The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


None so blind

Posted on September 30, 2020 by

A column on a Sturgeon-loyalist indy website that we read yesterday has been mildly annoying us ever since, and in the interests of open debate (but mainly because it’s cold and grey and rainy outside and we can’t go out and feed the swans) we thought it was worth taking half an hour to walk through it a little and explain just why it’s such a dangerous piece of fantasy nonsense.

But first here’s one of said swans. She’s about five months old and her adult feathers are just starting to come through. Isn’t she lovely?

In case things get a bit rough later we’ve got some squirrels and a really fat dachshund as emergency backup, so buckle in.

The column is plainly a response to an article we published on Monday, and it ran into an immediate problem in that the arguments actually made in our article are much too hard to dispute, so it had to construct a complete straw man to fight with instead.

This is of course complete tosh. Absolutely nobody – or at least nobody we’ve seen with any sanity or audience – has advocated any such thing. What we actually said on Monday was literally the exact opposite:

The proposition being made by this site and many others is NOT “we must overthrow the SNP and create a whole new party to replace them”, but “the SNP is broken at the top and must be fixed before next May”.

So the entire premise of the column is complete bunk from the start, but we’ll let that slide. After several paragraphs of furiously battling that straw man, it audaciously accuses others of doing the same thing, and begins to lay out its own strategy.

This is a really weird stance, because even readers who are only dimly alert will be aware that the Scottish Government already HAS asked for a Section 30, twice, and been flatly refused. Ah, but apparently that doesn’t count:

That sentence is key to the entire column, and it’s hard to overstate what complete and utter tommyrot it is on every possible level.

Firstly, manifestos don’t actually count for anything. They have no legal property or weight whatsoever, which is the reason every political party on Earth has a lengthy track record of failing to deliver its manifesto promises and of passing laws that were never in any manifesto. They’re just advertising blurb for elections, and we learned more than eight years ago that politicians are literally exempt from advertising laws.

Using manifestos as a justification for prevarication and procrastination is, as Johann Lamont might have put it, just a distracting squirrel.

Secondly, a conditional mandate is in any case entirely valid if the conditions in it are met, which the ones in the SNP’s 2016 manifesto unequivocally were.

You also cannot – staggeringly obviously – somehow negate a Scottish Parliament mandate with the result of a UK Parliament election (especially when despite losses you actually still won that election handsomely in Scotland, securing 60% of MPs).

The 2016 Scottish Parliament was completely unaffected by the result of the 2017 UK election. Any mandate that it held was, plainly, therefore also unaffected.

But thirdly, and the most importantly, the thing that DOES count in any parliamentary democracy – the ONLY thing, regardless of what any manifesto or mandate might say – is votes of the parliament in question. The Scottish Parliament is the properly (and proportionately) elected representative body of the people of Scotland, and that parliament has already voted twice for a second referendum, and been refused.

There would exist no material, practical or meaningful difference of any sort between the two votes that the Scottish Parliament has already passed in favour of a second indyref and a notional third such vote based on an unconditional manifesto or manifestos. In a parliamentary democracy, a vote is a vote. There are no votes with special gold stars attached that make them worth more. You either win the vote or you don’t. It’s plain and simple arithmetic.

The third vote would have no more legal force than the first two did (which is to say, none), and even on the very questionable proposal that it would have any more moral force, it’s a very stupid person indeed who still believes that Boris Johnson’s actions are in any way, or have ever been, governed by morality.

But what if they were?

The paragraph above is yet more complete drivel. As we’ve explored in some detail previously, Johnson absolutely DOES have both the moral and political right to refuse.

He has the political right because Westminster – as Nicola Sturgeon never tires of reminding us by refusing to countenance an “illegal” vote – is sovereign over Holyrood, and he controls Westminster. And he has the moral right because he stood for election just nine months ago on an unambiguous manifesto pledge of refusal, and he won a clear majority in the UK parliament on that manifesto.

We cannot lay claim to morality on the basis of exceptionalism. Johnson has a moral and political right to refuse, just as Scotland has a moral and political right to demand, and both sides’ rights have a clear, legitimate democratic basis. You cannot say “our manifestos and mandates count but theirs don’t” and expect anyone, let alone the international community, to take you seriously.

(The SNP got 45% of Scottish votes in 2019, while the Tories got 44% of UK votes. It is farcically, embarrassingly absurd to try to claim that one of those figures constitutes an unimpeachable mandate but the other is worthless and invalid.)

Those competing rights represent an irresistible force and an immovable object, and you don’t shift an immovable object by sulking and stamping your feet and shouting at it that it has no right to be immovable. You have to act.

And what definitely won’t work is putting your cart in front of your horse.

This, once again, is a painfully naive, stupid and simply empirically wrong argument. The legitimacy and value of a mandate is completely unaffected by your odds of winning a vote based on it. The mandate stands or falls on its own merit. The mandate and the vote are entirely separate things.

You can’t win a referendum you never hold, so the point of the exercise is to get to hold it. Winning it is what campaigns are for. The reason we haven’t had a referendum yet isn’t because we CHOSE not to hold it, it’s because we were UNABLE to. The only focus of the Yes movement right now must be to secure the right to vote in the first place. Winning it comes after.

The rest of the column just repeats the same nonsense over and over, presumably in the hope of bludgeoning the reader into submission with repetition.

We HAVE asked. We asked formally, politely, with the official backing of Parliament, twice. The answer was no. There is no “three strikes” rule in international diplomacy. The UK government has already made its position absolutely crystal clear and simply repeating the question won’t score us any extra points.

As the famous saying goes: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Of course, there’s always straight-up denial:

A few outlier pieces from bored pundits with column inches to fill does not equate to government policy planning. We’d respect the column’s assertion a lot more if at ANY point its author had outlined a single meaningful consequence to the UK government of continuing to refuse. But he hasn’t, and he won’t, because there are none.

Boris Johnson – and anyone who might succeed him were he to somehow be deposed before the next UK election is due in 2024 – has a comfortable majority, and in any event has the full backing of the UK opposition parties on this matter. All the SNP have to threaten him with is more sulking and shouting, and the UK government has had decades of practice at putting up with that.

The only time it has ever conceded anything in the face of it was in 2011, because David Cameron was absolutely certain he would win a referendum (and as it turned out he was right, though not nearly as comfortably as he hoped), so he could afford to look magnanimous and democratic.

Boris Johnson, on the other hand, knows that he would almost certainly be defeated this time, and so has no possible motivation to give in. He has nothing in Scotland to lose, other than an irrelevant handful of MPs who make no practical difference to his majority. His poll ratings north of the border could scarcely be any more catastrophic than they are.

And if – as some especially delusional Yes supporters claim – he secretly WANTS to lose Scotland, and if Tory voters wouldn’t mind if he did (for which there’s a bit of evidence, although it’d still make a huge dent in his domestic vote), he could easily have found a way to do so by now and spare himself listening to any more Ian Blackford speeches. But he hasn’t, so we must assume he doesn’t.

It’s profoundly depressing that a large section of the Yes movement still chooses to delude themselves with such a manifestly false prospectus. There is no point at all in waiting for a third refusal. Anything the 2021 election could possibly achieve in political terms is already the case now.

We already have a double mandate from the Scottish Parliament, and we’ve already attempted fruitlessly for several years to obtain a Section 30 nicely. We are already entitled to conduct the 2021 election as a plebiscitary one (because any party can conduct an election on whatever premise it likes), and we’re already consistently ahead in the polls so we could reasonably expect to be successful if we did.

The argument for Plan A is deader than Monty Python’s infamous parrot, and anyone making it should have their motives seriously questioned, especially if they have to construct a whole farmful of straw men to do so.

But since we promised you a fat dachsund at the start, we’d like to end on a slightly more upbeat note by introducing Crumpet, who we met by the canal yesterday:

She’s an absolute sweetheart, but she loves her biscuits and there is NO gap between her little furry tummy and the ground. She’s not a fast mover, bless her.

