March Of The Ferrets
Posted on
April 17, 2025 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Get ready for a lot of this in the coming days and weeks.
Obviously, don’t believe any of it.
Pretty soon now, nobody in a position of power will admit to ever having thought that transwomen were women. But don’t worry. We’ll remember.
I always wondered where the lawyers were hiding…
Will nurse Peggie get an out of court settlement then.
I certainly hope not , I hope she takes them all the way
Except we taxpayers will be paying!
It should come out of any managers’ pockets.
“It should come out of any managers’ pockets”
Yes, but I also think it should come from the pockets of those who advised the managers and those who funded those who advised the managers.
I would not be surprised in the least if at some point we are told that those doing the “advising” were some of the dodgy quangos funded by the Scottish Government to amplify its “message”.
For instance, who was funding Scotland’s Stonewall and LGBT Youth Scotland?
I wouldn’t be surprised either if we find out that the line of accountability goes up all the way to the UK Civil Service operating within the Scot Gov and the higher echelons of the SNP.
We know Sturgeon was one of the main culprits peddling this nonsense, but the question for me is who/what did she get her marching orders from?
As one would expect in a colony, behind all the unusual/unwanted policies and imposed laws that serve to ‘mystify the people’ (Fanon) and oppress them, that hold back their development while widening inequality, amidst the ongoing crisis in almost every policy area, we see what is a ‘very strong government and justice system’ (Memmi).
This form of colonial administration has as its primary aim to manipulate and ‘divide the independence movement’ (Freire), and so indeed: “the line of accountability goes up all the way to the UK Civil Service operating within the Scot Gov and the higher echelons of the SNP”.
In a surprise intervention Alf Baird, emeritus chair of Kipper Studies at Napoo Not-Yoon Diversity, declared that the transgender debate was a deliberate distraction by ‘colonialist psychmanipulators’ (Fanny) to stop oppressed North British Gaels ‘doing anything about anything’ (Sizzer) including ‘chewing gum on the pavement’ (Meme-y).
A Wings spokesperson (zir/zut alors) added: ‘We are trying to verify the authenticity of the comment. Despite the inevitable quotes from the Three Wise Marxist Monkeys, it lacks Alf’s trademark of proving his point irrefutably with links to his own writings. Also, he has not remembered to display his liberated True Scotsman mentality by switching from English into an idiolect that sounds like ‘Hugh McDiarmid meets Oor Wullie’.
@ EndaClarke: And what have you ever done for Scotland? What positive contribution have you ever made to the debate? And why should supporters of Scotland’s independence give a toss about your personal insults and irrelevant opinions?
Clear off, troll.
Please see webpage linked below for YouTube of Alf Baird very eloquently and authoritatively expounding on freeports and colonialism. Plus Sara Salyers regarding the latter.
Also, insightful vimeo interview with Prof Bill Rolston about the ongoing Irish experience:
“Ireland, Colonialism and the Unfinished Revolution”.
A first rate article in Irish about Franz Fanon by senior lecturer Dr Fearghal Mac Bhloscaidh:
“Franz Fanon: Impiriúlachas, Coilíneachas, Neo-choilíneachas & Díchoilíniú”.
An excellent Mediapart channel YouTube discussion in French about Franz Fanon:
“De l’anticolonialisme à la désaliénation, l’œuvre-vie de Frantz Fanon est d’une actualité brûlante. Edwy Plenel la revisite avec l’essayiste Adam Shatz, qui publie « Frantz Fanon. Une vie en révolutions » (La Découverte)”
A YouTube of Dr Shashi Tharoor’s seering lecture about the colonisation of India:
“Looking Back at the British Raj in India (Edinburgh University 2017).
link to gobha-uisge.blogspot.com
Michael Laing @ 9.08pm;
Well said, sir. Very well said!
It should be a stonewall penalty!
These despicable LIARS have no integrity or honesty, especially when it is thrown back in their faces
We Scots are learning from decades of lies and corruption by these SCUM
Sadly, many of these SCUM are Scots.
I still think we will need several court cases involving Department Store changing rooms, Gym changing rooms, school toilets etc. only when Councils, Company Directors get hit in the pocket will they comply with the Law. The zealots are buried deep and will pretend nothing has changed.
If I had a Law Firm I would be setting up a no win, no fee deal for Women after the Supreme Court ruling. The Cult are so stupid it will be free money.
