party system has huge barriers to entry and the media will just ridicule you as a “nutter”; these are skilled liars, and you, the well meaning and sincere, amateur, will get eaten alive.
on the general point of it all being fucked up, part of this problem is the system and at a deeper level, the need for parties – but it was designed thus
in other countries where DHONDT is used it ends up with 2 sets of parties, one for constituencies, one for the list. I can almost see this happening up here; it is obvious to almost everyone by now, apart from myboykellypop, voting SNP on the list is pointless, so who else – most SNP types might go for the Greens (and reciprocally, the Greens go SNP on the constituency); you could see these matchups – reform/tory – labour/libdem – they might all hate each other, but it might be inevitable when you see how the system works
– it’s depressing, and yet, given the numbers there should be a massive gap in the market for a PRO INDY party. Nature supposedly abhors a vacuum. But maybe there is nothing natural about it; it seems obvious to me, the most natural winners in any democratic system would be a party that was centre-left economically and “socially conservative” – such parties should clean up, naturally baggin 2/3 of the vote. Apart from that german woman, there seems to be none of this type of party, anywhere. The “political spectrum” is kept one-dimensional with rightwing market zealots on one side and identity politics nutters on the other. Such things are designed. Oh, and we have the smear campaign of “far right” (cf “conspiracy theory”, a meme which arose in the wake of the JFK coup) for anyone who is “populist”
Alba shows, even with a great man like Salmond at the head, it is so hard to establish a new party. I think he saw it as “the real SNP” and that there would either be mass defections, or eventually, one day he would return (like Odysseus, to cast out the “suitors”); parties need a lot of money and you need media coverage, which is still television mostly. I like to think the SNP has within it a “provisional wing” waiting to emerge, but I doubt it.
“I would vote for anyone who is sincere about indy”
Yer wiss haes bin gied tae aw Scots fowk.
‘Liberate Scotland’ – Independence, nothing else:
“We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence, uniting pro independence candidates across Scotland under a single purpose, to end the Union and begin the rebirth of a free Scottish state.”
link to liberatescot.scot
I have been saying for decades ( and got shouted down at a CA meeting for saying it) is the SNP could deliver independence by simply not running list candidates.
The proletariat would therefore have to cast their list vote for the most pro Indy candidate unencumbered by the mathematical folly that is the D’Hondt system.
The SNP “stalwarts” who screeched at me for being disloyal are the problem.
Fortunately they will die off at some stage. It will then be a challenge to overcome the toxic bullshittery of the likes of Ricky Taylor and his ilk.
I live in hope.
Aye, us Scots (wha are really aw that’s left o the Picts) are doomed, richt eneuch.
Done in – efter ten thoosand year makkin Pictavia fit tae live in efter yon ice meltit – by a band o wee fanny robber types an thair wee bandit helpers fae roond aboot… quite shamefu really whin ye think aboot it..
Thaim Romans wir at least up front aboot thair plans fir Pictavia – no like thaim strange Scotti an sleekit Inglis.
Ach weel, aw guid things come tae an end sae thae dae.
Still… it’s guid tae knaw awbody else is doomed anaw, is it no?
England, and then America, will be next fir the choppin block, nae dout.
An then efter thaim it’ll be some ither folk’s turn wha deserve a richt guid kick up the erse aff the Lord .
Maybe God will pit it oan the celestial telly an we Scots (formerly kent as Picts) aw up in Heaven kin hae a guid laugh at the leuk o surprise oan aw thair stupit faces as thae mak thair way tae the ninth circle o Hell, eh?
Aye Northcode, Imperialism aims to obliterate national cultures (Fanon); by implication, this confirms that ‘the only bulwark against imperialism’ (Said) is oor ain braw Scottis national cultur itsel – whit gies us oor naitional consciousness an naitional identity, an the verra aspiration tae be a nation!
An that maist shuirly includes the grund an foonds o oor cultur – i.e. oor Scots langage o Burns, McDiarmid, Kay, an masel and yersel tae, an aw Scots wha hiv a wee bit Scots aye in thair heids despite Englis bein garred doun oor thrapples by a colonial education system an ivery ither colonial institution tae.
Whit explains why oor doun-hauder aye depreeves us o oor Scots langage!
A fair amoont o whit a post is tongue-in-cheek in an attempt tae wrap a wee bit humour (humour in ma ain een, onywey) aboot sairious truk thit kin be a bittie heatit atween fowk oan here afttimes, Alf.
Tho e’en if a’m haein a wee lauch a’m ayeweys sairious aboot shawin aff the Scots leid whin a kin.
There is a serious point woven through that wee bit nonsense I scribbled doun atap.
Sometimes the points I want to make in this place won’t let me express them any other way than through the Scots language.
And when I write in Scots I think in Scots, and it flows quite naturally fae ma heid tae ma pen… maist times onyway.
It looks like that tawse taken tae me when a wis a wean failed in its imperial duty.
The Scottish independence grass roots know full well not to vote for the false union SNP and federation after being S@@te on for many years,, ring fence money stolen and wasted mandates.
So who is the target here?
Incomers, tories, labour, libs or Green voters.
Sometimes the pre-conceived outcome and results has very little to do with with Scots independence voters.
And a lot more to do with whom has the franchise and whom counts the votes afterwards, and why they are counted out of area and not where the votes were cast,
It has always been that way in Scotland, a complicated system in the first instance for a reason, and a guarantee that no one sees them being monitored , or counted
In England they just cancel the elections.
But certainly any rigged result cannot be finger pointed at the fully awake grass roots voters whom are aware of the Snake federated Union aim of the SNP.
Playing Devil’s advocate, what happens if unionist voters decide to vote tactically in the constituencies for whoever is most likely to beat the SNP?
Why do none of the polls mention Liberate Scotland? Ireland was able to ditch their supposed independence party in short order just before gaining their independence. Why couldn’t Scotland do the same to the SNP?
In principal there’s nothing (apart from any trace of political nowse..?) to stop Scottish voter from “doing an IPP” to the SNP prior to Holyrood or Westminster election. Sadly neither Alba nor the ISP has reached electoral escape velocity, and neither have any of the even smaller groups like I4S, Liberate Scotland, Sovereignty Scotland….
