Mike Russell declares for Ash Regan
We must admit it’s a shock – we were expecting the SNP President to remain neutral in the leadership election – but it’s hard to reasonably interpret this any other way.
(We’re not aware of Russell giving any media interviews last night so we assume from the timing that these comments were made at the regular meeting of the SNP Westminster Parliamentary group.)
Because both Humza Yousaf and Kate Forbes couldn’t have been any clearer that their indy strategies centre on getting Westminster to agree to another Section 30 order, and by pointing out that that’s never going to happen (which we all knew anyway), Mike Russell is admitting that a vote for anyone but Ash Regan is a vote to surrender any hope of independence for the foreseeable future.
We don’t often agree with him these days, but on this one he couldn’t be more right. For the sake of the SNP (and the Yes movement) we hope its members heed the sage, albeit coded, advice of their President.
Interesting point.
Let jopd this goes round SM, to make the point.
I will start it off
That looks to me more like an unsurprising endorsement for Ash Regan from Angus MacNeill than from Mike Russell. I wonder how long it will take the President to issue a denial ?
Mischievous!
However, as you say, anyone who’s awake knows this is the case.
Those believing otherwise seem to have some mixed-up notion that Labour might allow it because both parties are “progressive” and because they *appeared* to be on the same side re the EU etc. All of which conveniently forgets that Labour is a UNIONIST party.
Also, it’s normally all predicated on “well, they might need us for a coalition so then they’d have to give it as a return for that”. Is that so? No-one can ever explain why the Labour government would allow something which threatened to reduce its coalition government’s majority, i.e. Scottish MPs suddenly disappearing.
The usual get out to *that* is “well, it would be towards the end of the Parliament so it wouldn’t matter”. Again, oh really? What if polls leading up to the subsequent election showed Labour likely needed coalition partners to form a government in the following Parliament? What if they showed that their support would be damaged in the subsequent election by making the demise of the UK a reality? Would they grant a S30 then?
Would we go into *that* subsequent election hoping that the SNP politicians who’d already given up many times in a row wouldn’t then agree again to go into coalition in the vain hope that *this* time Labour would make good on a S30 *this time*? Or would we start to think that some of them just liked being part of a coalition government for the UK?
Very clever Stu.
He thought he could sit on the fence in public while whispering in Private to MPs.
He is now on the spot…..I look forward to hearing his verbal gymnastics.
Mike closed down the TransCult debate at every CA meeting he attended. Perhaps remorse setting in?
Guilty conscience finally got to him?
All those lies he’s told indy for 8 yrs – all the while knowing there was feck all being done & the Murrells were actively working against it.
In thinking about it for 10 secs,I arrived at Russell find Yousaf so disgusting He couldn’t vote for him.
Doesn’t make Russell some kind of superstar
There is a crack in everything, thats how the light gets in.. At last some wise words from Mike Russell. Let’s hope his word of wisdom on this is taken on board. Ash Regan for FM.
Great stuff.
She should make use of the endorsement immediately and use it to demonstrate the integrity of her candidature when requesting contact details of ALL SNP members (or as many as a legitimate leadership campaign might reasonably warrant) from the shared resource that is GCHQ.
Interesting…
However, I’m beginning to despair at people in the Yes movement, on here and, although I despair at everything associated with it, the SNP, who talk of any future referendum.
Having got the fright of its life in 2014 by coming within a 6% swing of losing, despite having unleashed all that project fear could muster and having only won via the votes of non-Scots domiciled here, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of Westminster ever agreeing to another S30, unless of course it came with more strings than the BBC’s Scottish Symphony Orchestra – in which case why would any SG, other than a Unionist flavoured one, agree to it.
Move on! IndyRef2, in any form other than a pre-rigged one, is dead.
Sounds like Mike Russell has made a tacit hint rather than an outright declaration of support for Regan at that meeting. Anyway, it’s to be welcomed if it reduces support for Useless.
Interesting
Headline and article do not match
Johnny 9:50
Aye, the old *Labour will help us* bullshit.
I wish people would wise up from that fallacy. Labour is no friend to Scotland & never has been & have screwed us over on a number of occasions. No way would they be the ones to end the Union. They’re bigger bastards than the Tories.
They fked up two referendums, the Scottish parliament lies, Devo max, Smith commission, McCrone, Better Together, federalism..on & on..’we’ll crush the nats’ aye & with Sue Gray on board & Sir Starmer there’s hee-haw chance of it given thier records in NI.
“Headline and article do not match”
It’s almost like it was a clever joke.
“That looks to me more like an unsurprising endorsement for Ash Regan from Angus MacNeill”
Angus has backed Kate Forbes.
Amen to that (as KF might put it)!
Aye, but Horsebox will likely morph into Michael Russeel and try to slip, slide, and wriggle out of this claim.
His words have been “misrepresented” before don’t you know…
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/11/its-only-words/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/11/michael-russell-neo-liberal/
Everyone and most of the politics pundits are suggesting Starmer is going to walk into Downing Street almost unopposed.I think they should not underestimate the capacity of Starmer to really alienate a lot of the traditional Labour voters. Don’t underestimate the capacity of the Tories to influence the election. I would be prepared a wager there will be an election strategy group beavering away in the bowels of Tory HQ devising devious devices and smear tactics. So not the foregone result predicted. My suspicion is that the lib dems will recover and pick off some tory seats. The GRR debacle and the financial irregularities will do much damage to the SNP prospects so whoever leads the SNP will be juggling with much reduced resources so the legitimacy of any Independence campaign will be much reduced. Whoever wins the leadership will have a monumental job. I have little or no hope for the ability of the current SNP to recover from the Sturgeonisation or Murrelising (i.e. asset stripping)of the SNP.
That Mike Russel only does whats best for him, as the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day. Dont give a f$@k for what he says.
I don’t remember this endorsement being part of the 11 point plan ?
Frankly – I will be surprised if ‘Useless’ doesn’t win it. Kate might win it. And Ash might make a dent. But the fix is in.
P.S. When are Police Scotland going to start making arrests ?
I’ve listened to the debate streamings and Ash comes across as likeable but innocently naïve. The other two are much more fluent in their answers and frankly more knowledgeable. I agree we cannot just keep asking for a referendum but I have not heard Ash explain what happens when and if 51% of the vote is achieved and Westminster tell her to get back in her box? To be credible she needs to explain her thinking here.
Or it could be him getting his resignation excuse in to leave the sinking ship when Humza gets elected by Sturgeon/Murrell.
Stu – I’m getting a Twitter error when trying to DM you. Are you aware of any issue?