The words “Shower of Shit” springs to mind. Next week we will be threatened with the jail if we even thought a chick with a dick could use a womans toilet.
Could this spell the beginning of a new Scottish Reformation in the political and civil service world.
Like; Play time is over!
Here come the Adults!
Ale and Coleslaw Ham sandwich sure is keeping his head down eh?
Taking cover with SHE whose name shall not be uttered in the bottom of the Tranny trench..
We know a song about that;
“Send in the clowns … Don’t bother they’re here.”
Presumably this ruling means that all the Scottish education teaching and learning materials which discuss sex and gender will now have to be re-written to reflect biological reality.
Whoopsie Doo, would you Adam and Eve it.
What an absolute contrast of position these two pieces by this Labour minister expose.
Truly, this woman is a piece of toilet tailings utterly bereft of any integrity whatsoever. But then again her Feurher Sir Keech has exactly the same personal attributes.
Good work again the Rev Stu for digging this out.
One suspects they’ll be more of this to come.
Two legs good, four legs better or is it the other way round. Can’t wait to hear what the ruddy po faced Shona Robinson will be saying soon about the Fife Health Board and nurse Peggie.
So it’s true then.
The tale about Pinocchio and lying.
“Court bins case on Wings Over Scotland ‘hate posts’ about Brianna Ghey”
link to thenational.scot
I despise politicians. THEY are corrupted. THEY are the problem.
There should be a new law – every time they lie to the public they should lose two months salary. Three strikes & they’re out of a seat with immediate affect.
Great idea, Barbie, and you should lead from the front.
Give us a month without a single lie from you on here.
You can be the wind beneath Scotland’s wings!
The English Supreme Court ruled that a woman is a woman and “trans-women” are not women.
Nothing to disagree with. It stands to the obvious and it always did. One actually wonders how on earth anything else could possibly be acceptable.
It is absolutely ludicrous that, in the third decade of the 21st century, some very brave middle age women had to take the idiots in the Scottish colonial administration to court to establish, for once and for all, what a woman is. Just because those idiots in the Scottish colonial administration, despite being married to women, having been born from women, having daughters, sisters, aunts and grandmothers, couldn’t possibly find the balls to define what a woman, or indeed what a man, is.
If they are incapable to define something as fundamentally basic as that, I actually wonder how could anybody ever think that somebody so utterly detached from reality and so, so reluctant to acknowledge the biology that has been responsible for maintaining the human race, could possibly have what it takes to properly govern Scotland.
I am absolutely disgusted that those idiots in the Scottish colonial administration have squandered my taxpayer’s money in this way, just because they are in the pocket of some globalist arsewipe who has a political agenda in driving in the “trans” trojan horse to create obfuscation, division, de-humanise women, access children and distract us from independence. I have nothing but contempt and disgust for these idiots.
Right. Now the questions. Where does that ruling leave those other idiots in Rape Crisis Scotland who insisted, indeed demanded by calling women who were rape victims bigots, to accept “trans-women” as actual women?
What about stonewall and LGBT Youth Scotland?
What about the mandarins in NHS boards?
What about mandarins in the Police?
The colonial clown office?
What about the UK civil service who filtered this manure through every public service in Scotland?
Why haven’t all and each one of those idiots been named and shamed and, indeed, sacked with immediate effect after the ruling? Why are they still been funded with our taxpayers’ money for going against the law?
Now, where does that ruling leave Alex, black-gloves, Cole Hamilton and his “We did it for you, Beth”? Why is he still the “leader” of the Scottish branch of the Liberal Democrats? Why wasn’t he ejected with immediate effect?
What about Lorna Slater? Did Harvie resign from the leadership because he saw this ruling coming?
What about all those labour, Green and libdem MSPs who voted for that abomination of law that attempted to de-humanise women and reduce our womanhood to a dress, a wig, a pair of knickers and some heels? Why haven’t each and every single one of them resigned in shame?
Now, where does that leave every single SNP minister and indeed MSP who attempted to force on us women the idea that a male is a woman just on their say so, and who indeed were determined to force us to block the warnings the five senses nature gave use to protect us, by not just demanding from us to call “woman” to individuals we clearly saw were men, but actually to fully drop our guard and accept they “had every right” to invade the protected spaces the law granted for us?