The stumbling block right now is the refusal of the SNP to co-operate and promote the concept that the collective vote for all pro-independence parties will be regarded as plebiscitary in ALL forthcoming General Elections (whether to Holyrood or Westminster) and ensuring that for Holyrood elections they abandon the ridiculous “both votes SNP” mantra as Rev Stu keeps pointing out.
Colin Dawson says:
2 January, 2026 at 1:50 pm
Playing Devil’s advocate, what happens if unionist voters decide to vote tactically in the constituencies for whoever is most likely to beat the SNP?
======
If you think only unionist voters will pursue such a tactic then you haven’t been paying much attention here!
@ Cynicus
It depends on the extent to which unionist voters are prepared to hold their noses and vote for non-SNP pro-independence candidates simply to stick it to the SNP. The problem with that concept is that most will assume that the alternative MSP’s elected as a result will be stronger advocates for indy than the current devolusionist SNP.
In practice it might not make that much difference of course, because it now seems unlikely that “other” pro-independence parties are going to win enough seats to hold the balance of power at Holyrood: that was really the big attraction of maximising the non-SNP list vote, i.e. that a decent block of “real” nationalist MSPs would hold the SNPs feet to the fire and stop them backsliding on achieving independence.
It’s more likely however that they’ll simply vote tactically for the best placed unionist candidate, which has often happened in the past.
The bigger question post Holyrood 2026 elections is how Scottish unionist voters react to the prospect of a Reform government in the UK, or at least a UK where Reform are the largest party.
“what happens if unionist voters decide to vote tactically in the constituencies”
This is already evident for some years in areas that now contain, according to the census, significant resident populations moving in from rest-UK and who mostly tend to vote against independence. e.g. in particular, Orkney and Shetland, Aberdeenshire, Highlands, Perthshire, NE Fife, Edinburgh, East Lothian, Borders and Dumfries & Galloway.
The irregular ‘local government’ franchise used for Scottish national elections (and national referendums in Scotland) based on residence serves to inflate the anti-independence vote.
The professor claims “The irregular ‘local government’ franchise used for Scottish national elections (and national referendums in Scotland) based on residence”….
Please explain in what sense basing franchise on residence is “irregular”, and give some examples of countries in the world where the franchise is based on something different that makes it “regular”.
Open franchises similar to those used in local government elections do however constitute the overwhelming majority of franchises in self determination referendums since WW2, as has been pointed out to you.
The only way the international community will consent to Scotland being considered a special case is if they accept it as an instance of being freed from colonial oppression, ethnic/communal violence and/or gen0cide. None of these apply to Scotland’s case, however hard you and your ideological friends try to insist otherwise.
A country with >80% of it’s population being native born will simply not qualify for recognition by any other means than a clear majority of ALL residents supporting a clear proposition for independence in either a referendum or plebiscitary elections.
If Scots can’t assemble a pro-independence majority from pro-independence native born Scots and those non-native Scots they have persuaded to support independence rather than the union, then they will neither get nor deserve their independence.
“if Scots can’t assemble a pro-independence majority from pro-independence native born Scots..”
We did.
The Scottish Referendum Survey established that a majority of ‘Scots’ had in fact voted for independence in 2014, and concluded that:
“Scotland only remained in the Union because of the views of those who were born in other parts of Britain and further afield”
Which makes the No vote also a matter of ‘ethnic identity’, as is the Yes vote.
@factchecker 4.26 pm
Please explain in what sense basing franchise on residence is “irregular”, and give some examples of countries in the world where the franchise is based on something different that makes it “regular”.
That work has already been done, pursuant to earlier arguments about the erroneous contention that the Scottish referendum franchise is somehow unusual or unfair. In point of fact, the franchises used in the vast majority of such votes are open, residence based ones. Some are even more open than that used here in 2014. Custom and practice and the presumption used by the international community and in international law is for all residents of an entity seeking self determination to be included in the franchise.
1. Quebec 1980 – All Canadian citizens resident in Quebec.
2. Quebec 1995 – As per 1980.
3. Slovenia 1990 – All Slovenian citizens (deemed to be all holders of Yugoslav internal citizenship cards resident in Slovenia irrespective of birth place).
4. Lithuana 1991 – Lithuanian nationals (including those born before the 1940 invasion & their descendants) plus any Soviet citizens resident who surrendered their Soviet citizenship. Soviet soldiers stationed in the country were excluded.
5. Estonia 1991 – All residents with a Soviet residence card resident in 1991, including ALL Soviet settlers planted there since 1945.
6. Latvia 1991 – as per Lithuania.
7. Macedonia 1991 – as per Slovenia in 1990. Macedonians abroad who registered could vote.
8. Yookraine 1991 – All residents in Ukraine. Even Soviet soldiers were given the vote.
9. B&H 1992 – All yugoslav citizens with established residence in B&H.
10. East Timor 1992 – Anyone born in East Timor, plus anyone with parents born in East Timor or whose spouse or in-laws were born there.
11. Montenegro 2006 – Anyone with residence in the former Serb-Montenegrin state who could prove a minimum of 24 months residence.
12. South Sudan 2011 – All permanant residents or those whose parents or grandparents were permanent residents since 1956.
13. Scotland 2014 – Residents of Scotland with British, Commonwealth or EU nationality.
14. Catalonia 2014 – Residents of Catalonia with Spanish nationality, plus EU, EEA and Swiss nationals.
Happy to help! 🙂
@ Alf 5.26 pm
Thankfully Alf you and the tiny minority of ethno-nationalist bigots don’t get to decide who is pure enough to qualify for the vote, nor are you – mercifully – ever likely to be in a position to decide on such matters.
As has been pointed out to you previously, you can’t use the argument that the 2014 vote was decided by non-native born Scots outvoting native born Scots, as you have no idea what impact a blood and soil nationalist franchise would have had on the votes of those who voted Yes.
Many would undoubtedly have voted No in horror, and given the few percentage points involved, you can have no certainty that the result would pan out as your bigoted wet dreams predict.
“give some examples of countries in the world where the franchise is based on something different”
You might consider UN member states such as Luxembourg, Oman, Chile, and Malaysia, plus Northern Ireland (Belfast Agreement), to consider their respective voter franchises for a national referendum on constitutional matters.