If the SNP pick another leader who can’t delivery on Indy again, what hope is there for the SNP.
I believe we are at 60% and people are ready to vote for Independence, this is why the SNP needs to elect Ash Regan. She the only one offering change and working with others, everything she said so far has been like music to my ears.
Now Mike Russell is backing her, here’s hoping Kate drops out and gets behind Ash as well and the rest will follow.
If Regan doesn’t win, and its all but certain she won’t bar a miracle of some sorts, the fix is in, then in my opinion the SNP are finished.
Jesus the SNP are is rotten to its core, albeit for the odd one here and there.
“There are a couple of politicians who have been willing to speak out about what is going on but damn few. Encouragingly a ‘source close to Stephen Flynn’ appears to be one of them, saying to the National (about another dodgy deal) “The whole thing is deeply unsatisfactory… it’s potentially unlawful and potentially a breach of the campaign rules passed by the NEC. Whoever signed this off has got serious questions to answer.”
That is because SNP staffers are suddenly finding holidays no-one knew they had to go and work full time for the Humza campaign. I know of at least one other person who has had their contract ‘suspended’ so they can work full time for Humza. I am intrigued as to how that salary contribution can be squared with a £5k spending limit.
Meanwhile my own MSP is offering local members a one-to-one meeting with Humza. The rules of the contest state unequivocally that “invitations to any event must be issued to all candidates”. But apparently if you call it a ‘conversation’ it stops being an ‘event’ and then you can do whatever the fuck you want. Because no-one’s even pretending anymore.
The machinery that runs the SNP has been rotten for a long time now, as in ‘escalated police investigation’ rotten. It is the respected elder members who should be doing something about it but the machinery forced a lot of them out of the party and the rest are complicit. When that happens, all that is left is the members. They stand up or they don’t.”
https://robinmcalpine.org/a-member-standing-up-for-their-party/
Yes, it’s not difficult for Wings to interpret something in completely the wrong way.
Oh Russell has confirmed he hasn’t.
My theory is that KF is gonnae win it anyway.
I think she’s the one the Murrells actually want in place. Despite my being assured by people who know her that she’s ‘a woman with her own mind’ – she does WM’s bidding (the Freeports) and she does the Murrells bidding (not voting in the GRR bill when she very much could have). She’s Oxbridge taught, with all the govt interference that’s accrued over the decades and she’s not at all progressive WRT independence.
And IF by some astonishing event Murrell doesn’t rig the votes – I think what’s left of the membership will vote KF due to her being the safe choice in the middle of two extremes; the utterly stifling & useless Humza and the pro-indy and forward thinking Ash.
Is anyone putting bets on for this battle and if so, where would you recommend?
Why is Angus MacNeil supporting Forbes instead of Regan? Perhaps it’s just that he can’t resist endorsing a fellow highlander and Gaelic speaker.
@dgp says:7 March, 2023 at 10:31 am
Everyone and most of the politics pundits are suggesting Starmer is going to walk into Downing Street almost unopposed
Sunak is going all out on the rubber dinghies. If he can pull that one off, expect a 5% swing to the Tories at least.
Scots should support him on that BTW. Every new crim arriving in England pushes another affluent, middle-class retiree up the M6 and into Scotland, thus diluting Indy support.
Then there’s the war. Get a result in that and Sunak will benefit.
I still think Starmer’s a shoe-in, but the odds are narrowing.
Don’t underestimate the capacity of the Tories to influence the election
Popular policies still influence elections, if linked to reputational credibility that suggests the policies can be implemented.
Another possibility why Angus supports Kate Forbes is that he has got so used to his comfortable Westminster job and Ash Regan is the only serious threat to it of the three candidates.
Whatever happens in the leadership election it’s going to be Alba and Salvo and other non-SNP Yessers that will put the drive on for independence.
Mike Russell, eh? Judging by his eight-year+ endorsement of everything the Sturgeonite regime enforced on us, I’m wary. He fully endorsed the GRRB, for starters. Maybe he has rediscovered his spine hiding away in some shabby corner of his garden shed. Angus Robertson has also nailed his colours to the flag today with an endorsement of Humza. In his case, I think he is biding his time, probably realising that Humza will not last long if he succeeds Sturgeon. All good things come to those who wait? Michael Russell’s motives are less easy to discern, and I would have doubted his radicalism, but, perhaps he has seen the way the wind is blowing and decided, in his later years, to spring a curmudgeonly shockeroonie based on realism because independence is not going to go away any time soon, and he knows it and has little to lose now.
Agree it could be his resignation excuse.
Also agree massive job for whoever gets in.
If Humza, the only positive might be a boost for ALBA or a swing towards Indy rather than devolution by resident Unionists, if status quo becomes SO bad. The English immigrants want a functioning health service.
If Kate, I feel she’s the only one with the brains and a certain conscientiousness to tackle salvaging the SNP and governance. But does that progress Indy at all? Would suit a lot of the ‘normal’ population, both pro-Indy and Unionist, who want a functioning place to live whether country or colony.
If Ash, the best bet if all she has to do is take a few gutsy decisions that dissolve Holyrood and the people do the rest. But she’ll be really up against it trying to repair the SNP. A whole other job to restore unity in the movement. Then there’s the strategic decisions needed to get us independent AND keep heating, healthcare and food supplies functioning while that happens.
Independence itself doesn’t threaten any of those, but London Unionism is causing chaos UK wide as it is, even before they activate targeted destabilisation towards Scotland. (Which they’ll do so they can appear as our ‘saviours’ AND out of spite afterwards.)
Like the Indians collecting their own salt and weaving their own cotton, success may come down to how willing we are individually to decouple ourselves from Westminster/London/Unionist/Colonial Institutions in our normal lives.
Why are so many of you missing the irony? Clue, Russell hasn’t really endorsed Ash Regan.
100%Yes says:
7 March, 2023 at 10:54 am
‘here’s hoping Kate drops out and gets behind Ash’
Agreed. The choice is clear: more of the same or back to basics. You either want Independence or you don’t. Forbes presence only serves to muddy the waters.
With her absence we would have an MP & MSP referendum on Indy – even if the member vote is rigged we’d know where elected members stand.
John Main;
“….Every new crim arriving in England….”
Better zip-up, John, your Tory is hanging out again….
“Because both Humza Yousaf and Kate Forbes couldn’t have been any clearer that their indy strategies centre on getting Westminster to agree to another Section 30 order”
Whereas Ash Regan’s strategy is to get Westminster to agree to start independence negotiations …..