What are those disgraceful and incompetent negligent charlatans, who saw themselves above the law, waiting to resign in mass in embarrassment and disgrace?
I read somewhere that these idiots have rewarded themselves with a salary rise a few days ago. Right, because that is what salary increases are for in Scotland, aren’t they? a reward for superlative incompetence, for negligence, for deliberately inflicting damage, for making a mockery of legislation and for industrial scale failure to the Scottish people.
Half of me wonders if the real reason why the political fraud Sturgeon chose not to stand in the next HR election is because she knew this ruling was coming and she would have nowhere to hide and there was no longer men big enough (and willing enough) left in the party to be thrown under the bus to cover her arse.
The political fraud has had training as a lawyer. Those judges in the English court ruled unanimously that it was obvious what the law always meant. It was obvious to us average people too. Yet, we are expected to believe that this political fraud, also educated in law, was incapable to understand what the law really meant?
Yeah, right. I think it is far more likely that this political fraud had the divisive remit from day one to distract us from independence by implementing this “trans” trojan horse agenda on behalf of some “democrat” arsewipe sitting somewhere in USA’s deep state apparatus.
Roll on HR26. Let’s eject all those women’s rights eroding bastards in one go. Now, THAT would be epic, wouldn’t it? It would certainly be a juicy cherry on the cake for the fantastic and well deserved victory of those wonderful ladies yesterday at the English court.
Let’s name and shame each and every bastard in HR who attempted to force us to accept that a male is a woman and that our womanhood is meaningless beyond an inch-thick make up layer, a tacky wig, fake boobs, a pair of pink frilly knickers, fishnets and stilettos.
“The English Supreme Court”
No – it is the UK Supreme Court – an independent Scotland would not have the UK Supreme Court to correct it’s nonsense laws.
No. Sorry. In my eyes that thing is and will always England’s Supreme Court. I do not recognise the legitimate existence of any entity as “UK” supreme court.
I am one of those who does not believe that, under the Treaty of Union, that so called “supreme court” has legitimacy to rule over Scotland in constitutional matters or anything to do with Scotland’s legitimate right to unilaterally end the treaty.
The abuse of the “parliamentary sovereignty” multiuse tool for all that that court regularly resources to in order to dispose quickly of any potential constitutional challenge from Scotland, is, in my personal opinion, unlawful and ultra-vires.
That court can never be considered an independent entity in constitutional matters. It is a by-product of Westminster which, itself, is a by-product of and subordinated to the treaty. In other words, if the treaty of union ends, Westminster as “the UK” parliament ends and with it any illusion that such court was ever a “UK” court.
Because of that dependency on the continuity of the treaty for their existence, neither Westminster nor that court can ever be considered independent in constitutional matters pertaining Scotland’s popular sovereignty, Scotland’s legitimate right to call a referendum whenever the hell its people wants or to unilaterally terminate the union, therefore constitutional rulings pertaining Scotland should have never taken place in that court. In my eyes, the rulings of that court on those matters are simply not credible.
I am also one of those who thinks that, in this so called “union”, Scotland is and will always be treated as a colony, ergo subjected to English law disguised as “UK” law dished from that English court.
However, in this particular instance, what those ladies were trying to upheld was (English as the) UK law, therefore I think it was perfectly proper to hear the ruling in that English court.
And I say English law because it came from England (as the UK)’s parliament, where England has and will always have the ultimate say due to his crushing representation share compared with that of the other nations.
Please, please Monsieur X, not that flawed old Positivist argument again!
“I do not recognise the legitimate existence of any entity as “UK” supreme court”
Aye, Mia.
They’re draggin oor Scottish trannies oot o Scottish wummin’s safe spaces agin their will.
First Brexshit, noo this!
Mia, it does not matter how you ‘see’ it, or what you personally ‘recognise’. Your feelings are irrelevant, as irrelevant as a trans person ‘feeling’ they are really the opposite sex. What matters is reality and the hard facts – it is the UK Supreme Court and the reason it has been able to do what it has done is because it is a UK-wide court and not an English-only one. The judges on it are from England, Scotland and Wales.
Well said Mia
It’s all a sick fad, relatable entirely to William Bruce Jenner in 2015 and media spread like a plague due to the Kardashian’s link.
And the politicians (sic) just couldn’t help being led by the nose by “yoof culture” and their own inherent predators.