Frankly, though, she’d probably still find us a way to independence sooner than any other small ginger dugs we can think of right now.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 30 09 20 16:56

      None so blind | speymouth

    227 to “None so blind”

    1. P says:

      Your last sentence made me chuckle – and then grimace.
      You’re right Stu and thanks again for all you do

    2. David Mogg says:

      Oh do give over Stu,
      You are clearly yesterdays man and the cheerful, positive feeling so characteristic of 2014 is being promoted by Paul and the WGD. You on the other hand seem determined to wreck all the advances we have made since losing the referendum. Your negativity does not promote Independence, it dampens the enthusiasm of the movement. Stop now before you do even more damage.

    3. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Feel free to piss off any time you like, David. Because I’ll wager that’s a lot more likely than you actually coming up with any coherent counter-argument to the one above.

    4. fraser reid says:

      Hey DAve Mogg – Give us some Examples of Stu being wrong please ? Or tell us hat the SNP can do to get us another S30/indepandence?

    5. Sarah says:

      Well it gave me a smile, Rev – especially the sweet dachshund. And I read David Mogg’s comment as tongue-in-cheek – but I could be wrong [I often am. As people in my branch and some on SNP Members for Independence are telling me. Sigh.]

    6. Mr C M Howie says:

      You’ve been down in England too long, using words like ‘tommyrot’. What is a tommyrot?

    7. susanXX says:

      Cheerful, positive feelings count for nothing if they’re built on sand. More power to your keyboard Stu!

    8. newburghgowfer says:

      The delusional mindset of the NS appreciation society are bordering on deranged and almost Trumpesque in their fervour as though she can do no wrong. This lot of lunatics haven’t a cat in Hells chance of getting us Indy, shouting out the truth as we are the nuts isnt the answer. This site is one of the few that I read for the actual status of where we are. The SNP diehards are as delusional as the Labour Supporters that thought they would create a equal society

    9. ANNE DONOHOE says:

      The only way I can see us getting independence is by using next year as a plebiscite election. There is no way the unionists would boycott it, and, as Craig Murray often points out, that is how most countries gain independence.

      I hope that all those retiring SNP MSPs, who have nothing to gain or lose from the party leadership, start to get bolshy and demanding in the remaining months, although it seems unlikely.

      I’ll give the SNP my constituency vote next year. I always said they had my vote until 2021. After that, I don’t really see the point of them. Westminster will have stripped out Scotland’s assets and sold them to their mates before 2024.

    10. Martin says:

      Sadly correct. I long ago had the scales removed from my eyes. But when we left the EU against our will, as Blackford stood proclaiming he wouldn’t allow it, was when I realised the scale of the issue. Since 2016 we’ve gradually moved further and further away from indyref2.

      A section 30 route is a prolonged, fruitless, distraction. The fact that lifelong indy fighters can actually think this is a valid strategy depresses me hugely.

    11. @David Mogg,

      gonna give us one reason the PM is going to allow us to hold a referendum,

      that will cheer us up.

    12. Andrew Scott says:

      I wish I’d not clicked on the email to bring me to this article and be counted as a reader of it. You’re in danger of losing it when you start attacking weegingerdug and telling others to piss off which is probably what you’ll tell me to to.

    13. Skip_NC says:

      Mr C M Howie, here is a dictionary definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tommyrot

      You will observe that synonyms include “bunk” and “Buncombe,” which were used when I was growing up in Scotland. The term actually comes from the USA. A person was elected to represent the Westernmost part of North Carolina in the 19th century, which included Buncombe County. He spoke incoherently much of the time. His fellow Congressmen often described him as “Talking Buncombe.”

      So, should Scots be banned from using the terms “bunk,” “bunkum,” or “Buncombe?” Should Joe Biden have been taken to task for saying “IshAllah” at last night’s debate? Used properly, words that come from other cultures or languages can enrich a point being made. I cannot immediately lay my hands on it, but Stuart wrote a piece a few years ago responding to Kevin Hague’s comment that there cannot be a Scots language if it has to borrow words from English. I hope someone can find it for you, because it is worth reading. It was a beautiful piece of prose.

    14. A C Bruce says:

      Well said.

      Asking for a S30 time after time is just kicking independence into the long grass. I think NS will not come out *fighting for Scotland’s freedom. She’s quite the wrong person for that as competent as she is as a leader of a devolved Government (although I strongly disagree with her on well discussed issues relating to women’s places).

      As an aside – as cute as Crumpet is, I wish people wouldn’t breed dogs with wee short legs or breed others with squashed faces for that matter.

      *figuratively speaking

    15. Spikethedee says:

      Am I wrong to think that the UK Government is secretly hoping that dissatisfaction and anger over the current impasse will led to outbreaks of violence or some kind of organised milita-type organisation coming to the fore. They can then tar anyone who wants Independence with that brush?

      I hope I’m just being melodramatic, but it does give me pause.

      Obviously, I am in no way endorsing such action, but can see how some numpties might end up there…

    16. Bob Mack says:

      Bang on Stu. The Westminster cavalry have gone through our ranks and we are being outflanked by Brexit legislation on one side and Internal Market legislation on the other.

      Yet some still call out “Hold the line”. When will they learn?

      I hope two of three years from now they don’t have to sit and ruminate where it all went wrong, whilst blaming people like yourself for pointing out the obvious, because they can’t bear to face the trhth that it was themselves who damaged Indy by inaction and meek acceptance of a leadership who had no clue.

      People like David above.

    17. Frank Gillougley says:

      I dropped in to scan through the WGD last night as I have actually given up reading it a while back which really is a pity. It was clear from the start where PK’s guns and those of his supporters were pointing. I really thought to myself, ‘Oh dear’. As you correctly point out, his premise was wilfully just plain wrong. Tedium upon tedium. There are indeed, none so blind as those who can see.

      Keep on truckin.

    18. Red Squirrel says:

      Truthfully, I only made it to the end because of the dachshund. Didn’t read that column – after seeing the title I figured I’d had quite enough of the wheest for Indy without suffering more.

      The current SNP hierarchy only exist with WM as the enemy at the gate. They have no strategy and are stuck in a wylie coyote like plan except it’s all of us dropping off the cliff 31/12/20.

    19. Big Jock says:

      I think it’s also completely patronising for Paul to suggest we are splitting the movement.

      We are the fecking movement! The SNP are the Scottish government , they are not the movement. Yes we need the SG to do the technical aspects of independence. They are a necessary vehicle to take us where we have asked them them to take us. But when they stop the taxi and tell us they can’t take us any further at the moment.

      Then naturally we question their motives and determination of the driver. We will not sit as passengers with a government going nowhere.

      Nicola might have the highest approval ratings in the world. However that’s not what we put her in place for. As far as I am concerned she hasn’t exactly got much competition in that department.

      There is a festering rotten heap of duplicity and cover ups going on with the SNP leadership. We have lost faith in their integrity and their ability to deliver independence.

      If yes are at 56% in the polls. Why in hells name are we waiting for a more favorable wind. Why do we need another mandate , when we have the people.

      It’s not another mandate we need, it’s not another election win. What we need is to vote to leave the UK. It’s not rocket science, it’s actually really simple.

      The refusal to carry out the wishes of the people, tells us that the SNP leadership need removed.

    20. susanXX says:

      Quite right Big Jock.

    21. Dave Beveridge says:

      Somebody above mentioned “SNP Members for Independence”. The fact that there needs to be such a group pretty much says it all. 🙁

    22. Wendy says:

      I read the Dug’s article yesterday and wondered if you’d fire off a riposte to the disappointing drivel he wrote. God what’s wrong with him these days? Well he’s TELT.

    23. crisiscult says:

      Good article. Fighting talk. Looks like I didn’t get dressed up for nothing.