A headline and story in a style worthy of the National or the Express. Have you gone mainstream? I hope not.
I think you are just being a naughty boy. I love it.
Would love to see Russell’s face when he hears about it.
Mike Russell was happy to pedal the S30 for long and weary, and knew years ago the SNP were never going to achieve it by that route again.
Still, if it’s a small step in pushing the SNP in Holyrood back on track, fair enough.
I’m now a mere ‘wellwisher to the game’, but when I cared enough, I’ve put in my tuppenceworth for various academic scenarios and “Sovereignty” arguments anent the road to Independence.
Throughout it all has been one overarching principle: Scotland’s democratically elected representatives in the United Kingdom etc. are to its Parliament – our MP’s, not our MSP’s.
The shock I felt when the SNP immediately ditched this principle for Holyrood cannot be overstated.
They were finally in Parliament, with an achievable majority, they were as good as done…
The United Kingdom plays to its rules. However risible that sounds, it pretty much does, its rules have always been quite clear on the Union, and what it considers democracy, and its elected representatives. Arguably not fair – but clear enough.
In a majority, on an Indy ticket, Scotlands MP’s would have been able to move independence. There would be much wailing, and gnashing of teeth, but thems the rules, and the UK Parliament must abide.
Getting Scotland (and England for that matter) to go along happily with Independence achieved in that manner is another story – regardless, thems the rules and they would have been implemented.
There is an argument to be had that devolution, and the S30/referendum route, facilited an acceptance of both the SNP, and the possibility of Independence.
There is another argument, which suggests it is decades wasted pursuing alternative routes instead of the basic, UK democratic principle.
From its very inception, Holyrood, MSP’s, and referendums were always the non-democratic path – non-democastic as defined by the United Kingdom at least – which again, is via the UK Parliament, and her representatives.
The UK Parliament has always had suzerainty over Holyrood. Holyrood’s powers, her MSP’s, referendums, S30’s, or any of that ilk, have always been the UK’s gift to give, withhold, or remove – thems the rules.
It also means (if it isn’t clear) Scotland’s MP’s have suzerainty over Scotland’s MSP’s. MSP’s are their administrators – no more, no less – the tail dizny wag the dug.
It’s been a sair fecht for the SNP, Holyrood, and Indy supporters to accept that, all the while birling in alternatives (and there are other routes which they never even tried to lever) but bravo for trying – a big hand for the plucky losers.
Tl:dr
It was always win and declare in the UK Parliament first, then you can hold any referendum you want, if you feel it is morally, or democratically superior to do so.
As ever, thems the rules of the game.
it would be political suicide for any English party to even show a whiff of being accommodating to Scottish independence!
Owen Mullions, Hammer, Head, Nail, you are bang on.
The Rev has just blown the wheels off the OLD HORSEBOX!!
Left hand not knowing the right hand.
Supposedly a Humza supporter (to keep the Murrell line going)then screws it all up by accidentally giving Angus McNeil his earlier comments which Angus has put out in the public domain.
Makes Angus Robertson’s preferred option in today’s papers look like a damp squib compared to the Rev’s stick of dynamite.
POPCORN TIME!
A B MacNeil being a wee bit cheeky in trying to get Russell to follow his [Russell’s] own newly-divulged logic and come out in support of Regan. Won’t work but worth a try. Russell, Yousaf and the Sturgeonist establishment continue to kid themselves but they’re not fooling pro independence voters. The SNP is going to split when Yousaf is made the “winner”. Alba and independence will get a boost.
” Then there’s the war. Get a result in that and Sunak will benefit.”
A result , what , like precipitating a nuclear war in tandem with the psychopaths in the White House / Pentagon .
Aye that should be worth a few more % points on the last ever opinion poll .
“Yes, it’s not difficult for Wings to interpret something in completely the wrong way.”
It’s a fucking joke you mindboggling weapon. Since when did Wings have headlines that just factually summarised the story?
“I think you are just being a naughty boy. I love it.”
Thank goodness some people get it.
It’s very amusing that Russell has already been forced into a denial. Nice to know he’s an avid reader 😀
In the alternative … is there one? Extract from “The Declaration of a Sovereign Scot” initiative post elsewhere on social media :
The Supreme Court said this: “… the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence”
But who said this: “Self determination is a right which belongs to peoples not governments”?
It was part of a submission – on behalf of the UK Government to the UN General Assembly (1984).
Here are further extracts from that submission – all said on behalf of the UK Government:
” … we must not forget that peoples can also be deprived of this right by their own countrymen. …”
“… selfdetermination is a right which belongs to peoples, not to governments.
” … They enjoy that right only if … they are enabled to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.
” … the principle of self-determination is both inalienable and indivisible.”
For me, too many of us (and particularly politicians) have accepted the ruling of the Supreme Court as the “Last Word” on whether the Sovereign People of Scotland have a right to decide on the future of their country.
The Declaration initiative is based on the simple belief that ultimately the independence of Scotland will be regained when it is a decision “… of the people, by the people, for the people!”
I’m sorry I don’t give a flying f++k what russell says he is another one who sat on his fat wallet and openly supported the deviant pervert and her morons, in fact he was one of them agreeing and promoting whatever the deviant pushed
I think the nusnp are shitting themselves that the public are becoming more aware of the fit up and the msm will have to expose them for what they are doing and russell has been instructed by the head deviant to say he supports Regan in an attempt to divert attention from the obvious bias, however the chances that the party of nonces and perverts will elect someone who will not oppose the section 35 is not believable
Maybe the rev is suffering sleep deprivation as he has always taught us to SEARCH under the headlines
AW FFS caught me
@Mike Fenwick 1:12pm
Agreed, Mike. But the bottom line remains pro independence people of Scotland need their political representatives [and themselves] to be far more radical and far more courageous. To be prepared to break Westminster law if necessary.
This obviously rules out unionists like Yousaf and Russell. But if true independence-supporting politicians within the SNP break away and join Alba we could have the opportunity and impetus to instigate positive action. Nothing to lose now; everything to gain.
The Proclaimers (2014): Sunshine on Leith: Cap in Hand:
“…I can tell the difference between magarine and butter
I can say ‘Saskatchewan’ without starting to stutter
But I can’t understand why we let someone else rule our land –
Cap in hand…
We fight when they ask us
We boast then we cower
We beg
For a piece of
What’s already ours…”:
https://tinyurl.com/59tx2h2r
TONIGHT
STV showing LEADERS debate 900pm – 1010pm
https://player.stv.tv/live/
looking forward to it
@Mike fenwick,
I agree with you, but a majority vote for independence just ups the ante, nothing more.