“… the tiny minority of ethno-nationalist bigots don’t get to decide…”
I’ll have you know I’m over six feet in height, Sir. I could hardly be described as tiny.
Who does get to decide, though?
Is it the even tinier minority of non-ethno-nationalist bigots?
“….give some examples of countries in the world where the franchise is based on something different that makes it “regular”….”
Wanting other folk to do your research again, Yoon?
How about….umm…”France”. Heard of it? You Inglis don’t like it.
Doesn’t matter how long you have lived there, or taken out citizenship etc you don’t get to vote on constitutional matters or in general elections – ever. Only local elections.
There may be other examples but you’re not really interested in the truth are you?
We’d be being kind in allowing votes after 10 years residence, but we’re like that – the most generous nation on earth; we give everything we own to the country next door.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of your relentless Unionist shite and your wee pal Franchise Fanny the Concern Troll.
Thanks for that list, Alf.
That’s a comprehensive list of those regions of the administrative area called Scotland that I expect to go their own way once the UK breaks up.
After all, they’ve got the resources. Once the lie that equally shared, all Scots will be rich, becomes crystal clear, the pressure for further fissioning will become irresistible.
I don’t see the hopeless benefits junkies in what we could call rScotland mobilising to face off against the rest of the committed and determined Scots. Especially when, as you point out, the independent regions will be able to call on their allies, the English, for help.
It’s truly a crying shame that nobody on here ever looks at what is going on elsewhere in the world. It’s part of that belief in Scottish Exceptionalism that causes us to fall flat on our faces every time.
Wha’s like us? The correct answer is “Abody”.
You know, I can’t help but wonder at what might happen if we were to have a pro-independence party which adopted a very hardcore position towards the thorny issues of immigration and asylum. After all, is that not what the majority of people want these days?
Going further, would such a stance not appeal to those English folk who had been driven to flee their homeland due to, oh, let’s just say “demographic change”? They might not be sold on the idea of independence itself (at least, not initially) but the promise of a rigidly-controlled border might be too tempting to turn down. Who knows, it might just work… 8)
Who? Did you mention Liberate Scotland because if you did, they will achieve no media attention at all and will have zero effect on the outcome of the election.
Maybe they’ll get noticed if they make as much noise as possible by banging their pens on a table, only for the audience to turn around and say would you mind stop doing that so I can hear what you are saying, only to be told to piss off and not come back. This isn’t how you win voters.
After May you won’t hear again of Liberate Scotland and after March you won’t hear of Liberation Scotland either.
Anyone for burns night there’s still tickets available.
Same here, vote for anyone that only has and only runs on independence for Scotland,
If you are not going to make use of the errors in the theoretical union treaty,
As a country we might not be ‘Too wee, or too poor’ but it seems the majority are ‘too stupid’.
During the Independence campaign there was much talk of how ‘well informed’and politically aware the Scottish voters were. Seems the majority are not so well informed or politically aware and are in fact ‘Sheeple’.
Being fully aware of the SNP though innate wickedness and falsehoods does not indicate that the grass roots should make the same mistake with the other union parties on offer.
For Scotland that would be jumping out the frying pan into the fire,
More years for a continuation of the same.
Colin Dawson,
Get independence on the go and Scotland will will get rid of the union parties like the SNP and those others themselves, in the blink of an eye.
Perhaps that is why they play this game of vote for us and we’ll get rid of the Snp for you, it ensures at least some union and globalist party retain their seats to further control Scotland in the future.
Good cop bad cop scenario . a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, is the only choice that is being offered to Scotland,
And we have to be both totally blind and backward not to see that,
“Voting for them on the list, however, is a vote to actively and knowingly usher dozens of Reform, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem MSPs into the chamber on a red carpet, flanked by fanfares of glistening trumpets. (And to do so for the third time in a row, having learned absolutely nothing in the intervening decade, like some sort of moron.”
An observation which clearly implies that a calculation of the number of list votes achieved by the SNP in those previous three elections will provide us with a ball park figure – in numerical and percentage terms – of the number of ‘morons’ in the electorate; and whether that number is increasing or decreasing?
Now is probably a good time to get the popcorn whilst awaiting that analysis…….
Unfortunately, I’ve come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the Scottish voting population still do not understand the system, most never would if we sat them down with a calculator and talked them through it, and almost certainly don’t attempt to educate themselves by accessing your advice. More fool them.
How many do you believe come on this site and actually read what Stu has written, I’m going to say three you me and Scot goes pop.
Great post again Stu! I have a half wit cowardly SNP list supporting friend who still believes both votes SNP is the best way forward.
He is of course an erse. Much like the rest of the SNP faithful.
“Are you telling us that English people living in Scotland should not be entitled to vote in any future independence referendum?”
Dinnae be daft.
Any English wha’s lived in Scotland for 300 year and mair (definitely pre-union) and caws thersel a Scot and can read and write fluently in Scots and has a doctorate in the history of Scotland and can play the bagpipes to an expert level and has won several awards fir the hieland dancin’ at international competition level and has had at least one poem written in Scots published can have as many votes on Scottish independence they can eat… I for one am an inclusive enough indigenous Scot tae hae nae problem wi that sort o open voting franchise.
Hear Hear Northy I too could be convinced by those criteria , but unfortunately the progressive , civic , DEI supporting apologists will FAIL to see they are supporting their own eradication
If you look at the major cities in engerland they are already widening the gap of religious equality with any exposure immediately piled on as RACIST , funnily enough that term doesn’t apply to certain groups
That is why we have the franchise fanny and his brood scurrying over the border to escape the hordes , with his laughable claim that he always intended to return HAME
His progressive civic pish enacted by fuckwits who cannot see beyond their noses has created the monster that is destroying engerlish citizenship , THAT is why farage is appealing to so many disenfranchised engerlish voters, BUT unfortunately they will be disappointed because farage is part of the establishment and he thinks LEGAL immigration is acceptable
“…they will be disappointed because farage is part of the establishment and he thinks LEGAL immigration is acceptable…”
Aye, TH.
I’m sure quite a few British capitalists think of ‘legal immigration’ more in terms of the bulk purchase of low-cost assets to serve the requirements of the upper middle and higher classes of
the empire‘British’ society and corporate ‘Britain’.As usual, though, I add the caveat that I might be wrong.