      Btw, anyone following the S.30 legal case? Just wondering what the comments today were about regarding a denial of certain documents. Was it related to the supposed draft referendum bill, and does it mean that there probably is no such thing, or am I just confused (quite possible).

    24. kapelmeister says:

      Maybe their strategy is to collect S30 refusals, paste them in a book like Panini football cards….and..er….get tired of it and put it up in the loft.

    25. robertknight says:

      WGD: Och aye, the Scottish National Party Blue. Whit’s wrang wi it?

      ‘Yes’ voter: I’ll tell ye whit’s wrang wi it! It’s wrang-heeded, that’s whit’s wrang wi it!

      WGD: Och, no laddy, no. It’s jist braw!

      (Apologies to Monty Python’s FC)

    26. Gerard McGhee says:

      could only read so far in this article. only so many fish i can watch being shot in a barrel.

    27. Dislogical says:

      WGD fulfils a useful role, generally, in trying to keep morale high and staying out of any disputes between independence sites.

      As such it was a shock to see the attack on Wings, albeit more veiled than this response, and highly disappointing.

    28. Beaker says:

      Whoever wrote that stuff must moonlight as a speech writer for Trump.

      (For clarity, the Sturgeon loyalist)

    29. David Mogg says:

      During my forty+ years membership of the SNP I have seen it all. Good times and bad. Three steps forward two steps back. Now that we are in touching distance of finally seeing Independence the last thing we need is internal division. I’ve known Nicola since she was a girl and I’ve known Alex longer than that. As a mere foot soldier I have to trust those we have given high office. They have a better grasp of the situation than I ever could have. Undermining the movement like Stu is attempting is a gift to the opposition. I have always thought that if you consider the things you say don’t further the cause of Independence then don’t say anything.

    30. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I have always thought that if you consider the things you say don’t further the cause of Independence then don’t say anything.”

      Of course I consider them to further the cause of independence, you fucking idiot. I painstakingly detailed why in a 2000-word article on Monday. You don’t have to agree with that view but to pretend it hasn’t even been expressed is not only moronic but completely dishonest, so GTF.

    31. Bob Mack says:

      Buller was the Commander at Spion Kop during the Boer War. He confidently predicted victory but found his forces cut to pieces by Boer sharpshooters. In the midst of this a Highland Division fed up of waiting charged the enemy positions without orders.

      Buller was furious and ordered them back even though they now held the enemy positions. Needless to say the Boers regained the initiative.

      Who is our Buller?

    32. Wee Chid says:

      Must have been your wee dig yesterday. It did make me chuckle at the time.

    33. Daisy Walker says:

      I’m glad you debunked his article. I had to skim read it through grinding teeth.

      I thought about commenting on it, taking it one issue at a time, but would not have been able to keep my temper.

      In my opinion, PK’s attitude changed soon after his American husband came to live with him here.

      His argument about the 2017 election taking the wind out of the mandate is just bonkers, ignoring as it does the 2019 victory.

      One thing I would say – the answer and the timing of the previous S30 requests allowed for ambiguity and any power the ‘no’ answer had to motivate voters was lost.

      I would be in favour of it being asked in February next year, loud and centre stage. Let them say No, a few months from an election.

      I have a golden rule, if someone has to dance on the head of a pin, and jump through all sorts of hoops to explain a position – chances are they’re at it. That’s the feeling I get now reading WGD.

      The only powerful time to request a S30 is in the run up to an election. After is no use, WM will just ignore it and decline to answer meaningfully in any way.

      Anyway, I’ve been advised to re-join the SNP and change from within, don’t like the NEC vote at it – even though I don’t know any of the candidates, let alone what they stand for, not happy that what should be simple published accounts for the ring fenced Indy Ref money are not being produced – attend the Constituency meeting and ask about it there.

      Ultimately they want my money, and they want me to shut up. Neither is going to happen.

    34. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Hitting the right note on which to end an article is one of the hardest parts of journalism Rev.

      Here, you nailed it perfectly. Doug Rougvie could not have hit it out of the park any further.

    35. Kenny says:

      Yep, that last para made me guffaw, and perfectly punctuated the whole article.

      I like Kavanagh, he’s okay, and I always liked the guy’s talk. I can’t see me ever being completely wary of him, nor can I see me ever disliking him. I just wish he’d come aboard and provide a sensible, eyes wide open slant instead of becoming increasingly unrealistic, distant and obtuse.

    36. Graeme says:

      This is what we’re up against, copy and pasted from WGD

      ” I watched Nicola today as I always do. Her ability to calmly and genuinely update the country on the way forward and to slap down the snide efforts of the “media” is a joy to behold. I have no doubt that she is raising the confidence of Scotland’s population one day at a time and that is ABSOLUTELY the key to our independence. It is confidence alone that will swing the vast majority of our populace behind our goal.

      To be honest, I am a bit staggered myself by her level of ability. She is the leader we needed – no disrespect to those who came before her – to win. She has the humility that genuinely accomplished people have and that is highly valued in Scottish culture.

      Happy days.”
      —————————————————————–

      Honestly if arselicking was an olympic event this guy would be a gold medalist

      PS
      This was not Paul it was one of his BTL syncophants according to him if you don’t agree with everything Paul says you disrespectful

    37. Dave Somerville says:

      David Mogg 4.27pm

      Sturgeon and Murrell do not want Independence.

      They have grown accustomed to the limousine lifestyle.

      The bank book isn’t full enough.

      So Devolution will do nicely, thanks very much.

      And do you accept they tried to frame the previous leader of the SNP?

      Do you accept they are pushing through laws that would allow males access to female toilets and changing rooms?

      Yo win our Independence we need to oist them as soon as possible.

      They are a pair of fraudsters.

    38. Johnny Martin says:

      There’ve been times when I have found Paul’s columns nice to read, particularly in the run-up to indyref 1.

      However, he should really take up a career in politics because he is a rhetorician, writing comforting words over and over when they mean really very little in practice.

      More perniciously, mind you, he’s joining with obfuscation over the previous requests for a Section 30 and the trashing of mandates already collected.

      All mandates are offered with at least one condition – that those promising achieve the power to deliver it. But that’s all. Not ‘we will interpret this how we like later’ or ‘if we have are given the mandate to pursue this course, we might decide it doesn’t count if we only have 60% of MPs next time in another parliament in which we definitely never have a majority to do anything anyway.

      Importantly, they also didn’t say ‘we will only pursue the thing if we will win and it will be easy, and some people who won’t vote for us agree we should pursue it, even though we never said of these things when seeking the mandate either’.

      But when you start trashing mandates, I guess it’s easy to keep going.

      And I guess it becomes easier to let people away with trashing mandates when you start to do so as well.

      A short thought experiment to round off:

      I don’t suppose the Blair/Brown governments of 2001-2005 or 2005-2010 ever let the idea that their mandate was less convincing stop them pursuing the things they really wanted to, did they (we will leave manifesto promises out of it, I imagine they broke thousands of those!)?

      That being the case, may we ask why the SNP considered that their 2017 UK election result meant they couldn’t pursue independence yet? Was it really because they thought they didn’t have a mandate with 60% of MPs instead of 95% of them? Or was it because they just didn’t want to?

    39. Daisy Walker says:

      @ David Mogg
      ‘. As a mere foot soldier I have to trust those we have given high office.’

      No, you absolutely do not, they are humans, not infallible gods. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.

      As an essencial foot soldier – you have to hold them to account, keep them on the straight and narrow and ensure they don’t start ‘farting above their own arses’ (as the French might say).

      Keeping wheesht is fine when everything is in order – but when – for example – financial accounts are not being produced leading to real concerns about possible acts of criminal fraud – you have a duty to point this out to them and ensure they produce them, or that they are first in the que to report the crime to the Police.

      To do neither is to be complicit in bringing the party and by assocition the movement into disrepute.

    40. Wee Chid says:

      I see the first shots at the Murrell lies have been fired by none other than wee Ollie Mundell – Daddy’s got him well trained.