Hate crime, hurty feelings, ADHD “care in the community” and the usual oh so usual p1sh of Johnny come lately adopting the USAs trends and fads for that’s when the explosion in numbers of this and all the lobbyist money courtesy of Stonewall kicked in.
Then there is the brand of pervert and deviant unskilled to work in industry that see the broken political system as an easy wage and hobby horse to push their own disturbing pedillicos on an unwilling society never asked to vote on it.
And the laughing stock shame they have brought on Scotland.
Finally check out Kelly Gittering Givens discombobulating rant on the National today to see why Thatchers care in the community disaster has let the lunatics move up the ladder as influencers, journalists and politicians.
Seriously, read it and laugh then weep for these peoples utter utter divorce from reality and societal responsibility while they focus on their own narcissism and get paid for it!
Redd out required, and, get out of our schools you deviant enablers and predators!
Yes, dumb down telly & social media played a massive part.
The World Health Organisation removed it from its list of mental illnesses & along with World Bank & IMF setting policies – suddenly everyone was passing it through parliaments & everyone suddenly was TRA..FFS it was a pandemic all of its own..
That poor child Jazz & his fckd up parents too who allowed TV to follow all his botched experiments for $millions in TV deals.
The next Drag Queen & every social media platform had a *Star* in the making too. From beauty channels being inundated with TRA makeup influencers to womens talk show hosts & who can forget Dylan & his 365 days of womanhood nonsense along with the others you mentioned.
They weren’t so keen on televising the fallout tho. Young boys & girls chemically castrated who lived in absolute agony, both mentally & physically, of what ADULTS had allowed them to do to themselves as young as only 12 yrs old with the nonsense they pushed that it could be reversed when medics knew fine well it couldn’t. It was one big experiment. It was one big massive drive for governments to offer voluntary sterilisation for population control. To remove anyone daft enough to buy into it from breeding.
This scandal will take decades to clean up & pay out compo. Just as drilling holes in ppls heads did in the 70s. They should be struck off.
Well said, Mia.
All of those NGOs should resign with immediate effect.
They’ve not only caused untold suffering to many victims (reframe yer trauma FFS) but they’re going to cost us an absolute fortune in erasing their bullshit from every institution & booklet across the country.
Same with the EHRC. A good clear out from top to bottom along with all those women hating advisors who described us as chest feeders, those who menstruate etc & all the other dehumanising & insulting terms they wasted tax payers money on dreaming up new ways to remove the world woman from forms. They can all fck off back to laa laa land with their form for claiming job seekers.
Sturgeon knew exactly what was ahead & bolted. Her mission was accomplished. She killed the SNP & derailed independence. Harvie too. A nice wee earner for a nobody. The Greens kill everything they touch & seem to be the vehicle the Neocons/ elites have used to completely destroy a country. You just have to look at Germany to see the complete destruction they have caused.
It’s time Scotland seriously got it’s act together if Holyrood is to be saved & start getting behind new independents & indy parties & get the compromised Greens & SNP OUT of Holyrood. That applies to Labour, Tory & Lib Dem voters to. Get everyone who voted for this shit in Holyrood out in 2026 & clean up your parties too. Tho, the way things are going across Europe, I’m of the opinion the votes will be rigged or unpopular Starmer will cancel altogether. The elites/Neocons don’t like their chosen candidate losing so are resorting to all manner of skulduggery to keep them in charge & hasn’t he already cancelled by-elections already?
Testing…
i appreciated that reasoned discussion is not going to happen but as agent X says, the court in the UK Supreme Court. It is not an “English” court. Of the five judges who heard the FWS case two are Scottish, two are English and one is Welsh. They were doing exactly what a supreme court is meant to do – setting out a definitive interpretation of legislation which applies throughout the UK. They couldn’t do that if they were an “English” court.
“the court in the UK Supreme Court. It is not an “English” court”
I disagree. I think it is an English court and that is all what it can possibly be.
The nationality of the judges matters very little in establishing what that court is. It is the type of law and conventions it upholds and bases its rulings on what determine what that court is. And it is a matter of public record that that court is based in English law and regularly bases its rulings on the English convention of parliamentary sovereignty, which has no place in Scottish law.
The parliament of Scotland in 1707 could not give to the new parliament what it did not own itself, therefore that parliamentary sovereignty Westminster claims to own comes exclusively from the English side.