An interesting post Twat H.
I’m supremely confident there’s a vast cohort of Scots, call them the law abiding, silent majority, who believe that legal anything is just dandy.
After all, most people just want a quiet life. They abide by the rules. It’s the grifting crims that get right up their noses.
Most people are never going to turn away decent, law abiding, talented, trained, hard working, taxpaying immigrants from Scotland.
It’s the large numbers failing to fall into one or more of these categories we want run out so fast their feet never touch the ground. That’s why we’ll vote for anybody that looks like they may make a decent job of clearing them out.
So Farage and Reform it will have to be. One last chance to see if by democratic means, we can get politicians who will keep their manifesto promises once in office.
Alf Baird says:
2 January, 2026 at 5:26 pm
“if Scots can’t assemble a pro-independence majority from pro-independence native born Scots..”
We did.
The Scottish Referendum Survey established that a majority of ‘Scots’ had in fact voted for independence in 2014, and concluded that:”
Please explain how the Survey defined a ‘Scot’, and how it sourced and assembled the data. Without that definition, the comment is meaningless, as any reputable academic will be aware.
Away and dae some research yirself ya lazy arse instead of asking others tae dae it , Alf isnae yir servant, bawheid
My dear twathater, it is the professor who is citing the Survey in support of his assertion. It is for him provide the relevant underpinning. As he should know, being an academic.
It is not a matter of being a ‘servant’. It is a matter of being competent. Having studied the survey, he can easily provide the information.
My kindest regards.
Why have you called yourself factchecker? Surely with a name like that you’d be off quick sharp to find out what you can, but no, not you.
Like others you sit and wheedle and whine like kids on the back seat, are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet?…and on and on it goes.
“Please explain how the Survey defined a ‘Scot’, and how it sourced and assembled the data…”
Folk are so lazy these days. They expect others to do the work they should be doing for themselves if they want to improve their education and dispel their ignorance .
Due to the usual tricks by the imperial power, France, New Caledonia applied the undernoted ‘secondary criteria’ in one of its recent referendums on independence. Like Scotland, New Caledonia has also undergone significant population change due to colonial rule, hence the ‘secondary criteria’ rule applied in the franchise:
“The referendum was held using a special electoral roll. Potential voters needed to be registered on the general electoral roll, and also had to meet one of the secondary criteria:[15]
– Was on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum on the Nouméa Accord;
– Qualified to be on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum, but were not enrolled;
-Failed to meet the requirements to be on the 1998 electoral roll solely due to absence related to family, medical or professional reasons;
– Having civil customary status, or born in New Caledonia and have their material interests in the territory;
– At least one parent born in New Caledonia and have their material interests in the territory;
– At least 20 years of continuous residence in New Caledonia by 31 December 2014;
– Born before 1 January 1989 and have had their residence in New Caledonia between 1988 and 1998;
– Born after 31 December 1988 and reached voting age before the referendum, with at least one parent who was on the electoral roll (or qualified to do so) for the 1998 referendum.
As a consequence of these restrictions, in the 2018 referendum 35,948 registered voters on the general list (17% of the 210,105 total registered voters) were excluded from the vote.[16][17][18]
Vote restriction restricted the voting power of recent inhabitants—derogatively known as Zoreilles—and enlarges the voting power of native Kanaks, and was long sought after by the FLNKS.[19]
Indigenous leaders accused France of deliberately altering the electorate by seeking to grant voting rights to recently arrived settlers from France”
James said “Wanting other folk to do your research again, Yoon?
How about….umm…”France”. Heard of it? You Inglis don’t like it.
Doesn’t matter how long you have lived there, or taken out citizenship etc you don’t get to vote on constitutional matters or in general elections – ever. Only local elections.
There may be other examples but you’re not really interested in the truth are you?”
Well, James, actually I am. Please give details of your sources for your assertion above. Here is Article 3, a relevant section in the French Constitution. Please note the final paragraph “All French citizens…”. This includes citizenship by marriage or by residency.
Article 3
National sovereignty shall vest in the people, who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.
No section of the people nor any individual may arrogate to itself, or to himself, the exercise thereof.
Suffrage may be direct or indirect as provided for by the Constitution. It shall always be universal, equal and secret.
All French citizens of either sex who have reached their majority and are in possession of their civil and political rights may vote as provided for by statute.
…are we there yet? Are we there yet? Drone drone drone.
Call yourself factchecker? Change your name, ‘are we there yet’ would be appropriate.
Due to the usual tricks by the imperial power, France, New Caledonia applied the undernoted ‘secondary criteria’ in one of its recent referendums on independence. Like Scotland, New Caledonia has also undergone significant population change due to colonial rule, hence the ‘secondary criteria’ rule applied in the franchise:
“The referendum was held using a special electoral roll. Potential voters needed to be registered on the general electoral roll, and also had to meet one of the secondary criteria:[15]
– Was on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum on the Nouméa Accord;
– Qualified to be on the electoral roll for the 1998 referendum, but were not enrolled;
-Failed to meet the requirements to be on the 1998 electoral roll solely due to absence related to family, medical or professional reasons;
– Having civil customary status, or born in New Caledonia and have their material interests in the territory;
– At least one parent born in New Caledonia and have their material interests in the territory;
– At least 20 years of continuous residence in New Caledonia by 31 December 2014;
– Born before 1 January 1989 and have had their residence in New Caledonia between 1988 and 1998;
– Born after 31 December 1988 and reached voting age before the referendum, with at least one parent who was on the electoral roll (or qualified to do so) for the 1998 referendum.
As a consequence of these restrictions, in the 2018 referendum 35,948 registered voters on the general list (17% of the 210,105 total registered voters) were excluded from the vote.[16][17][18]
Vote restriction restricted the voting power of recent inhabitants—derogatively known as Zoreilles—and enlarges the voting power of native Kanaks, and was long sought after by the FLNKS.[19]
Indigenous leaders accused France of deliberately altering the electorate by seeking to grant voting rights to recently arrived s******s from France”
Excellent post, Alf…very interesting and informative.
Not the auld New Caledonia false equivalence again Alf.
Dear oh dear.
Scotland =/= New Caledonia. It’s not even like the Baltic States all of which were subject of huge influxes of Soviet citizens planted to keep them within the Soviet Empire.