UK will try to play it down eg saying its only based on 30% of the population or whatever and that people may have voted SNP for other reasons or another deceptive delaying tactic.
Then they can say we need a referendum to be sure or wait till next GE or some other delaying tactic (this is only if they think they cannot avoid a crunch vote one way or another)
More likely is to still say no and force to go to UN which would delay by many years or decades. Look at Diego Garcia. The UK lost in the international court and UN but they have their fingers in their ears singing la la la and saying the the conclusion and the position of the UN General assembly is not legally binding and has flipped the bird to the international ruling.
I would say a lot more is at stake for England letting go of Scotland than England losing the Chagos therefore we should anticipate and expect nothing but blockers from Westminster and the Lords. And that is if we even had a strong united SNP and indy movement fully commited to it, which we dont.
So, any such success on the voting front would need to be followed up by mass public outcry and disobedience (like the French are doing currently) plus SNP leaving their cushy seats in London when the UK reneges, which on past history it certainly would. The SNP would also have to menace UDI (how likely is that?), each side doubling down for any hope of accelerating things.
Iain mhor.
Sovereignty is indeed questionable for holyrude.
1: The first question is to ask Who’ Sovereignty is Holyrude weilding?
The answer,
Westminsters.
2: Why does it wield the Old english Westminster sovereignty?
The answer.
Because Holyrude devolved government to Scotland is Westminster legislated.
3: Does that make the devolved government in Scotland, a Scottish parliament ?
The answer,
No, it is a subsiduary of Westminster parliament legislation.
4: Does the Scotland Act encompass All of Scotlands people’s Sovereignty?
The Answer,
No, it is the devolved legislated government to Scotland that is bound to the Scotland Act, by Westminster parliament.
5: Does Scotland send members of the Scottish parliament down to Westminster to represent the Sovereign Scots?
The answer,
No.
6: Why does Scotland NOT send members of a Scottish parliament to Westminster to represent Scotland?
The answer,
Scotland has not had a Scottish parliament since 1707.
7: Then who is being sent to Westminster parliament from Scotlands People?
The Answer,
Nobody,
8: Is that true?
The answer,
Yes,
9: How is it true?
The Answer.
If the devolved parliament is not the Scottish parliament from 1707, but a Westminster legislated semi branch office devolved government to Scotland.
Westminster parliament gets two representations from the parliamentary union of 1707,
10: Does this mean the position for the Scots in Scotland is they have no legal MSPs from a Scottish parliament as representation since 1707,
The Answer,
Correct.
The Msps being sent to Westminster from Scotland are Westminster legislated MSPs by Westminster from their own legal legislation.
The last legal Scottish MSP sent from Scotland’s own parliament to Westminster English parliament, was in 1707.
After that date of 1707 the Scottish Parliament was extinguished by the treaty of union agreement and prevented from entering or continuing into a parliamentary union with Englands Westminster.
So the Scots and the territory of Scotland remain Sovereign from Holyrude and the legislation passed in Westminster.
There is no necessity for a referendum on Scottish independence.
The devolved government to and in Scotland at the moment is a presumption of Colonialism from Westminster whom thought it had captured Scotland under a parliamentary treaty, it then extinguished Scotlands parliament from entering.
Just like all the other diatribe we are being asked to believe in today, This parliamentary union was one those issues.
But from a much earlier date,
We know women are women, men are men, and we know that a extinguished Scottish parliament in 1707; could not continue or enter itself into a treaty of parliamentary union with Westminster, whom had cancelled the Scottish parliament under a faux treaty. And ratified it as did the Scottish 1707 parliament before it closed in 1707.
So No Scottish MSPs go down to Westminster since 1707. Just Westminster legislated devolved branch office members.
No current Scottish Government ministers have backed Ash Regan’s bid to become the next SNP leader.
What does the above tell us, that no minister is backing the only candidate that wants Scottish independence, both Forbes and Yousaf want to go down the S30 route a deadend.
Bit tenuous, do we have a quote from Russell himself?
Doug.
I tend to agree with you that we do need to wake up,
Although a slight disagreement on wether Scottish people are actually legally under Westminster law, as Holyrude is Westminsters legislated Holyrude. Not Scottish,
The 1707 Scottish parliament is no longer a reality in the union of parliaments, as it was extinguished.
There is no parliamentary union between Scotland and England since 1707.
Mike Russell is as believable as a Snake Oil Salesman/Woman
Mike Fenwick.
You are correct, the devolved Scottish parliament is Westminster legislated, the branch office of Westminster in Scotland has no authority to go against its employee and creator.
@ James Che
Scotland havin’ oor ain MSPs administrating the devolved powers at Holyrood also raises the question that the Kingdom of Scotland’s MPs shouldn’t get paid the same amount as the Kingdom of England’s MPs, because oor yins dinnae hae the same workload tae cover the full range of powers that English MPs do.
The English should campaign to get Scottish MP’s pay reduced due to their reduced workloads comparative to England’s representatives.
I, like many others in Scotland, could not care less about who wins the race to be the next Cult leader. Especially as Independence is dead for the foreseeable future.
There are 5 types of ‘voters’ in Scotland-
1) The Unionists who are happy for a Tory Government to be in power, with their corruption, sleaze and incompetence on show for all to see. Another set of Unionists will be happy when the Tories are replaced by Labour at the next GE. It remains to be seen how Labour will function but they can’t be any worse.
2) The hard of thinking who want Independence at any cost.
3) Those who are not averse to Independence but would want some answers to all the awkward and difficult questions that have to be asked and answered satisfactorily, where possible, before committing. It would help enormously if there was any sign of a devolved Government in place who showed some sign of competence, honesty, transparency with some financial/economic skills.. Obviously this has been lacking for the past 8 years and changing the individual at the top is simply woefully inadequate. The current 3 hopefuls all supported Sturgeon and her policies. Will the new Leader bring about massive change?
4) The troughers, sycophants, perverts, weirdos and creeps which infest the current SNP and their power sharing buddies the Greens.
5) those who see all politicians as exactly the same and cannot even be arsed to vote. Nobody seems capable of even trying to change their minds.
Stu ALWAYS produces relevant, accurate and worrying articles. Worrying in the sense of what is currently happening in Scotland.
We then scroll down to the comments section-Oh dear, and find the same contributors, day after day, week after week, posting the same crap that is of interest only to themselves and very few others. Some of them appear to live on here! It is difficult not to form the view that said individuals thoughts are entrenched and nothing will convince them of anything else. Round and round we go again and again. Historical mince, Colonialism crap, Claims of Right, Sovereignty. 95% of all SCOTS have no interest. It is all BORING.