    41. Republicofscotland says:

      Frankly this needed saying, Johnson won’t budge an inch on the S30 we all know that in our hearts. This reality check is a wake up call, we’re going nowhere unless our government start acting in a pro-active fashion.

      Of course I fully expect Sturgeon and her trusted lieutenants to keep espousing the just one more push against Westminster by voting us back in next year, and we’ll deliver you independence rhetoric.

      The SNP could and probably will be the catalyst for Scottish independence, sadly though I doubt it will happen with Sturgeon and Murrell at helm, pity that, with Sturgeon’s approval rating high at the moment, it would’ve helped the cause immeasurably.

    42. Breeks says:

      kapelmeister says:
      30 September, 2020 at 4:05 pm
      Maybe their strategy is to collect S30 refusals, paste them in a book like Panini football cards….and..er….get tired of it and put it up in the loft…

      Ha! Ha! Ha!

      I wondered if it was Nicola’s plan to wreck the YES movement and destroy the prospects of ever winning a referendum so comprehensively that Boris Johnson might actually call her bluff and actually approve a Section 30, just for giggles. But even Boris isn’t that dumb.

    43. montfleury says:

      Harsh but fair. We do indeed have to assume non-cooperation from London.

      “he could easily have found a way to do so [jettison Scotland] by now…..But he hasn’t, so we must assume he doesn’t.”

      I can’t know but I’d guess many of the regime are agnostic about Scotland. They’ll keep us if we don’t make a fuss and boot us out if we do. I’ve long thought they plan to jettison Northern Ireland on the back of Brexit.

      One strand of our strategy should certainly be to obstruct the British state in every way possible. Again hands up who thinks Mr Blackford and Ms Sturgeon have the stomach for that?

    44. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      (Posted this response to a comment aboot WGD on the previous article Stu posted) I think WGD is still an intelligent, funny writer,and has a great talent with words. Those are not just things that go away overnight. He used to be great at satirical tearing Tory idiocy apart fearlessly and peerlessly.

      It would appear he has become an active part of the wagons closing and circling and defending the FM. As a gay man with a ‘New Scot’ husband, both minorities highly prized seemingly over all other groups of the Scottish public by the FM – I can see why he might defend Ms. Sturgeon so vociferously. But he never struck me in the past as a blind-faith propagandist.

      Maybe spending a lot of time praising and defending a politician or ideal, then finding out they were not who or what you thought they were, or wanted or needed them to be, can cause cognitive dissonance in the best of people. It certainly seems to have done a number on the heads of many SNP members, whose delusional, increasingly shrill defence of the indefensible is becoming more bizarre and risible by the day.

      I find all this internecine fighting tragic and depressing, for obvious reasons, but the column Stu just pulled apart seems to be so far divorced from the reality of the situation it’s incredible. It’s not just a matter of reading the room wrong, it’s being in a completely different room altogether. Tragic and sad all round, because nobody truly wants Scottish people fighting each other.

    45. MaggieC says:

      Re Harassment and Complaints Committee , There’s been three letters issued by Linda Fabiani today ,

      The convener responded to Levy and McRae’s letter of 21st September ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/20200930ConvenertoLevyMcRae.pdf

      The convener responded to the Deputy First Minister’s letter of 21st September ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/20200930ConvenertoDeputyFirstMinister.pdf

      The convener wrote to the Principal Clerk of Session and Justiciary ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/20200930ConvenertoCourtofSession.pdf

      After the press reports over the last couple of days hopefully the committee is getting to a stage where they’ll will start to take firmer action .

      There’s no sign of a reply from Peter Murrell yet ??

    46. Rm says:

      NS is doing a good job during this virus she gets good ratings a good thing for Scotland being portrayed as a modern caring country, she can keep doing that but while she does that why can’t another few politicians who are real keen on Independence go for it full throttle, let them have free reign go for it anyway they can think of, isp list vote next year then we’ll start changing things.

    47. Milady says:

      I read halfway through the WGD article yesterday and gave up in sheer frustration. Thanks for articulating my thoughts. At least Kevin McKenna, who I also disagree with on many occasions, gave us a somewhat more realistic analysis today of where the SNP are right now. But sadly, no-one in the SNP is listening to critical friends right now. They have jammed their fingers in their already tin ears.

    48. Republicofscotland says:

      “He has the political right because Westminster – as Nicola Sturgeon never tires of reminding us by refusing to countenance an “illegal” vote – is sovereign over Holyrood,”

      However doesn’t sovereignty lie with the people of Scotland and not its parliament, how to convert that into a plebiscite is the question.

      A interesting read on sovereignty in England its the crown, in Scotland its the people.

      https://randompublicjournal.com/2018/07/26/westminster-is-sovereign-holyrood-is-not/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20claim%20that%20Westminster%20is%20sovereign,is%20devolvedto%20Westminster%20and%20further%20devolved%20to%20Holyrood.

    49. Graham A Fordyce says:

      I am constantly struck by the notion almost universally presented by politicians and commentators,whether they be Stuart Campbell, Wee Ginger or even The Baroness that the key which unlocks the door to Independence is held by Boris Johnson, Nicola Sturgeon or anyone else in public life including even the Law Courts; and that the holder of the key is the only person or body which can provide some kind of consent.
      Is anyone seriously suggesting that if the overwhelming desire of this nation is independence, that somehow that strength of feeling will simply evaporate because one or two politicians either say no or don’t bother their shirt?

    50. Doug says:

      SNP MPs to withdraw permanently from the britnat mank-midden that is Westminster the day after England officially imposes brexit. No harm in hoping…

    51. Robert Graham says:

      oops you can almost hear the keyboards clattering from here , indignant shouts of that bloody tractor from Bath is at it again

      I commented about the “throwing it all away” Post on the previous thread and i asked Throwing exactly what away ? and name one thing thats changed in our favour since September the 19th 2014 , I can recite a whole list of stuff that the English government has done without return of fire or even some kind of resistance from our SNP politicians .

      Aye well all you lurkers that seem perfectly happy with a diet of sarcastic remarks and pointless jam tomorrow just round the next corner within touching distance dont rock the boat trust in the leadership pish ,

      And you get to actually fund the lifestyle in order to keep reading the same pish you have heard since 2014 , at least you might ask for some investigative uncovering of the current events , the catty remarks have seen their day we can all do that pointless pish act it isn’t clever its annoying.

      that site has been lost for ages now its been taken over by a small number of , well small minds playing follow the leader .

      Dont get me wrong STU pisses off everybody at some point but thats life , he dosnt go off and use the scattergun ban every fkr in sight that doesn’t pay homage game , \to old to suffer these politicians that piss about because their dumb fans say they nice now lead us to the promised land , Please Pretty please.

    52. Republicofscotland says:

      Doug @5.08pm.

      Pete Wishart won’t leave Westminster and is condemning those on his Twitter that want SNP MP’s to walk out of Westminster. Wishart not one for exiting the gravy train.

      https://twitter.com/PeteWishart

    53. Bob Mack says:

      @Republicifscotland,

      The Supreme Court already dealt with that. They viewed the wishes of the Scottish people were expressed in Parliament by their elected representatives. Even though they are outnumbered by other UK MPs.

      Holyrood seems to have accepted that fact.

    54. Republicofscotland says:

      “Holyrood seems to have accepted that fact.”

      Bob.

      But we the people have not, where do we go from here?

    55. Bob Mack says:

      @Republicofscotland,

      Indeed. What’s more talking is that the very party who should recognise the sovereignty of the people who elected them actually fought against the” forward as one” court case to establish that right to choose a section 30.

      Does that sound as if they believe in Scottish sovereignty?

    56. MaggieC says:

      O/T

      From BBC website , Oliver Mundell ejected from Holyrood chamber over Sturgeon ‘ Liar ‘ jibe , LOL

      https://archive.vn/N0m9E

    57. Johnny Martin says:

      Graham @ 5:08pm:

      Some political figure does have to do something to make the political change a reality, yes.