Scotland is still overwhelmingly peopled by native born Scots. You have no evidence of the voting intentions of new Scots, or what your planned ethnic nationalism would do to support for independence supporting native born Scots who abhor your deeply regressive bigoted plans for franchise restriction.
Get back to us when the UN accepts Scotland as a non self governing territory.
Independence (i.e. decolonization) and ending ‘the scourge of colonialism’ is not merely about changing one government for another, it is about removing an institutionalised racist system of oppression and exploitation that violates ‘a peoples’ human rights.
In this the rights of the colonized/oppressed ‘people’ must logically be prioritised and respected, which is what the UN Charter states.
What did you think independence is for?
I’ve finally cracked the conundrum!
The SNP’s obsession with Gender Reform is the clue.
They self-ID as an independence party similar to how a chap, we’ll call him Isla, wants to be be seen as as a hairy-balled lesbian.
@ BLMac: “SNP self-id as an independence party”.
The leadership and hangers-on do. There’s so many members who are still desperate for independence but who can’t influence the leadership. What can they do? Anything? [I’m thinking about my local branch here – real patriots and still striving but within the SNP mould.]
Needs a counter claim , continue with snp 1 and 2 . No voting Snp for number 1 abstain.
This text is from Annex 2 of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, on the voter franchise agreed by UK and Irish Government’s for those permitted to vote in a referendum in Northern Ireland:
“The British and Irish Governments declare that it is their joint understanding that the term “the people of Northern Ireland” in paragraph (vi) of Article 1 of this Agreement means, for the purposes of giving effect to this provision, all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.”
This perhaps also gives us an indication of how to more accurately and properly define ‘the people of Scotland’ vis-a-vis any future constitutional referendum.
It is also very clear from the Belfast Agreement that the SNP and their ‘civic nationalism’ bullshit is never going to deliver a result, and is entirely unnecessary. The SNP also failed the people of Scotland over Brexit, relative to the superior deal Northern Ireland’s politicians secured.
A future independent Scottish state would doubtless have much the same citizenship criteria as Ireland. Scotland as a devolved entity doesn’t have citizens, it has residents. There is no such thing as a Scottish citizen until after independence.
You are, disingenuously as usual, comparing apples with oranges and declaring them exactly the same, because *reasons*. It’s like playing chess with a pigeon with the nativist contingent in here at times.
Also worth pointing out that your cunning plan would enfranchise > 800,000 qualifying Scots born, parented or grandparented people in England, Wales and NI.
How many of them do you thing are pr-independence Alf?
We are talking of Northern Ireland, which is (still) a ‘devolved entity’.
I assume you are you now going to call the UK and Irish Governments’ ‘nativist’, ‘bigoted’ and ‘blood and soil nationalist’ for their ‘born in Northern Ireland’ franchise?
@Alf – as you and I both know the definition of “the peoples of Northern Ireland” is made in respect of those entitled to consider themselves as nationals of either the U.K. or Ireland with all of the provisions that entails. It does not describe the voter franchise that was used in the Good Friday Agreement referendum not is it used in the Northern Ireland Act (S.1) which explicitly leaves the voter franchise open to be determined in any future border poll.
No Alf, because as has been pointed out to you before, the UK and Ireland are independent states which can set their own citizenship criteria and franchises for local and national elections as they see fit. A post independence Scottish government will be able to do the same.
A devolved parliament, or a part of an independent state which is attempting to assert its self determination is not the same thing.
You’re not a stupid man, but you have a record of being disingenuous with respect to your monomaniacal and logically flawed argument that Scotland is a colony and that it qualifies as a non self governing territory.
Alert readers are therefore entitled to assume that your purposeful use of category errors to try and substantiate what passes for your case is simply intellectual dishonesty.
To add of course, putting forward than Annex 2 of the Belfast Agreement describes the voter franchise when objectively it does not is either an extremely basic research error OR deliberate misrepresentation. Which is it?
The real issue here is that a proper definition of ‘the people of Scotland’ as with any people seeking decolonization is perfectly possible and indeed strongly advisable when it comes to the constitutional matter. The ‘civic nationalism’ mantra is not in any shape or form a proper definition of ‘a people’.
The ‘intellectual dishonesty’ or rather fundamental weakness, as Fanon explained, is all on the side of those such as yourself who have never undertaken ‘a reasoned analysis of colonial society’, which is the reason yours and much of the movement’s understanding of the actual situation we are in still remains ‘rudimentary’.
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
@Alf 10.53 am
The proper definition of a “people” for the purposes of self determination is those resident in the area seeking independence Alf, as demonstrated by the couple of dozen such votes held since WW2.
What you and the other regressive ethno-nationalist bigots refuse to engage with is why anyone internationally would recognise a Scottish vote which sought to exclude several hundred thousand residents of Scotland from inclusion in the “demos” on the basis that they don’t form part of the “ethnos”.
Mischaracterising the Scottish situation as one of decolonisation to try and move the goalposts and improve the chances of people accepting the exclusion of swathes of new Scots simply won’t work.
The UN are overwhelmingly likely to refuse to accept the attempted reference being attempted by Salvo et al, because they will correctly point to all the other self determination votes in former Soviet republics and former Yugoslavia which are the logical equivalents.
Your quixotic campaign to insist that only you and the vanishingly small number of people who accept your post-colonial analysis are seeing clearly and the rest of us are somehow subject to false consciousness is laughable.
There’s a reason your arguments have negligible support in the real world and no significant political, academic or legal subject matter experts support what passes for you case.
“The proper definition of a “people” for the purposes of self determination is those resident in the area seeking independence”
Wrong again, and by a postcolonial mile.
The UN C-24 Committee rejected the Falklands referendum result (in favour of remaining a UK colony) specifically because it surveyed only the ‘resident’ British s*****r population, whilst ignoring descendants of evicted islanders and their lawful rights.
In cases where ‘a people’ have been or still are being displaced by another people/culture it does not matter who the present ‘occupiers’ may be, the latter are still regarded as colonizers, or ‘usurpers’.
As you still appear to be unaware, ‘s*****r occupation’ is a well-established feature of colonialism, including within the ‘UK Internal Colonialism Model’ (Hechter).