Who is going to win the hearts and minds of the Scottish voter?
I will answer my own question-nobody that I see. The days of John Wayne, riding over the brow of a hill with the cavalry, are long gone. SNP politicians mincing over words will not cut it.
Steel yourselves everybody-it will get worse before it starts to get better.
The most important question for Scotland and its independence is at the beginning not at the end.
Q: Can a extinguished Scottish parliament in 1707 still be in the Treaty of Parliamentary union with Englands parliament?
Or is Englands parliament a sole entry to the treaty of union by itself, as Scotlands parliament did not continue
If the 1707 Scottish parliament is presumed to have been subsumed by the treaty agreement as Westminster occasionally claims.
Q: Can a subsumed and extinguished 1707 Scottish parliament be a active participant to the parliamentary treaty of unions?
Or does this still leave Westminster parliament as the sole entry to a supposed parliamentary treaty
Between Scotland and Englands parliaments.
Either scenario, finds Westminster parliament as the sole named entrant into/ to a treaty of parliament union that never proceeded further than ratifying that Scotlands parliament was extinguished before the British parliament came into being.
It is amusing to realise that both the Scottish parliament and the English parliament ratified the 1707 parliament Scotland as being outside and extinguished from the treaty of parliaments unions.
Dan,
A another amusing thought is should Scottish people be paying for any of it with their taxes if it is not actually the 1707 Scottish parliament but a Westminster legislated subsidiary parliament.
It is only a branch office in Scotland after all.
Perhaps Westminster should fund all of it. their MPs in Scotland included of course.
@James says:7 March, 2023 at 12:00 pm
Fragments from a play:
L/Cpl Jones – “Deploy the ‘T’ word sir. They don’t like it up em. They DO NOT like it up em”.
Sgt Wilson – “Do you think that’s wise? Don’t you find it to be, well, a bit ineffectual”?
Cpt Mainwaring – “Ineffectual, Wilson? What the devil do you mean?”
Sgt Wilson – “Yes sir, ineffectual, like it’s worn out, nobody is scared of it any more, and it’s a bit, well, limp, sir”.
Haha, I crack me up.
As always, James, if you have any logic or evidence to refute my posts, fill your boots. Don’t be shy, now.
@Robert Hughes says:7 March, 2023 at 1:08 pm
” Then there’s the war. Get a result in that and Sunak will benefit.”
A result , what , like precipitating a nuclear war in tandem with the psychopaths in the White House / Pentagon .
Aye that should be worth a few more % points on the last ever opinion poll .
Maybes you’re just a daft wee laddie who things history is bunk.
In which case go Google the Falklands Factor.
Every day a school day!
BTW, like every other right-thinking freedom lover in the west, and like our friends and allies on the eastern edge of Europe, I am rooting for the people defending their nation, culture and fellow citizens against the imperialist invader.
Sturgeon had a soft spot for the so called philanthropist Bill Gates and his needles.
https://archive.ph/iFnzc
The next leadership must not be so gullible.
Independence means total autonomy not flirtation with globalist plutocrats, especially those with eugenics leanings, and their «math modelling» experts.
Not just Sturgeon, there ought to be a total clearance of «the type».
@Gerard McGhee says:7 March, 2023 at 12:29 pm
it would be political suicide for any English party to even show a whiff of being accommodating to Scottish independence!
Maybes. Maybes naw.
The way I see it, the average English voter is as thick as the average SNP voter. The average English voter would see the back of us whinging Jocks in a heartbeat.
It’s the elite ruling classes that know how much Scotland subsidises English energy provision, for example, and knows what would happen to the rUK on the world stage if Scotland went her own way.
They don’t tell the voters that. That message has not got through.
Your average English voter believes the subsidies run in the opposite direction – from England to Scotland.
One can only wonder if Russell is, at this very moment, bent over with a bare arse, getting walloped with a wet trout by a very angry Sturgeon, for giving you (Stu) the opportunity to capitalize on his latest idiotic gaffe.
@Chas says:7 March, 2023 at 3:45 pm
Who is going to win the hearts and minds of the Scottish voter?
Wrong question.
Who is going to fill our sporrans, handbags and wallets?
As the man almost said, when you have them by the wallets, the hearts and minds will follow.
Show us the money from Indy, then stand clear to avoid being trampled in the rush to vote for it.
It really is as simple as that.
Eddie Izzard had a girlfriend called Susie who died in 2016. Eddie Izzard has announced he’s changing his name to Suzy
best retort
a boy named sue – johnny cash
There are many people in Scotland whom used to be soft “No” and wanted to stay part of the Union,
But that do not need convincing of it as the whole of Britain is sinking, not just Scotland, with 15 minute Cities, the British governments decisions that bought about a energy Crises, the constant funding for wars, but nothing for the people in Britain,
The introduction by UK government of ideology of Electric cars with hardly no Power points, while the cost of big corporation electricity goes through the roof for their homes never mind electric cars.
The failing NHS is across Britain not just Scotland,
The low Wages and having to work two or three jobs in Britain to make ends meet, going to food banks, and cover the cost of you’re mortgage,
The emphasis on Scotland being a bad place to live is exaggerated by MSM has equal parallels with living down south, except for the influx of the channel crossings directly into Englands gren and promised land, whom get giving mobiles and food, without having to go to food banks,
They also get accommodation not paid for out of their pockets, and although the conditions may not be perfect, it is better than sleeping on the streets without any roof as the people of Britain do,
They also have access to medical care, which we pay for,
We have homeless and economical migrants that are British born, and if we keep ramping up and instigating wars we will have war torn migrants in Britain ourselves.
The major difference is Scotland has a few devolved powers, while all the big decisions are made in Westminster. By Westminster,
The people living in Scotland, even if they are not Scottish have the right to decide if they want to go down with sinking Britain,
I do not worry about the SNP and Greens, or the Tories and Labour parties in Scotland , because if we get independence this kind of devision politics would be shown the door, right now under UK law they have protections of politicians under UK laws.
It has come to the tipping point,
Farmers were more inclined to vote conservative or labour, in the past,, but they have lately been shafted by UK politics, and Going Green.
Fishermen used to vote in a similar pattern, but they also are not coming out on top in UK politics, in Scotland.
Many people are now unemployed as UK policies bring changes to the work enviroment, and workers rights are diminished and human right are brushed aside.