This case was between a Scottish women campaign group and the Scottish government. Strictly speaking, ALL the judges in that panel should have been Scottish. It is no business for any English judge to stick their nose in Scottish government matters. Even the fact that English and Welsh judges are sitting at all in what is at all effects a Scottish case brought forward by a Scottish group is a further testament to the point that this is an English court.
Article XIX of the Treaty of Union reads:
“and that no Causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery, Queen’sBench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-Hall; and that the said Courts, or any other of the like Nature, after the Union, shall have no Power to cognize, review, or alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, to stop the Execution of the same.”
That so called “UK Supreme court” is a product of Westminster, ergo “a court from Westminster-Hall” to which that treaty of union article directly applies. In line with that article, that court cannot review or alter the Acts of Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, which is what that court has just done. In my opinion, it is a violation of a fundamental condition of the treaty, therefore invalidating the treaty. For that reason, that court cannot possibly be a “UK supreme court” . A UK supreme court would have to uphold that treaty at all times, meaning it could never review the ruling of Scotland’s supreme court and therefore, as a “supreme” court, would be completely pointless.
But, as I said above, what these ladies were seeking was for a particular piece of English law to be clarified and upheld in its original meaning, therefore bringing it to this court was perfectly appropriate.
The law Westminster produces is English law. It may apply to the whole UK, but it is English law based exclusively in English convention. The representation from Scotland in that parliament is symbolic. Scotland can never change anything a majority of English MPs decide, no matter how many Scottish MPs vote against. Westminster churns, therefore, English law decided by English MPs.
Mia said;
“The law Westminster produces is English law. It may apply to the whole UK, but it is English law based exclusively in English convention. The representation from Scotland in that parliament is symbolic. Scotland can never change anything a majority of English MPs decide, no matter how many Scottish MPs vote against. Westminster churns, therefore, English law decided by English MPs.”
That ‘the representation from Scotland in that parliament is symbolic’ is entirely down to English overreach and the Scottish cringe, because the Treaty does not oblige the Scottish representation to defer to the English representation on any matter of governance, and neither does Scotland’s own sovereignty, which Scotland never formally gave up any more than England gave up hers.
The weakness of Scotland’s MPs arises solely from the use of a flat majority vote of the hugely asymmetric numbers of those two representations, a flat vote for which no mandate exists in the Treaty or Acts of Union. Its use with those numbers is an English establishment ploy to deprive the Scottish representation of all effective agency within the Union’s English parliament. Calling the outcomes of such votes ‘democratic’ is a sick English joke with the Scots always being the butt of it, and any legislation passed on English majorities alone are thoroughly ultra vires of the Union’s parliament and its MPs.
The UK’s Supreme Court is remarkably obtuse on this matter.
“I appreciated that reasoned discussion is not going to happen”
Bingo! You’ve obviously been paying attention.
What Mia & Xaracen are saying, in their own excruciatingly verbose ways, is that whilst the UK Supreme Court may well have reached the correct decision (that fact grudgingly acknowledged by them both), that decision nonetheless remains ideologically unsound.
The theoretical “perfect” standard was not met. The “perfect” must always remain as the enemy of the “good”. OK, so the “good” happened, but at heart, they would have preferred to hold out for the “perfect”.
Even if the “perfect” never happens in any of our lifetimes.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. They have a sturdy peg to hang yet another grievance on, so it’s a win-win for them both.
@Mia and @Xaracen – we’ve been round the houses and it ends up in the same place always. This is your personal view about what the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom should be. It does not describe in any way what the law actually is in the U.K., but it is worth noting at least that the Surpreme Court acts as a final appeal court for many other countries other than the U.K. which is for example, how it came to hear the Quebec Independence case.
“The UK’s Supreme Court is remarkably obtuse on this matter”
I think you are being very generous, Xaracen.
As the unrepentant cynic I am, I do not think the rulings of the so called “UK’s” Supreme court are obtuse in any way. I think they are the result of its main (only?) remit being upholding in exclusivity English law, English convention and in particular the English only convention of “parliamentary sovereignty” over any form of democracy.
As far as I can see, the Treaty of Union does not make any provision for Westminster to create any Great Britain “Supreme Court”. In fact, it can be argued that Article XIX of the Treaty of Union represents the very prohibition to do so:
“and that no Causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery, Queen’sBench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-Hall; and that the said Courts, or any other of the like Nature, after the Union, shall have no Power to cognize, review, or alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, to stop the Execution of the same.”