“… [your] logically flawed argument that Scotland is a colony and that it qualifies as a non self governing territory…”
Ah, see how they assert though never propose – such is the sleekit way of those who deal in disingenuous rhetoric.
They never make a statement that presents a plan or hypothesis that can be analysed and debated and that might, ultimately, be either accepted or rejected.
And so I ask this of ‘them’:
If so let those fallacies – those errors in logic – be named and described according to their relevance in Professor Baird’s argument.
Let them be set down on these pages here in this place for all to witness.
Let them be clearly and honestly declared that they might be studied and judged.
And let them be presented to us who follow Professor Baird’s argument and lend it our agreement that we might “blooter the mince oot them”… to use the technical term frequently applied by logicians and rhetoricians alike.
Definition of a nation:
I believe Scotland is still recognised at this time by the other nations of this world as one of many distinct nations still extant on this Earth.
“a country considered as a body of people united by common descent, history, culture, and language, inhabiting a particular area or territory”
That’ll be the Scots who live – as a people – in that country, that natioun, cawd Scotland (Pictavia if preferred) then… is it no?
@Alf – that’s bluntly nonsense, the principles of equality and non-discrimination are foundational concepts in international law and are set out explicitly within the UN charter. The UN has never in any way supported nativistic bigotry or affirmed the rights of majority ethnic groups to discriminate or disenfranchise citizens based on their ethnicity in the way you are proposing.
Quite to the contrary, South Africa, the strongest direct parallel to what you appear to be proposing found itself under a range of severe economic, political and cultural sanctions as a result of its apartheid regime, with disenfranchisement being called out as a particularly egregious example of an activity justifying those sanctions. It’s laughable to suggest that the UN would endorse the kind of racial bigotry and discrimination in Scotland that they sanctioned in South Africa.
” South Africa, the strongest direct parallel to what you appear to be proposing”
Oh my God, Alf!
The colonists are getting desperate when they stert comparing the Scots ain desire tae be an independent nation with the Dutch colonization of South Africa, are they no?
@ Alf 12.33 pm
Wrong again, and by a postcolonial mile.
Not wrong Alf, because most people don’t accept your post-colonial monomania. Get back to us when you’ve persuaded the UN C-24 to add Scotland to the current list of 17 non self governing territories.
The UN C-24 Committee rejected the Falklands referendum result (in favour of remaining a UK colony) specifically because it surveyed only the ‘resident’ British s*****r population, whilst ignoring descendants of evicted islanders and their lawful rights.
The C-24 regards the Falklands as a disputed territory between Argentina and the UK. They don’t accept the current residents implanted after UK rule was established in 1833 by evicting the existing residents as a “people”. The situation therefore has nothing in common with Scotland’s case.
In cases where ‘a people’ have been or still are being displaced by another people/culture it does not matter who the present ‘occupiers’ may be, the latter are still regarded as colonizers, or ‘usurpers’.
The Falkland Islands had no permanent established population before the UK settled them in 1833. The French, British, Spanish, and Argentinians all tried and failed to establish permanent colonies before the islands were finally taken by the UK. If you’re going to insist the original settlers of uninhabited lands like the Falkland Islands have eternal “dibs” on them, then the islands should actually be French.
“It’s laughable to suggest that the UN would endorse the kind of racial bigotry and discrimination in Scotland that they sanctioned in South Africa.”
The much greater part of racial bigotry and discrimination in Scotland is directed at the Scots.
The colonized are forced to exist every day in an ‘apartheid regime’, ‘a people’ and their culture and language rendered subordinate by an imposed dominant (Anglo) cultural hegemony.
As racism (incl ‘internalized racism’) is always ‘a consubstantial part’ of colonialism (Memmi) this means ethnic discrimination becomes institutionalised within a colonial society, often ‘obscured by assimilation’.
The Nurse Peggie, Salmond, and Murray persecutions are more notable recent examples. Scotland having the biggest prison population per capita in W Europe is another; curious considering us Scots are also one of the most loved ‘people’ globally. Inequality in a colonial society widens in line with the enforced cultural and linguistic (and hence ethnic) divide.
Even the former Chief Medical Officer o Scotland likened the woeful condition of many indigenous Scots lives to that of colonized Aborigine peoples ‘dislocated from their culture’; i.e. being dominated by another culture/language and its dubious value system is a key part of this.
Which explains why an ‘independence movement depends of the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group’ (Hechter), Scots speakin fowk in oor case.
Ethnicity is therefore a key determinant of independence:
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Amongst all of the deluded things that you sa Alf, the comparison between the Scottish people and the people’s suffering under the apartheid regime of South Africa deserves particular mention. It is of course extremely insensitive for a former university professor living comfortably and no doubt having enjoyed an interesting and varied career to be cosplaying as some racially oppressed minority.
I don’t know for example, what having a slightly higher prison population than our neighbours is supposed to indicate, but if you think that’s the sum total of apartheid then you need to read more. Under apartheid, black South Africans were not permitted to live in and apart from certain exceptions, even be in white areas. They were only permitted to work in low-paid positions, usually not paying enough to afford anything more than the most basic lifestyle. They were forced to live in ghettos a long way outside of the main cities and deprived of anything more than the most basic Bantu education. They were also subjected to high levels of extra-judicial violence both by the police and private militias. None of that is remotely true of Scots in Scotland. In fact, all the examples you give of Salmond, Murray and Peggie are Scots on Scot’s whatever you think the merits of each case might or might not be.
@ Northcode 12.40 pm
They never make a statement that presents a plan or hypothesis that can be analysed and debated and that might, ultimately, be either accepted or rejected.
Not so. The plan is to hold plebiscitary elections based on the presumption that a majority of Scots voting for parties which have specifically endorsed a plebiscitary platform will be taken as a de facto declaration of independence, which will be established de jure by subsequent negotiations just as for any other newly established state.
There is no cunning plan or silver bullet which will drop independence in to our laps: not the UN deciding we’re a colony, not some legal leger de main declaring the Treaties of Union null and void, not Salvo convening a Convention of the Estates.
Only a clear majority voting in response to a clear question in a referendum or platform in plebiscitary elections will be enough.
Can it be shown which logical fallacy, or fallacies, it is said disprove Professor Baird’s argument – his argument built around the proposition and its many associated premises that “Scotland is a colony” – and in so doing render that argument misleading and void?