It is time to see if Scotland will be as appallingly bad toward its people as UK policies , or with the help of the people we can change our future,
It is hard to imagine that Scotland would fare worse with equal democracy of its people in Scotland than the economic basket case of the UK policies.
I noticed the philanthropist bill gates has now sold his stock in phitzer, and is changed his tune on how efficient arm injections are,
Its amazing how money talks.
@ John Main
You comment says more about you than you think.
I would be better off in England under a Tory Government. I am past my 3 score and 10 so I doubt I will see Indy never mind benefit from it.
However a much fairer society for all Scots will arrive one day. Greed is the basis of the Union and the Empire that you worship so much. The rest of us care about others.
Thanks for confirming who you are!
I
@James Che
I won’t cover all your points but just to say yes, but also no, though we are in general agreement.
It’s not my position today to get into the why’s and wherefore’s of the Union.
My job today was to place the rules of the game – the cards – on the table as they are de-facto dealt.
As such, the rules of the game are very simple, Scotlands representatives in the UK Parliament are our MP’s – they are who we send down, they are our democratic representatives.
Our MSP’s are an administrative arm, answerable to the Scottish public, in the same manner as the local council, as you agree (I think)
It’s odd that the leader of the SNP group is not an MP -it’s an anachronism.
The correct function would be for the Heidie to be at Westminster, and devolve (ha!) any responsibities deemd necessary to a Deputy at Holyrood.
Currently the tail is trying to wag the dug and that’s always a recipe for disaster.
This is a simple game, with simple rules and has been for a few hundred years. They may not be fair, or right (like Joe Louis’ left leg) but those are the rules.
No point shouting “Next goal’s the winner!” in a cup final, even if the crowd and everyone at home say “Aye, right enough!”
The UK’s rules are there for all the world to see. If anyone thinks denying a referendum to Scotland is bad democratic optics from The UK Parliament, you’d hear a right howl if the same Parliament tried to usurp its own rules of democracy.
Strangely enough, and hard as it is to imagine, much of the howling would be from all benches within the UK Parliament itself – we have seen recent examples of this – yea even unto the Tories.
Scotland knows what it needs to do within the rules, and none of it involves MSP’s, or referendums. Every other “Sovereignty” debate, is an amusing, if distracting hobby.
The big question, in short is “What the hell do our MP’s think they are playing at”?
‘The way I see it, the average English voter is as thick as the average SNP voter’
Maybes. Maybes naw.
The average SNP voter was screwed over by Labour for decades before switching to SNP.
Maybes they are awakening to the fact they’ve been screwed over again and think it won’t matter a toss who gets the gig.
Or maybes they’ll realise that The Man got screwed over too, big time. Maybes they’ll return to the fold.
Maybes. Maybes naw. We’ll soon find oot.
G.I Mainstream
You’re just a fucking clown who is either too thick to see what’s actually happening with this Proxy War or , more likely , an ex Brit Army grunt who got his capacity to think for himself kicked-out during Basic Training and was fed the most elementary ” Commies bad , must kill , must kill , grunt , oik , grunt ” during those brainwashing , HATE HOUR sessions . Either way , your yellow n blue flag-waving garbage should be obvious to anyone with a scintilla of intelligence .
For anyone interested in what’s REALLY going on , listen to Col Doug McGregor . Not buffoons like Main
What an awful shit of man (word used loosely) John Main is.
To be fair, at least we will be better off in Scotland under the 20 minute neighbourhood regime compared to the 15 minute cities down south. 5 more minutes of travel time before we are fined. What’s not to like?
John Main;
“It’s the elite ruling classes that know how much Scotland subsidises English energy provision, for example, and knows what would happen to the rUK on the world stage if Scotland went her own way”…..”Your average English voter believes the subsidies run in the opposite direction – from England to Scotland.”
Then…
“…Show us the money from Indy, then stand clear to avoid being trampled in the rush to vote for it.”
You’re surely ‘showing us the money’ in part at least, in those two comments? i.e we’re currently subsidising the rest of the ‘UK’ (6m per day, every day, from oil & gas revenues, 2.8m homes worth of electricity flowing right now from Europe’s largest wind farm off the coast of East Lothian (cable comes ashore in Northumbria), and stuff like the 900+ new North Sea drilling licenses recently sold by the ‘UK’ government which will net them (not us) upwards of 80,000,000,000 (yes, eighty thousand million) no bad for starters eh?
Add to that the revenues from the annual £4.3 billion worth of Scottish whisky exports, (again we don’t see a copper coin from that either), the GERS con, us paying for HS2/Trident/Faslane/Northern Line extension/new fleet of trains for the Piccadilly Line,/the new ‘Elizabeth Line’ etc etc etc and I wonder what are we waiting for….?
Well, John, I’d better watch what I’m doing here or we’re going to end up agreeing on something…. ;-D
James Che said:
” 7: Then who is being sent to Westminster parliament from Scotlands People?
The Answer,
Nobody “
James, your ignorance here is shocking! Scotland’s electorate directly elect their MPs to represent them, their country, their kingdom, and their national territory in the UK Parliament. It is Scotland’s MPs alone who represent the Scottish founder partner of the Union, just as England’s MPs represent the English founder partner of the Union.
If you have ever cast a vote in a UK election, then you have personally been directly involved in that process. Scotland does not elect MPs to a Scottish Parliament and then have them sent down to Westminster to represent the old Scottish Parliament! It has never done so, because the Treaty made no such requirement, and I have no idea where you got such a cockamamie notion from, and cockamamie it certainly is.
For info;
In Scotland the year 1707 began on January 1st, whereas in England the year 1707 started on 25th March.
The Scottish Parliament ratified the Treaty via its Act of Union on the 16th of January 1707. But in England that same day was 16th January 1706. Seven weeks later the English Parliament ratified the Treaty via its own Act of Union on the 6th March, which was still in 1706 in England. The English ratification included the Scottish Parliament’s obligatory codicil preserving Scotland’s religious rights and its constitution as briefly summarised in its 1689 Claim of Right, cited therein.
On May the 1st, 1707 (in both kingdoms this time, England having caught up on the 25th March) the new Parliament of Great Britain came into being, and at that point both of the old parliaments of Scotland and England ceased to have any relevance, as their powers converged on the new parliament, though with limitations on the Scottish side.
Your interpretation of these matters is patently absurd, which I find inexplicable, as I’ve seen you comment sensibly on other matters on more than one occasion. I just don’t understand how you came to your conclusions. I don’t see the logic.