For a “supreme” court to be really supreme, it has to have the last word and be able to overrule other courts. But it can never have the last word if it is, from the get go, denied by the Treaty of Union itself any ability to “cognize, review or alter Acts or Sentences from the Scottish Judiciatures”.
The conclusion to me is crystal clear. Either that court is not a “UK” supreme court at all, or the mere existence of that court which demonstrates Westminster’s overreach and its complete disregard for the restrictions imposed by the fundamental conditions of the treaty, directly invalidates the treaty, ergo Scotland and England are no longer in a union.
In line with article XIX, that court, as a “UK” supreme court, is outwith the confines of the Treaty of Union. So, for that treaty to remain valid, that court can only be an English court. It is appropriate for it to be an English court because its birth spins from the English side of the parliament – which can create as many English courts as they want, and the convention of “parliamentary sovereignty” and the idea that Westminster can do whatever the hell it wants without legal restrictions of any type, even from the actual treaty that gives that parliament its legitimacy to exist.
But, because the principle of “parliamentary sovereignty” has no place in Scotland’s law, that court cannot rule on Scotland’s only constitutional matters within the context of the treaty, therefore that court can never be seen in any way or form as “Scottish”.
That court and its rulings on the basis of “parliamentary sovereignty” are, in my view, another very clear demonstration that Scotland is not in a voluntary union with England, but rather ruled and exploited as a colony. That court, which violates article XIX of the treaty, is just another English imperial gatekeeper over Scotland. Recent rulings on Scotland’s constitutional matters abusing the English only principle of “parliamentary sovereignty” demonstrate this.
I do fully agree with you, though. The only reason why this is happening is because “Scotland’s” MPs are and have been utterly useless for the last 300 years in upholding Scotland’s interests and rights under the treaty. Seemingly they have only been preoccupied about their parties’ or their own personal interests whenever they consistently turned a blind eye every single time England MPs violated the fundamental conditions of the very treaty that gives the legitimacy of Westminster to continue to exist as “UK” parliament.
@Aidan, you are just deploying the fallacy that what ‘is’ has automatic legitimacy. You presume that any decision or law produced by Westminster is automatically legitimate, virtually by definition.
I disagree!
Mia and I have both explained that this is simply not always the case, that the UK’s governance and much of its legislation are not always legitimately derived, and we have explained why and how that happens, and have done so in detail. Westminster’s presumption of ‘unlimited sovereignty’ over the territories of the UK is bogus, because the provenance of that sovereignty from 1707 on is fundamentally flawed, as is the means of its deployment.
@ Mia says: 18 April, 2025 at 10:14 am
“Boo hoo! It’s nae fair.”
Anybody want to tell me I haven’t provided an accurate summary of her post?
She’s as deluded in her own way as the blokes in frocks are in theirs.
Hatey, you haven’t provided an accurate summary of her post!
Given that you can’t show your working or any evidence, sane, rational readers can safely discount your assertion.
“This is your personal view about what the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom should be”
In line with the Treaty of Union, which is what gives legitimacy to Westminster to act as “Great Britain’s parliament”, yes. So what?
“It does not describe in any way what the law actually is in the U.K.”
And what exactly is the “law” in the UK, who writes that law and where does that law get its legitimacy to be seen as “UK” law from?
Does the UK actually even legitimately exist when its parliament has been systematically sabotaging and assaulting for the last 300 years the very treaty that gives it legitimacy to exist?
“it is worth noting at least that the Surpreme [sic] Court acts as a final appeal court for many other countries other than the U.K.”
1. The “UK” is not a country. It is either a political union between two Kingdoms or a colonial construct where the imperial power has unlawfully annexed other kingdoms’ territory through a bogus treaty. You can take your pick.
2. What does that have to do with the current conversation? That English court can act as an independent court for other countries because it is not invested in the decision. But that does not change the fact that it should have never been involved in maters related to Scotland’s constitution. Firstly, because it is not a Scottish court. Secondly, because the treaty of union does not make any provision for a “supreme” court. In fact, in line with article XIX, it forbids the change of the sentences made by the courts in Scotland. Thirdly, because the very existence of that court and the very existence of the parliament who created that court depends and relies on Scotland to continue this union. In other words, that court and the parliament that created that court have both a vested interest in stopping Scotland exercising its legitimate right to end the union. That court is not, has never been and will never be an independent entity when used to rule on Scotland’s constitutional matters.