      And the SNP, having riled people up with the promise of independence and having been given the responsibility by the electorate of delivering it, are abdicating that responsibility if they do not take more urgent action to ‘make it so’. They asked to be ‘het’, for that responsibility. Now they are ‘het’ and have to accomplish and stop talking about accomplishing.

    58. kapelmeister says:

      Pete Wishart says “Can I just say I will never leave Scotland undefended…”

      What that conjures up as an analogy is the scene of L/Cpl Jones demonstrating his ‘tank’. An upturned bath with a man inside, on top of a bogey, with a small aperture in the bath for a shotgun to fire through.

    59. Stu hutch says:

      What gets me is snp mps and msps can see the rifts that are appearing but are more than willing to look the other way in the hope that it will go away. unfortunately I’m afraid it wont.are the really prepared to forgo independence for scotland an aim they have cultivated for the last 20/30 years to protect a small cabal that are more interested in short term power and fortune.future snp mps/msps are on a very short life span if they renege on their promises to deliver independence

    60. Colin Alexander says:

      Stu Campbell

      Good article.

      I would only disagree with this one point:

      “The reason we haven’t had a referendum yet isn’t because we CHOSE not to hold it, it’s because we were UNABLE to”.

      It was Sturgeon who decided not to hold an indyref.

      Forward As One are trying to get the court’s ruling on that at the Court of Session right now.

      The SNP Scot Govt messed Martin J Keatings / Forward As One about by becoming a party to the case then pulling out.

      Despite Nicola Sturgeon stating:

      “Firstly, I will continue to do all that I can to secure a referendum this year.”

      This leads to the question: Did the Electoral Commission give an answer about the indyref2 question? It was expected to give an answer about 3 months after 9 Feb 2020, according to The National.

      http://www.thenational.scot/news/18221767.electoral-commission-retest-indyref-ballot-question/

      http://www.snp.org/nicola-sturgeons-statement-on-scotlands-future/

      http://twitter.com/PeoplesAS30

    61. robertknight says:

      Pete Wishart says “Can I just say I will never leave Scotland undefended…”

      ROFLMFAO…

      Ian Blackford has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of that defence, when stating “We will not be dragged out of the European Union against the wishes of the Scottish people.”

      The UK Govt. must be bricking it.

      The ‘Blue Bonnets’ are over the border alright, but they’re getting pissed in the Members’ Bar whilst filling in their expenses claims!

    62. Colin Alexander says:

      Re Forward As One on Indyref2

      If you look at page 2 of twitter.com/PeoplesAS30 post, you will see they sought documents about preparations for another indyref and the Scot Govt’s Lord Advocate responded and said no such documents had been created, so don’t exist.

    63. C J Robertson says:

      Apropos of nothing: recently when I read your blogs, they’re coming through in the voice of Simon Pegg. Weird.

    64. tarisgal says:

      I stopped reading Paul’s blogs quite awhile ago. I just couldn’t accept his naivety any longer! But yesterday someone I had credited with some sense, posted his blog saying it was a ‘right on the button’ article so thought “Okay, one more go”. I got a couple of sentences into his blog – and simply speed read the rest & closed it. It was exactly as I’d come to expect – more ignoring of the reality of what’s happening in Scotland and just more puff. I couldn’t stand to read another word of ‘Wheesht! Stop being divisive! Nicola’s our only vehicle for Indy!” Had I read one more word of ‘give her one more mandate’, I’d have lost my dinner!

      I once took Paul to be clever, to be Glesga street-wise, to know flannel when he saw it. And I’ve no doubt he still has some of those qualities but I’m damned if I can see them reflected & invested in his thought processes now! I’m just astounded he has fallen for the ‘Nicola has a Plan’ nonsense, and fallen for her ‘When bozo goes low, I go high’ garbage! B/c when she does that, Paul, Scotland goes NOWHERE!

      I agree with every word you wrote Stuart – except one. I dare say Crumpet is every bit as sweet and friendly as you say, but… I’m just not a Daxxie person. Small dogs annoy me… they’re usually barkie, barkie & having had both eardrums perforated as a child, the pitch of a dog’s bark makes it echo around my head like a ‘hellooooo’ in Smoo Cave! But she does have a sweet face, I’ll give you that much. 😉

    65. Iain Lawson says:

      We are witnessing in the absence of any answers to a host of difficult questions the first steps in trying to build up a SNP GLEE CLUB where the Happy Clappy can join together, sing the one tune and try and blot out the real world. Facebook sites that are moderated on the basis that any questions should be left outside and the propaganda wing barking out that all is well message.

      It is a very artificial place that leaves many of the congregation vulnerable and dismayed when they leave at the end of the service and struggle home amongst those who don’t recognise a word they are saying.

    66. Thomas Dunlop says:

      I am by nature conciliatory and prefer to assemble the facts before deciding on thinks (being a scientist, it goes with the territory). It dismays to see the dangerous infighting going on in the independence movement. I propose all the actors have a video conference to sort things out.
      I’d also like to see a constitutional convention put forward to hammer out plan A to D to go to the electorate next May, following the alphabetical order, if this happens or doesn’t happen, we have to have a definite road map to show the steps towards gaining independence in a timely and reasonable fashion.
      I apportion blame to all sides here. For example, there is something not right with the top of the SNP. On the other hand they are commanding a strong lead going into the elections and infighting will only feed the yoons, the MSM media and the general population who sit on the fence who want independence but worried about their pockets (and events such as COVID, where Nicola and the SNP mangerial style have nudged yes to 55 percent). I am sorry this might be frustrating for some but with a joined up unified strategy that leads to the ultimate declaration of UDIif all else fails is the correct way, in my opinion and will carry a sweeping majority at that time.

    67. Stéphane Séchaud says:

      I commented on that article to remind the author that the Tory dystopia they claim is such a risk from our criticism of the party of governance in Scotland has actually been a reality for us plebs for a decade already. And the fact that they tolerate that reality demonstrates how privileged and comfortable they are in that dystopia.

    68. Asklair says:

      The issues which people have with WoS is they have no control over the content being published which is read by many people who have a open thought process. SNP franchise is controlled by a narrow thinking small group of people supporting the meal ticket to followers of that small group.

    69. Dan says:

      kapelmeister says: at 5:32 pm

      Pete Wishart says “Can I just say I will never leave Scotland undefended…”

      Aye, he could stand on the north side of Coldstream bridge over the Tweed belting out Runrig JockRock tunes. That would probably do a better job of defending Scotland from pauchling invaders from the south than him being in Westminster.

    70. Republicofscotland says:

      News reports Linda Fabiani has lost patience with Sturgeon and Co, and has bypassed them, going straight to the Court of Session on requested documents that Sturgeon is stalling on.

    71. Balaaargh says:

      Before I read this post properly, that’s a lovely swan.

    72. Republicofscotland says:

      “Does that sound as if they believe in Scottish sovereignty?”

      Bob.

      No it does not.

    73. Cuilean says:

      In addition to being dragged out of the EU against our will, The UK’s internal market power grab is a second material change in circumstances.

      At the most crucial time in Scotland’s history the SNP ruling body’s priority is to cancel even an online Conference.

      We are absolutely fucked.

    74. Jams O'Donnell says:

      Yeah. PK/WGD banned me a few weeks ago for having the temerity to try to get him to answer the simple question of why not to have a Plan B, and a Plan C, or however many plans you need to get a result, rather than depending on Johnston to become embarrassed (like he so often is, LOL). Instead of answering, he lost the rag. Snowflake or what? If the SNP don’t get it together, and fast, the only option is another party which will try other, more viable, options for Independence.

    75. Cuilean says:

      Calling Alex Salmond! Calling Alex Salmond!

      Time to saddle up Alex! I’ll get ma bonnet!