Each founder kingdom (not founder parliament!) is represented in the new Parliament by its own body of MPs and, like their sovereign kingdoms, neither body has any legitimate authority of any kind over the other. (Sovereignty means ‘ultimate authority’, and an entity either has it or it doesn’t. The ‘ultimate’ bit means a sovereign entity cannot be overruled, even by another owner of sovereignty, and if it delegates power, that power is always outranked by its delegator. Power devolved is power retained.)
New insight;
Clearly neither body of MPs can represent the United Kingdom on their own, so any unilateral decision made by one body over the objections of the other cannot be deemed to be a UK decision, and so it cannot legitimately be passed as such by the UK’s Parliament.
The only legitimate decisions of the UK Parliament are those jointly agreed by both kingdoms’ representatives.
Decisions made by England’s MPs cannot be binding on the UK unless they are backed by decisions made by Scotland’s MPs, and Westminster has no damn business pretending otherwise. But the Westminster Mafia lets this happen all the time.
Any legislation passed unilaterally by England’s MPs is not only a breach of the Treaty and a breach of Scotland’s sovereignty and constitution, it is also unlawful, being ultra vires.
Robert Hughes @5:38pm
Well, to be fair, he didn’t exactly say which side he supported.
Grouse Beater has a repost of Kevin McKenna’s take on the leadership election, https://archive.ph/CMwtD I think the Rev. should make sure his keyboard is in tip-top condition because if the Yousaf dynasty comes apart before or after the election then there will be muck aplenty to deal with.
Maybe if it all goes to hell over in the east, we can get our popcorn zapped, along with everything else, for free.
Joanna Cherry (07/03/2023): Twitter:
“In 2021 a member of the SNP was convicted of threatening to rape me. Neither of these men reached out privately nor condemned what had occurred publicly. But a retweet is worth their time. Go figure as to their priorities.”:
https://archive.ph/Bii26
Condemn:
“To criticize something or someone strongly, usually for moral reasons.”
“The terrorist action has been condemned as an act of barbarism and cowardice.”
“The film was condemned for its sexism.”
“He criticized the government’s handling of the crisis.”
“She wrote an article attacking the judge and the way the trial had been conducted.”
“She was condemned for her comments about the candidate.”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/condemn
Iain mhor.
Thank you for your reply,
I gently disagree with you on some facts.
We do semi choose whom we elect, to a certain degree, although some admissions are variable.
We elect, GCHQ then select out of those votes for us under the Snp they think should go through as their interpretation of our votes,
After that process we do not have the right to whom has the franchise for our votes,
After that process they are sent away out of our sight in which some politician has a sneak preview as I recall, all is not sealed.
After that conumdrum the Scottish parliament is not answerable to the Scottish people under the devolved government, but to UK under their created legislation for Holyrude.
So maybe it is not the clear vote run as most people surmise, it has many twists and turns to achieve democracy of a vote being held in Scotland to represent the the Scottish people,
And very little to do with a untouched sealed representation of Scotland through a Westminster legislated devolved parliament and whom it is answerable too.
Courier (2021): Joanna Cherry on 18 months of ‘social media lies, smears and foul-mouthed abuse’:
“SNP MP Joanna Cherry says she would never have got involved in frontline politics if she knew of the “abuse and threats” she would receive from her own party colleagues.
…as well as a “threat of rape”…”:
https://archive.ph/NTb2R
Some people still believing Stu’s headline was serious – I say again, Russell is NOT endorsing Ash Regan.
Actually your ignorance is far from the truth when you study historical records.
THE UK PARLIAMENT STATES, THE Scottish parliament extinguished itself by agreeing to the treaty of the union in 1707.
Not my Statement but the UK parliaments in 2022/23
So a extinguished Scottish parliament before the treaty was ratified, and then it was indeed ratified as such by Westminster parliament of England,
And the Scottish parliament of the Three estates, before the Scottish parliament closed its doors in 1707, as is recorded.
So agreed between Scotland and England and ratified in both old parliaments, prior to only one of them entering the treaty of the union, there is no Scottish parliament since 1707.
If you claim that “we, Scotland” have sent members from a closed Scottish parliament for the last 300 years you are, I can only presume, would like that error/ slip up not to have happened in 1707.
However it did and is on record still today.
The second problem in your scenario, is if Westminster believes the 1707 Scottish government still exists within the British parliament,
what is the necessity for a second governing devolved parliament to be sent to Scotland and for the legislation of the Scotland act.
Which leads to further questions,
If the devolved government from Westminster is to represent our voters in Scotland after it opened as you say,
Then whom and what represented Scotland in between 1707 closed parliament ( Sine Die’d 1707) the UK legislated devolved government opening under the Scotland Act?
Ok, as I see it… Regan win = significant departure from sturgeon’s manifesto (including all the awful shit that was in it) = collapse of coalition with greens + outcry from unionists (referring to Sturgeon and Blackfords comments about Liz Truss being a straw PM) = loss of SNP control and mandate to lead = SNP die a death at next Holyrood election (maybe that election gets brought forward). Someone please let me know if I’ve missed something? Or is the hope that the next election is a cross party pro-independence push for 50+1 (a dash for the finish line) that the fate of the SNP doesn’t matter in the equation – assuming the goal is Indy not topping up the Holyrood MSP pension pot in time for a quiet retirement?
@Garavelli Princip says:7 March, 2023 at 5:47 pm
What an awful shit of man (word used loosely) John Main is.
Aw, am I writing stuff you can’t deal with?
Fit’s the matter? Is it the facts you object to? Maybes its the literacy that puts you to shame.
Try to be a brave wee sojer for yer mammy.
James Che said:
“The Scottish parliament extinguished itself by agreeing to the treaty of the union in 1707.
Agreed, it did. So did the English Parliament, at least in principle.
“So a extinguished Scottish parliament before the treaty was ratified, and then it was indeed ratified as such by Westminster parliament of England”
Apart from being a mess of a sentence, this is untrue, simply because you have ignored or misunderstood the differences in calendars at the time of the Union. The years 1706/1707 overlapped in historical records from both Scotland and England because they started their years on different dates as I have explained twice now. This is a well attested historical fact of the period that unwary researchers often trip over, and once it is understood your claimed timing discrepancy vanishes completely.
“If you claim that “we, Scotland” have sent members from a closed Scottish parliament for the last 300 years you are, I can only presume, would like that error/ slip up not to have happened in 1707.
However it did and is on record still today.”