What about men in women’s prisons? I want EVERY man currently imprisoned in a woman’s jail to be moved out by the end of the week. I don’t care what they are jailed for and how vulnerable they think they are. It’s for the male estate to deal with vulnerable male prisoners not female prisoners.
Whilst I agree with your overall sentiments re the Treaty of Union and the setting up of the Supreme Court, in this case because the Equality Act 2010 is an Act of the Westminster parliament I think it was entirely appropriate for the UK Supreme Court to deal with this case. It’s not a direct constitutional case (by which I mean Scotland’s own constitution) nor did it deal with solely Scottish issues as the Act applies GB wide (not sure about NI). It’s happenstance it was Scottish women who raised the case, it could have been Welsh or English. I think the court was wise to have 2 Scots, 1 Welshman and 2 English judges to reflect this.
As for agent X response, an independent Scotland MUST have its own Court with a similar status. And it must have a second revising chamber, elected preferably but not a retirement home for politicians, who can review legislation. Holyrood suffers from its lack. I’m against the House of Lords (be it hereditary or political appointments) but there are some intelligent people there. A way needs to be found to elect a chamber that can hold Holyrood to account. Parties putting forward more accomplished bloody candidates for election rather than party drones would also help!
Excellent analysis, Mia. One of the best comments I’ve read on the matter.
Southernbystander,
The problem is, Scots law recognises no higher (legal) authority and no other jurisdiction. The UK Supreme Court is an overreaching arm of English law that has no authority in Scots law, and since Scots law is protected by the Treaty of Union, the UK Supreme Court has no legal status in Scotland according to the provisions of that treaty. Similarly, Hollyrood is a creation of Westminster, and MSPs are ultimately answerable to the English Crown (and thereby English law), and not to the Scottish people.
A wonderful “get out of jail free” card to play, SR.
By your analysis, no Scot in government (whether WM or HR) can ever be held responsible for anything, as none of them have any legitimacy.
Not even when it’s us Scots who freely and democratically chose to put them into power!
Do enlighten us on how your belief system stacks up as you go about your everyday life.
Do you refuse to pay all taxes, decline to accept free prescriptions, flatly deny that traffic law applies to you, exist rent-free in some squat somewhere. Why not, eh? None of these everyday benefits or travails, caused by WM and HR law making, according to you, have any legitimacy in Scots Law.
What a wonderful life you must lead
Almost forgot in the excitement.
Thanks Rev Thanks for a champion job.
Kirsty Blackman will finally know the answer to the question that has troubled her for so long.
I hope she likes it!
What is the National cuck, Swinney saying about it?
All over Scotland tonight the sound of documents being shredded, emails being deleted, Statements being hurriedly written, Drag Queen shows being cancelled, lawyers being called and drafts being drafted, yes indeedy the Scottish Office is burning lights late into the night.
Sweet dreams.
Well done to Sandie Peggie. She has to stay strong and win her case for everyone in the NHS! The board must be sacked!
It will be harder (apart from Green loons) to find anyone who admits supporting the gender bill than it was finding Nazis in Germany after WW2.
Correct.
Yet Kelly (mostly unemployable) Gittering Given uses the N word on anyone with an ounce of reality in their head that questions or protests against this deviant, perverse, nihilistic total and utter fabricated social construct..
Get the chest binders, needles and threads out and use them on yourself if you are such a crusader Kelly, you abuser of children’s trust, health and welfare..
I give to you an old ditty;
I could not dig, I dared not rob
Instead I lied to please the mob.
What tales shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young..
Special place in hell waiting for you Kelly..
What I am curious about is this, will the many ‘regular, everyday, members of the public’ who in the past few years had had the temerity to dare speak out against the ‘fallacy groupies’, with the result that they were then dismissed from employment / membership / socially ‘cancelled’ / etc…
Or are they still viewed as ‘right-wing bigots’. Will they receive apologies? I assume not a chance…
History revision is only allowed for and by politicians who are now trying to buy their next votes by ignoring their (until very, very recently) strong vocal conviction that ‘yes, a man identifying as a woman is a real women’….
YOU tried to force us into an unpalatable acceptance with a denial of natural and biological certainties.
…we will remember this the next time you need our votes.