Can it be described in detail where Professor Baird’s reasoning fails thus leading his argument through the blind alley that leads to the cul-de-sac of “invalid conclusion”?
Can the alleged errors in Professor Baird’s logical structure supporting his argument that “Scotland is a colony” – thereby defining Scotland as a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) in the eyes of the United Nations – be explicitly declared for all to ruminate upon?
The main rejoinder is of course that the UN does not include Scotland amongst the 17 remaining non self governing territories overseen by C-24. To be added to the list Scotland’s case would have to be supported / sponsored by existing UN member states and ultimately approved by the UN General Assembly.
None of these are impossible, but given the track record in other cases, it is fanciful to think that progress will be either rapid or uncontested. The idea that the UN as currently constituted would take any action to enforce a decision against the UK is surely fanciful, particularly given the well known disquiet of many other nations with their own issues with separatist movements and the reaction of many in the UN to the cases of Kosovo, Timor L’Este and New Caledonia to name but a few.
Including Scotland (or analogous cases like Quebec and Catalonia) in a list of overseas territories like those on C-24s list would be bitterly contested, not only by the UK but many other UN members who would see it as setting a precedent for minority groups their own states.
Additionally of course, the argument against Scotland being considered and English colony rest on the fact that the indigenous people of Scotland were not denied control over their social organisation: they retained considerable control over their own government and were (often times enthusiastic) participants in the British nationalist and British Empire projects.
By historical standards the post union Scottish state’s relatively powerful civic institutions insulated it from the influence of the union parliament. The role of the separate Scottish church and legal professions also served to secure them from simply being dissolved within UK equivalents.
Arguments about cultural hegemony are far more persuasively explained using the language of class than of colonialism.
A far stronger case can be made that Gaeldom was the subject of colonisation by both lowland Scots and subsequently Brits, than that Scotland was colonised by England, yet Alf and his supporters would doubtless be unhappy if the UN insisted on independence for everything north of the Highland line and the disenfranchisement of any non indigenous inhabitants who couldn’t prove gaelic ancestry. Sauce for the goose and all that…?
I don’t actually think this is the place – nor indeed do I think the vast majority of readers or the owner of this site would thank us for – the kind of detailed exposition you demand. Professor Baird has spent years regaling us with his interpretations, both via self referential links to his own corpus of work and endless conjurings and quotes from his choice of post-colonial theorists.
If people are that interested doubtless they can do their own homework.
@Aidan 3.55pm
Amongst all of the deluded things that you sa Alf, the comparison between the Scottish people and the people’s suffering under the apartheid regime of South Africa deserves particular mention. It is of course extremely insensitive for a former university professor living comfortably and no doubt having enjoyed an interesting and varied career to be cosplaying as some racially oppressed minority.
The insensitivity and political / ideological tin ear involved in trying to clothe Scots in the robes of colonial oppression have been pointed out to Alf and others before, sadly to no avail.
The idea that Scots – who were for the most part willing participants in the British imperial project and the mass colonisation of many other lands – can claim to be an oppressed and colonised people in the same sense as those in former colonies in Africa, Asia and the Americas (or indeed those subject to the imperial rule of Moscow, Beijing or Constantinople in times past) is both deeply insulting to the real victims of colonisation and a morally vapid ahistorical view of Scottish and global history.
Any Irish people I know treat any attempt to make an equivalence between the Irish and Scottish experience with scorn, never mind trying to appropriate the experience of say African or Caribbean colonies.
“I don’t actually think this is the place – nor indeed do I think the vast majority of readers or the owner of this site would thank us for – the kind of detailed exposition you demand.”
Very thoughtful, but… but… but…
But I thought the totality of Scotland’s colonizer’s argument could be expressed by just a couple of words… “Better Together”; followed by ten
liesbullet points.I mean a lot of effort was put into the “Better Together”
lieargument back in 2014, after all.Anyway, it shouldn’t take more than a paragraph or two to ‘detail’ the bane of Scotland’s entire argument for keeping the Scots oppressed while stealing all their nation’s stuff… including their nation.
I’ll do it for you colonist folks if you want – it’ll only take me five minutes to scribble doun your argument here… and then maist likely just another five to persuade any Scot wha reads my counter-argument just how much “Better NOT Together” they’ll be – especially now after 11 years of “The Vow”.
“it’ll only take me five minutes”
Odd, Northy, but at this time of year, some things are more obvious.
Didn’t it take you all of 2025?
And all of 2024 too?
Prior to that … , let’s just say that failing memory does bring some advantages.
“Salmond, Murray and Peggie are Scots on Scot’s”
Well Aden, let’s just consider that for a wee moment, shall we.
1. ‘Scottish’ Government officials (in an English dependency, Whitehall’s finest aye sent north to manage the colony)
2. Crown / Police (English Crown, in an English dependency)
3. NHS (state organisation in an English dependency, English professional bodies and trade unions dominant)
It is also the case that institutions in a colony hold to the values of the colonizer, which includes “the crushing of the colonized”, and are tasked with with “protecting the colonizer’s interests only” (Memmi).
As Memmi wrote: “One should not be too surprised by the fact that institutions depending, after all, on a liberal central government can be so different from those in the mother country. This totalitarian aspect which even democratic regimes take on in their colonies is contradictory in appearance only. Being represented among the colonized by colonialists, they can have no other.”
link to yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com
Alf I wanted to ask about the basis of Fanon’s and Memmi’s ideas.
As you know, Fanon’s work is based in the situation of the back man in relation to the white, his colonial theory flowing from this. In his seminal work, ‘Black Skin, White Masks’ he seeks to understand the foundations of anti-Black racism, and is his major work on blackness (especially in North Africa). His later work does shift focus somewhat to look at the colonially oppressed of the global south. His work is one of the cornerstones of modern critical race theory, a theory founded on white/black racial difference.
It is therefore logical to critique the applicability of his theories to Scotland in relation to England, both ‘white’, European countries and both very serious white colonialists and originators, amongst others, of European anti-black racism and general racism towards people of the global south.