What slip-up? I made no such claim, and your paraphrasing of what I did say is hilariously inept and doesn’t even make sense. I said Scotland was represented by Scots MPs elected directly to Westminster, I did NOT say we elected MPs to a closed or non-existent Scottish parliament then sent them on down to Westminster for the last 300 years. Scotland’s old parliament closed in 1707 after it ratified the Treaty, and no members have been elected to it since then. Every MP Scotland elected since 1st May 1707 was elected explicitly to the UK Parliament.
“The second problem in your scenario, is if Westminster believes the 1707 Scottish government still exists within the British parliament,
what is the necessity for a second governing devolved parliament to be sent to Scotland and for the legislation of the Scotland act.”
This is nonsense, nobody but you has ever said the UK Parliament at Westminster contains two parliaments. It does not, and it never has. Since 1707 it contained, and still does, two bodies of MPs, one body represents the English founder of the Union, and the other body represents the Scottish founder of the Union. Both kingdoms elect their own MPs directly to the UK Parliament, and have done so since 1707. It is in that sense only that the two old parliaments ‘merged’ in 1707. It was only their representatives that merged, not the two institutions.
That debate tonight was outstanding.
Ash Regan has Commonweal behind her. She says she wants the Independence Convention. She says we don’t need permission for Independence. Everything I want to hear.
Yousaf and Forbes were like Labour and the Tories. You think they were Unionists.
Forbes was involved in ScotWind. Then bangs on about 1 in 4 children being in poverty, well. Her SNP have given away billions of future income to King Charles and foreign enterprise with no guarantee of supply chain jobs.
Then she says she doesn’t care about the monarchy she’s indifferent. Well, they certainly care about the Crown Estate Sea beds and the coffers Nicola has swelled.
So Independence in the short term now depends upon either Westminster agreeing to a S30, having said that the last referendum was once in a generation, or agreeing to enter into Indy negotiations on the back of an election result that they can choose to interpret as they wish, or just plain ignore. Fat chance of them agreeing to either the way things stand. Option three badly required.
James says:
7 March, 2023 at 5:59 pm
Add to that the revenues from the annual £4.3 billion worth of Scottish whisky exports, (again we don’t see a copper coin from that either),
————–
The uk doesn’t charge any duty on whisky exports, they get zero from it. Uk duty is paid to the scots gov.
Make that excise duty then.
Xaracen.
The Uk parliament site does not record at all that the Westminster old english parliament1707 was also extinguished anywhere on its site.
In fact what it does record is that prior to claiming the treaty was done the English 1707 Westminster parliament was prorogued,, no ceased.
Perhaps you would like to point out to everyone here which date confirms in writing and records when the English parliament ended rather than prorogued before simply transferring themselves into the British parliament, and which elections took place in Westminsters new british parliament for selecting new members to the British new british parliament,
All I can find is the monarch transferring one parliament members to the new British parliament,
The old English parliament was simply prorogued and its parliament members were transferred over without elections by the Monarch to the British parliament.
What is recorded is the Scottish parliament was closed in Scotland under Sine Die,
A closed Scottish parliament cannot send members to represent Scotland, down to, or to sit in Westminster parliament,
A closed Scottish parliament is not a participant in the treaty of the Union of parliaments, and this was ratified by both England and Scotland.
The hiccup in the this is that Westminster itself confirms a number of positions of the 1707 Scottish parliament.
1: One the Scottish parliament was subsumed into the treaty of union in 1707.
That statement also points out no parliament members of the Scottish parliament can be sent from Scotland to represent the Scots.
2: That Scotlands parliament was extinguished in 1707.
That only emphasises that Scotland old parliament cannot send members from a Scottish parliament to Westminster.
3: Scotland closed its own parliament in Scotland in 1707 under “Sine Die”.
That also legally results in NO members can be sent as representatives from a closed 1707 Scottish parliament.
Under ( all ) these scenario’s there has been no ability for Scotland to send down to Englands Parliament of Westminster members of the 1707 Scottish parliament.
As it was either subsumed, extinguished, or Sine Die. Or all three, but definetly not a contributor and active Member or participant to the Treaty of union since 1707.
A 1707 Scottish ” Sine Die” parliament is still closed with no elected members to its parliament from 1707 to present date.
So whom in Westminster has over the last 300 years been falsely claiming they are the peoples elected representative members of a voluntary Closed Scottish parliament since 1707.
Or from the Westminster point of view,
Whom in Westminster over the last 300 years has been falsely claiming they are the peoples elected representative of a extinguished Scottish parliament since 1707?
It is impossible to send anyone from a closed parliament for the last 300 years,
What you do have is one parliament in the treaty of union, Westminster parliament from before and after the 1707 treaty, that ratified the Scottish parliament out of existence by extinguishing it in the agreement prior to the treaty.
Which when ratified by both Scotland and England parliaments also agreed that the 1707 Scottish was extinguished from the treaty of union parliament.
Xaracen.
Yes I was aware of the fact that Englands calendar was different from most of Europe at that time.
Which also makes the treaty signing rather strange.
Because it finds Englands Westminster parliament agreeing and ratifying the the Scotlands (selected commissioners by the Monarch) half of the treaty of union agreement before Scotland agreed to it,
This was not rectified until 1752,
Which created a gap of eleven days. Which caused riots down south,
Scotland already used the Gregorian Calendar,
Interestingly in England, Westminsters part of the treaty of union was broken as a participant to the new treaty of union for the unaccountable eleven missing days
Westminster parliament of GB missing in action from the treaty of union for eleven unaccountable days,
Xaracen,
Which ever way the treaty of union is studied, you either find that Scotlands 1707 parliament was agreed and ratified out of existence by the agreement made for the union of parliaments.
Or Scotlands parliament was officially closed in Scotland voluntary under “Sine Die” for 300 years or more.
In England We find the old Westminster parliament signing the treaty before Scotland had agreed to the treaty due to England being out of sync with the rest of Europe on Calendar dates.
In England we find the parliament of Westminster missing from the treaty for a period of eleven days gap due to the change of Calendars that is not accounted for, or remedied.
Which breached the and “forever more” line in the treaty of union.
Xaracen.
Without the original two institutions with realms, kingdoms, own territories and Countries as separate entities being active, there is no legal binding to the treaty of the union,
However we find The parliament of Westminster presuming ( it is ) the treaty of union.
We find this under legislation from Westminster records.
The Colonial Stock ( Scotland ) Act.
The Agriculture and Fisheries Board ( Scotland ) Act.
All Passed by Westminster parliament after 1707.
Xaracen
You will no doubt be realising that it is pointless arguing/debating with an imbecile stuck in the past.
James says:
8 March, 2023 at 10:35 am
Make that excise duty then.
————-
All listed under the scot. gov. acounts income.