    76. A Person says:

      In the last couple of days there have been a number of articles about what is being billed as the “SNP civil war” in the mainstream media. This has imo been given added traction by the reaction of many to some of the more excessive covid restrictions. “We” might be getting somewhere.

    77. Polly says:

      Great article, Stuart. Scotland’s long and honourable tradition of flyting is not to be feared, even were that to be what this turns into. However when one side is scoring aces by smashing truth bombs over the net which the other misses and keeps trying to play a base line volley game then it’s obvious which side to lay odds on. The other blog is well written, but as I said before, it comes over as a cosy fireside chat. It is the comment section not the probing inquiring journalism we need. Reading Wings old articles it’s obviously not you who has changed your method. Your fault of course is you face the truth straight on, even focusing on faults on our side, and are uncompromisingly honest detailing what you see, come what may. If some people prefer not to see, there will be others who are drawn to that clear sight and uncompromising honesty.

      As for the next election, the only thing which could make this mandate different, as others have said previously, is if they make it clear it will be a plebiscite. Here’s hoping someone in there has some sense.

    78. Hamish Kirk says:

      Has anyone else spotted the similarity of WGD to “Squealer” in Orwell’s book ?

    79. Dan says:

      @Cuilean at 6:19 pm

      One suspects attempting to cancel the conference is due to another “material change” in circumstance…
      Namely them shitting their underwear at what is coming down the line.

      #SoiledNappyParty

    80. Sylvia says:

      Cuilean @6:19 SNP virtual conference set to take place in November https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,snp-virtual-conference-set-to-take-place-in-november

    81. Neil in Glasgow says:

      Why anyone thinks that a government, which has already broken the law once and is actively trying to do it again to get its own way, is going to legally give in to something they don’t want is beyond me. Cummings de facto stance is to break the system. Asking nicely til your blue in the face is hardly bending the norm.

      In fact, maybe taking things in our own hands might work in our favour?

    82. Tartan Tory says:

      Stu – whilst everything you say is (as always) very correct, I cling to the one thing told to me personally by Alex Salmond a few years ago over lunch.

      I put it to him that any UK PM could just continue to refuse an S30 for IndyRef2, in prety much the same terms as you have described above. He dismissed this out of hand and stated that ‘eventually’ they would have to capitulate…

      I do wonder if he said anything different to you?

    83. CameronB Brodie says:

      Democracy, like the law and human rights, has a framework of intrinsic principles and properties that provide internal coherence and procedural robustness. So if you start arbitrarily ignore votes, you’re undermining the coherence and strength of democracy’s internal framework. This weakens any claim to democratic probity, and undermines the legitimacy of, and potential for, political AGENCY.

      Democracy, the rule-of-law, and human rights are also similarly linked through universal legal principles. This means they are mutually supportive and inseparable from one another. So if you are denied access to one of these, you are denied access to the whole cake. You are a slave to an authoritarian regime.

      An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights

      Annex II – Assessing the need and possibilities for the establishment of an EU Scoreboard on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS_STUD_579328_AnnexII_CEPS_EU_Scoreboard_12April.pdf

    84. Tinto Chiel says:

      Socrates @ 4.45: “Hitting the right note on which to end an article is one of the hardest parts of journalism Rev.

      Here, you nailed it perfectly. Doug Rougvie could not have hit it out of the park any further.”

      ….or the man also, like the ruggedly handsome Davie Robb too, IIRC 🙂 . A hard but fair tackle from The Rev today, though: had to be said.

      Could I simplify matters for new readers? WGD intro music:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9nE2spOw_o

      And The Rev’s:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw

      I remain mystified as to why WGD seems to have been largely silent on the Salmond Affair and issues such as the authoritarian GRA and Hate Crime Bill, although I admit I only dip in and out of there very occasionally now.

      “Humankind cannot bear too much reality” as The Poet said, and it certainly seems to apply to some other bloggers and supporters.

    85. holymacmoses says:

      David Mogg says:
      30 September, 2020 at 3:24 pm
      Oh do give over Stu,

      You don’t have to read and you don’t have to be here Mr Mogg.
      Do you have NO qualms about the treatment of Mr Salmond? Do you have no concerns about the treatment of Ms Cherry. Do you have no worries about Mr Murrell’s communication? Don’t you care what sort of Scotland may be tied into the Murrells and Johnson for decades if this behaviour carries on? I am honestly beginning to wonder what sort of sickness Covid actually is.

    86. Wee Chid says:

      Polly says:
      30 September, 2020 at 6:33 pm
      “The other blog is well written, but as I said before, it comes over as a cosy fireside chat.”

      Was just thinking the other day, the Francis Gay of the independence movement.

    87. Stoker says:

      Another great article, cheers, that is all. 🙂

    88. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I put it to him that any UK PM could just continue to refuse an S30 for IndyRef2, in prety much the same terms as you have described above. He dismissed this out of hand and stated that ‘eventually’ they would have to capitulate…”

      A lot has happened in the last few years. We live in different times.

    89. Mac says:

      She is lovely. So perfect. (The swan obviously)

    90. Effijy says:

      What is the difference between a Dachshund
      An a Street Trader?

      One Bawls his Wears and the other one-

      God know I need cheering up at the state of my country’s parliament.

    91. tartanfever says:

      Great article.

      Every time I’ve seen a mention of Kevin McKenna’s article today, it’s always accompanied with a claim ‘ I don’t always agree with’ or similar.

      Is this a new code for covert Cynernat operations that I’m unaware of or is it people just being dicks ?

    92. carjamtic says:

      Firstly, we must all doff our masks to the honest journalists who put themselves in peril to tell it like it is, we must all salute them, as the most realistic of persons in the political milieu, where illusions are a plenty?

      Horrible Herstory or Cats in a Vat

      Some cats are of a build, often referred to in “off the peg” clothes shops as portly, which means not quite stout.

      There is an implication of at least one kind of recklessness about these fat cats (caveat: not those with any underlying medical conditions) they let themselves go when they eat (and those chocolate cookies are so “persuasive”).

      A portly person, however, is a person who would like to be fat but restrains themself – a calculator

      (although in their spare time, they do dream of their family, a particular strain of fat felines, all bathing in vats of the finest wines, rolls of fat rippling, as they purred with the pleasure of their very existence).

      But they understood, these daydreams are for another time, non-work times, holidays or even early retirement, as first there is a job to do, they need to be the main under-standers in a nine-ninja pyramid troupe of acrobatic political assassins.
      Money for old rope they calculated.

      And yet despite all the additional support/backup from the buzzards and the hawks, under pressure they at first started to wobble, then completely collapsed with the whole troupe landing on top of one another, in a rather undignified mess of fur, sharp claws, spilt lattes and half eaten muffins and cookies.

      And even though there was a trail of crumbs all the way to their front door , they decided no-one must ever find out, so they rarely spoke of it and when requested to do so, their reply was often in a pre-occupied sort of way, maybe they had something more important on their minds ?…..

      Indyref 2 , no, that’s not it, something else perhaps,
      Brexit, no done that one, or nearly done it.
      Global Pandemic, no, no, not that, too sick.

      Imaginary Dragons of the cyber-gnat variety, Yes they done it, it was them, all along, they must have cut the Svengali strings.

      And in that one moment, lies became the truth and none of them even noticed the temperature of the vats of the fine wines has increased slightly, spoiling it or heard the tree falling silently in the forest and yet it fell and their dreams with it.

      As the dusts of the truth swirled, only the bravest of journalists followed them, as they sought out a re-entry point, they levered opened the cracks, allowing them back into the light.

      And to those who would destroy us, with their festering anger and seeds of hatred, be aware there are no dragons or cybernats, there are only oceans with many waves or fields of wild flowers and though one or two may get uprooted, others will still live and thrive, but you already know this story.
      The ending?
      Yes, it is happy one, some people’s dreams didn’t die and, in the end, truth prevailed, imagine that.