It is not difficult to understand how applying his theories to Scotland and using his words to bolster the Scotland-as-colony trope might stick in the craw, given the colonial Scots (and English, French etc of course) were some of the very people he thought suffering and inculcating ‘racialized subjectivity’ and deploying the ‘calculative logic of colonial rule’.
Memmi seems a more complex person – a Jew, an Arab, Tunisian and French, a Marxist and strong Zionist nationalist, though not afraid to be critical of Israel. But again his ‘The Colonizer and the Colonized’ draws on his experiences in Algeria and is regarded as very insightful about white racism (though not just white in his case). His ideas are based on the Europeans’ exploitation of countries outwith Europe. So though a bit more flexible, there is no straightforward extrapolation of his ideas to conflicting powers within Europe.
So both Fanon and Memmi are deeply concerned with the racial origins of colonialism by Europeans of black Africans (and those of the global South). However much cultural and even some genetic differences might be played up, the ‘racial’ differences between the English and Scots are not significant when compared to white Europeans and black Africans.
It is for these reasons I cannot accept your widespread use and quotation of these scholars to justify and illustrate the situation of the Union, though I accept some statements can be made pertinent. That is because I recognise there is serious power imbalance between England and Scotland and that exploitation and suppression has undoubtedly happened (not least in terms of language and arguably, culture generally – ‘cultural imperialism’ I will grant).
The latter does matter, is real and should not be dismissed, but is not at all a convincing rationale for saying Scotland is a colony in the terms Fanon and Memmmi were arguing.
link to igp.sipa.columbia.edu
“The panel also explored the mechanics of how reunification could actually happen, beginning with the questions of who gets to trigger a referendum and who gets to vote. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is legally responsible for calling a border poll if it appears a majority in the North would vote for unification. Polls alone won’t suffice. Electoral results, such as a majority of pro-unification Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Stormont or Members of Parliament (MPs) at Westminster, could be a more decisive signal. Under current UK practice, the franchise would follow Westminster rules, potentially including Northern Irish citizens abroad who left within the past 20 years. In contrast, the Republic of Ireland does not extend voting rights to its diaspora, meaning only residents currently living in the Republic would be eligible to vote.”
“Scottish independence: what does the diaspora think?”
link to tandfonline.com
ABSTRACT
Scottish independence is a matter for debate, not only in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, but also in the Scottish diaspora. Their views have rarely been sought, yet they will have a view on the constitutional future of their homeland. This paper draws on research on attitudes to independence within the diaspora, and concludes that individuals in North America generally favour independence more than those in England. But attitudes are changing, partly because of Brexit, and partly related to the UK Conservative government, which is seen as not reflecting Scottish views and values. Independence is now considered more positively.”
link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com
“Abstract
The 2014 Scottish independence referendum settled little in terms of Scotland’s constitutional future. The after-effects of what was the largest exercise in democracy in Scottish history certainly increased Scotland’s devolved authority but, following withdrawal from the EU and with continuing differences and disagreements between the Westminster and Scottish governments,
there have been increasing demands for a second referendum. One aspect of these conversations has been about the voting rights of Scots living outside Scotland, whose relationship with the
nation would certainly be impacted by any successful vote for Scottish independence. And yet,they have had no voice in that decision and despite calls for their inclusion in any future vote,such inclusion remains unlikely. This article examines the reasons why such inclusion would be challenging and then considers what the Scottish diaspora think about Scottish independence and voting rights, by considering qualitative responses to a survey of members of the Scottish diaspora.”
The Anglo – Irish parliament since 1800 is the British parliament, the parliament of the UK.
The previous parliament of Great Britain ended in 1800.
Wow. I make that 225 years ago.
Haud oan. Maybe 226.
Whatever. It’s still of immediate relevance to every Scot alive today, and to those Scots as yet unborn.
Liberate Scotland: “We will use every democratic election as a plebiscite on independence”.
“Liberate Scotland, United for Independence seeking outcomes not incomes.”
Their mission statement strongly suggests Liberate won’t seek paid employment as MSPs.
So, can any Liberate people confirm that:
1.Liberate candidates won’t seek election as MSPs to uphold and administer devolved (English Crown in English Parliament) WM sovereignty over Scotland?
2. Liberate candidates’ will stand on a single issue: this is a plebiscite on independence.
For if Liberate candidates also sought employment as devolution MSPs or sought endorsement for other policies, being very polite here, it would muddy the waters and make their statements seem misleading.
Why would anyone sane vote for a candidate who didn’t actually want to be an MSP when in all likelihood their party will be lucky to gain even one or two seats?
What are any who do get elected going to do sitting there in Holyrood?
With those two dates and States dividing the two British parliaments, Westminster could no longer drag Scotland around in a Colonised treaty.
They are entirely two different legal states and legal constructed entities, signed of at two different dates almost a hundred years apart.
Because Westminster England parliament claims it is the only Country that owns the Treaty of union….we must recognise those facts as wrote down,
That Scotland and Englands Great Britain parliament ended as a legally constructed entity when the Scotland England of 1707 placed its self under dissolution 1800.
What returned was the Anglo- Irish united parliament of westminsters parliament of Great Britain.
That new legal construct entity of Great Britain had no claim over Scotland and could – not re- instate the Previous parliament that was….the parliament of GB from the new legal Construct entity position,
I can understand that those wanting Scotland to be in the 1707 old treaty they had dissolved was in the Anglo-Ireland treaty,
But they simple were not, except by continuing a deceit.
And why they want this information to go away and not being
Hence why we are told to shut up and stop repeating it ,
The comments that Scots not understand the voting system is very accurate.
Because Scots do not need to be in the Anglo-Irish parliaments voting system at all.
House of lords privilege Committee, The lord Gray case.
“Wether or not there is a treaty between Scotland and England, that is not what is being debated here today,”
Thing is the tories will vote Reform, as will some voters from the other Brit parties (always hoping against hope the SNP id not yet full Devo Brit) and these numbers will change in Reform’s favour.
Add the Tories to Reform and it’s neck-and-neck Reform with SNP
Not worried about losing the Snp,
Thats been the wrong tree to bark up for years in Scotland, the grass roots are not the ones voting them in,
Its about swapping them for another unionist party, which inevitably Scotland always has no choice over.
Much and such the same.
SNP and Greens along with the other Yoon Parties are ("Tractor" - Ed)s to Scotland