    93. Lorna Campbell says:

      “… The only time it has ever conceded anything in the face of it was in 2011, because David Cameron was absolutely certain he would win a referendum (and as it turned out he was right, though not nearly as comfortably as he hoped), so he could afford to look magnanimous and democratic… ”

      Yes, and he had to get the Scottish referendum out of the way, done and dusted before he would risk the Brexit referendum. No way, no how, would the UKG have risked taking rUK without Scotland out of the EU. Now, the opposite applies. No way, no how will they risk losing Scotland before Brexit and its aftermath are complete. In both situations, they need the remaining oil reserves and the fishing industry, not to mention Trident. Water, too, which we have in abundance, is set to become the next precious resource of ours that they will want to purloin. The whisky industry and our niche food industry are also high earners, and, if the Americans want the entire NHS, the entire NHS they will get.

      The only future for Scotland, within that post Brexit UK will be as a living blood bank with the blood suckers gathering to feast. All colonialism, all wars and most conflicts are about resources and/or land and/or for geopolitical/military reasons. All large countries have the sense that they have the right to predate small ones. All well-armed, militarized countries eventually take what they want by force, and even the fascism of the Third Reich was actually imperialist colonialism, much practised by the British.

      We have the right because it would be democratic and legal, to make 2021 the means of establishing our independence within a very short time frame. In case the UKG refused to negotiate, we would have a case ‘oven-ready’ and based on the many breaches of the Treaty of Union, the refusal of any democratic means to end the Union, Westminster’s constant interference and diminishing of devolution and, last, but not least, the several polls in succession now that show the majority of the Scottish people want independence, plus the winning of every election by the SNP since 2007, plus the Holyrood mandates for seeking another referendum – blocked, of course.

      To try and deny these facts is tantamount to surrendering Scotland without lifting a finger.

    94. Stuart MacKay says:

      You need to empathise with WGD. No, that’s not sympathise. He’s built that blog and it’s following on the message that Independence will bring a brighter future. It’s taken an immense amount of work to get where he is and now there’s clouds on the horizon of the independence dream and he can’t quite believe it. Even if he wanted to he’s not going throw it all away the investment to date has been too great.

      As for his fan club. Well the gushing comments are at least a good laugh. St. Nicola will save us from all harm as they desperately clutch at straws while Boris and co systematically tear everything down.

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

      Apologies to Upton Sinclair – a good Caithness name if ever there was one.

    95. Dan says:

      OT

      Great to look back at the old Threat Reduction Programme from yesteryear doing its bit to reduce the number of death and misery inflicting missiles. 🙂

      https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dismantling_of_missile_launch_tubes_under_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction_program.jpg

      Meanwhile Scotland 2020…

      Oh wait! What’s that?… Babcock building 70 Missile Tube Assemblies for Trident replacement subs at Rosyth… 🙁

      https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/babcock-awarded-missile-tube-contract-extension-by-electric-boat/

    96. Lorna Campbell says:

      tartan Tory: even Mr Salmond could not have foreseen the rise of this right-wing UKG. It is no longer the same playing field. Neither could Mr Salmond have foreseen the way the party has fragmented of late. We all saw how the Labour Party believed its own hype and seemingly unending success, and destroyed itself by allowing naive and immature people in at the top to drive forward an agenda that eventually derailed the party, and the party hierarchy refused to listen to its ordinary members.

      The same is happening within the SNP, despite all the evidence it must have seen around it about what happened to Labour. When Mr Salmond brought in the referendum in 2014, hope was high, and I think there was little interference until the last few weeks when it must have become apparent even to Mr Cameron that he could lose. Then they went to town to prevent a win. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about a second S30 Order referendum. That is just pie in the sky, and I believe Alex Salmond would admit that today.

    97. Dan says:

      Ach bollox, for some reason the first link isn’t going to the full page with pic of MTAs being cut up which kinda ruins the whole point of my post. 🙁
      Yet again I fail to live up to the miserably low standards I set for myself.
      Grumble, buggers off to watch Fargo.

    98. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Yes, and he had to get the Scottish referendum out of the way, done and dusted before he would risk the Brexit referendum. No way, no how, would the UKG have risked taking rUK without Scotland out of the EU. Now, the opposite applies. No way, no how will they risk losing Scotland before Brexit and its aftermath are complete. In both situations, they need the remaining oil reserves and the fishing industry, not to mention Trident. Water, too, which we have in abundance, is set to become the next precious resource of ours that they will want to purloin. The whisky industry and our niche food industry are also high earners, and, if the Americans want the entire NHS, the entire NHS they will get.”

      This. All of this.

    99. Dave Somerville says:

      You get the feeling the Murrell’s walls are starting to crumble round about them.

      There is definitely something in the air.

      Please God, bring those walls crashing down round their ears.

      And set Scotland free.

    100. Derek Rogers says:

      Can I claim the Golden Thistle Prize for monumental shit-stirring? WGD says, “My piece … was primarily written because of a comment on this blog yesterday which claimed that the SNP don’t really want independence.” I was the one who posted that comment on WGD, picking up the WOS core point – and this my entire comment, honest:

      “I don’t think the SNP is committed to independence. In fact, I think they’re actually against independence. It’s very worrying.”

      There was then a bit of to-ing and fro-ing with picky arguments and half-truths, and other critics of the SNP piled in, and the whole blog got out of hand, and he put up a massive anti-WOS post, and you’ve replied with a massive anti-WGD post, and the indy-war is raging all about our ears.

      What’s ironic is that I wanted to open a dialogue, to seek some kind of comunication between both sides of this debate. So I couched my post in the most neutral and inoffensive phrasing I could think of. Hmm.

    101. Tony O'Neill says:

      Which is why Stu as I’ve said here already,breaking the eu treaty is just a precursor for them burning the treaty of 1707.

    102. Bob Mack says:

      @Lorna,

      Yes. England has like many other countries around 20 years of water left in its water table. Water will become more valuable than oil ever was in the future.

      Another commodity to be used as financial gain I fear.

    103. CameronB Brodie says:

      The only way we will achieve our self-determination, is if we can figure out how to circumvent our Legal Establishments profound legal parochialism. Which is extremely unhealthy and incompatible with international human rights law. A fish rots from the top? So I think we need to take a closer look at those at the very top of Scotland’s judicial system, to examine just how they are failing to support the legal principles of “universality” and “equality in law”.

      Remember, the rule-of-law only works if the principles of legal doctrine are respected universally. Without subordination to cultural and ideology, such as British nationalism and the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

      Global Policy Volume 8, Issue S6, 06 October 2017
      Special Issue: Democracy Beyond Borders

      The Internal and External Levers to Achieve Global Democracy

      Abstract

      The paper explores the methods to introduce democratic devices in global governance. The first part makes an attempt to define what democratic global governance is and what its aims are. The second part provides some benchmark to identify when and how international organizations, the most important and visible part of global governance, correspond to the values of democracy. The third part presents what we label the internal and the external levers.

      The internal lever is defined as the ways in which democratization within countries helps to foster more transparent, accountable and participatory forms of global governance. The external lever is defined as the ways in which international organizations contribute to promote democratic transition and consolidation in their members. Neither the internal nor the external levers work effectively if they are left to inter-governmental bargaining only. An active participation of non-governmental actors is needed in order to make them effective. The paper finally discusses a list of proposals to democratize global governance.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12490

    104. Dave Somerville says:

      Stu, thank you for your relentless investigative journalism.

      You are up there with the best of them within the UK.

      On our behalf, keep up pounding away at these bastards who are trying to deny us our Independence.

      Go Rev!!!

      We are with you every inch of the way Stu.

    105. Bob Mack says:

      @Derek Rogers,

      It gets worse. He is installing a new filter system to eliminate any views that his audience would find unacceptable.

      That includes being against the SNP. The caterpillar has morphed into a dull bug.

    106. Alf Baird says:

      A helpful analytical demolition of WGD, which increasingly reads as more or less a mouthpiece of the SNP high command.

      A point surely of importance here is the fact that no other British colony ever required a ‘Section 30’ for its independence. “Oh hello Nairobi, Kuala Lumpur, Calcutta, Kingston, Valletta etc, London here – you’ll need a Section 30 to hold an indy ref old chap”. So why do us Scots think we need a Section 30?

      On the matter of ‘the international community’, the latter for the most part seem unaware of the existence of the Treaty of Union as constitutional foundation of the UK. Most other states (in their ignorance) regard Scotland as a mere region of Britain/England and as such seeking secession from a ‘parent state’ – perhaps much like Catalonia. Most other states therefore have little idea that the UK is a union of sovereign nations formed by international Treaty between Scotland and England. In large part this is because Britain/England has always afforded itself a dominant position in international diplomacy, and kept Scotland subordinate.

      It remains normal international practice for signatory parties to withdraw from treaties when they are no longer in the national interest and/or when alliance partners behave dishonorably. The international community should be made aware of Scotland’s Treaty of Union. Should Scotland’s withdrawal from the UK be contested, the Treaty is likely to be a main focus of any (international) court. Section 30 or referendums are perhaps not the overriding issue (even in most decolonisations), given the existence of the Treaty, and Scottish sovereignty, as well as the right of a people to self-determination.

    107. Big Jock says:

      You know the SNP are on the wrong side with this Salmond cover up. When you find yourself agreeing with Oliver Mundell,that Sturgeon is a liar.

      What have the SNP become!

    108. Republicofscotland says:

      “What have the SNP become!”

      Big Jock.

      I believe that’s to a far a ranging comment, the SNP are still the main driving vehicle for independence, its just that several people at the top need removing and replaced with independence minded folk. The NEC could do with reforming as well.

    109. Skip_NC says:

      Big Jock, I’m going to disagree with you because of one narrow point. He said she was a liar because she said she would cooperate with the inquiry. Maybe she thinks she is cooperating. I think the PO was right to ask him to withdraw.

      Now, if he had said that she lied about when she first knew about the allegations, I would agree with you. I daresay the PO would have pulled him up for that as well. In any case, he really should have had an alternative phrase in mind – unless his whole plan was to get suspended for the day.

    110. Big Jock says:

      True Republic- but there are so many eejits in the SNP.

      Murrell, Sturgeon, Wishart, Blackford…All seniors and not one I would trust.

    111. Big Jock says:

      Skip it was indeed a stunt.

      However the Liar description is generally how I feel about her.

    112. Polly says:

      @ Wee Chid says:
      30 September, 2020 at 7:01 pm

      I had to look up who Francis Gay was but we obviously think alike. With titles like Another Cheerful Day and Always it is Spring and Wings on my Shoe I think you’re on to something. 🙂

    113. Mr C M Howie says:

      Skip_NC

      Pish.

    114. CameronB Brodie says:

      “The SNP are still the main driving vehicle for independence”

      This, though we need to beat the neo-liberalism out of them, and train their membership not to trust law officers who subourdinate the principles of the Common law, to populist constitutional majoritarianism and their allegiance to the Crown. Or any other perverted ideology.

      STATE OF DEMOCRACY,
      HUMAN RIGHTS AND
      THE RULE OF LAW

      Populism – How strong are
      Europe’s checks and balances?

      Report by the Secretary General
      of the Council of Europe
      2017

      https://rm.coe.int/state-of-democracy-human-rights-and-the-rule-of-law-populism-how-stron/168070568f

    115. Republicofscotland says:

      “True Republic- but there are so many eejits in the SNP.

      Murrell, Sturgeon, Wishart, Blackford…All seniors and not one I would trust.”

      True Big Jock, but there’s also those waiting in the wings (no pun intended) that are independence minded the Angus. B. MacNeil’s and the Chris McEleney’s, and the Joanna Cherry’s, that can steer the party in the right direction again.

      They just need the opportunity to do so.

    116. ScottieDog says:

      @Bob Mack
      Add renewable assets which are mind blowing and of course land assets. Our renewables not only have the power to create all our heat and energy but export a considerable amount too. More than that though, as climate change starts to affect global crops, countries like Scotland will need to produce a lot more domestic food.

      Much of that food can be produced using our sovereign energy out of season under cover – just like Iceland does.

      With the above in mind, there’s zero chance of a S30. They won’t give us up without a big fight.

    117. Tinto Chiel says:

      @Alf Baird 8.12: at a public meeting in Hamilton Town House 2017ish IIRC, Mike Russell said that he had sent a dossier to all other EU countries explaining the Treaty of Union and its full constitutional implications. Whether this happened or to what effect, I have no way of knowing.

      Of course, in those days I trusted the readership so took this at face value.

    118. Sandy Merry says:

      Whatever is going on within the senior ranks of the SNP this is definitely not the time to be stirring up any resentment or cause for disenchantment with the only party capable of delivering Independence. I agree that there appears to be something rotten in the state of the party but to highlight it every day only plays into the hands of the Unionists and serves to undermine confidence in the Scottish Government. Let’s settle down, work together and get the May elections out of the way. Once there is a substantial SNP majority in Parliament and we have a clearer view of the way forward to Independence then by all means lance the boil.
      I normally agree with most of your comments Stu but in this case I think you have got it wrong.

    119. Tony O'Neill says:

      Got are laugh. Censorship is now alive and kicking on wgd.he obviously doesn’t like constructive criticism,and they’ve got the got the cheek tae paint you blacker than coal,for telling a poster above tae fuck off!.I will say this about him now imo,he’s just a wee coward. He should change his handle tae wee yella dug far noo oan.

    120. Robert Louis says:

      Section 30 has been asked for and repeatedly refused. Winning in May 2021, will make zero difference to that. I find it hard to believe that anybody thinks it will.

      I do however, like Weee ginger dug – although I disagree with some of his article. I do think the indy movement doesn’t get too viscious in its arguments, leading to serious rifts.

      Asking for a section 30 has been done to death, and the SNP can feel free to tell the world that they tried and Westminster refused (as did all the major opposition parties in England), so now they will make the holyrood election in 2021 a vote on independence itself. I cannot see any rational reason for dithering further.

    121. Bob Mack says:

      @Sandy Merry,

      You are of course clearly forgetting one thing. If the SNP regain power for yet another term they will probably pass the Hate Crime legislation which would in effect nullify dissenting voices as they see fit, including sites like Wings.

      The boil may well lance you instead.

    122. Meg merrilees says:

      Skip N_C @3.49

      If you listen again, you’ll realise that Biden, wo is talking bout Trump’s tax return is saying ‘It’s the Law’ really quickly, with the emphasis on ‘Law’, not “Inshallah”, where the emphasis is on the second syllable ‘Insh- ALL- ah’

    123. Mist001 says:

      As I’ve been saying the past couple of nights, for Scotland to gain its independence, then like it or not, it needs the help of the English.

      At it’s most basic level, for Scotland to become independent, it needs the English to grant a S30 order and for Scotland to become independent, it needs the English to refuse a S30 order.

    124. holymacmoses says:

      The Murrells are not indispensable to Scottish independence, nor is the little Woke brigade: in fact their demise could well be the making of Scottish Independence. Not too many of the hoi polloi follow politics but they became interested in the Mr Salmond trial and I have been astonished at the number of people from all walks who didn’t even like him but could never believe that he was guilty. The mistrust against the Murrells, the SNP, the Government then and now because of the Inquiry is growing. . If this blows up now and the Woke Brigade come centre stage then the punters will sit up and take notice again and I don’t think there’ll be many of them backing them. SO the other SNP ‘names’ need to stay firm and keep the rest of the MPs and MSPs together They also need to make contact and keep party members throughout the country abreast of what is happening at executive level – no more secrets. Then they can start the ball rolling and I think the moss will start to gather on the stone for a rollicking vote for Independence
      This can happen very quickly. As someone once said, ‘A week is a long time in politics’

      BTW I was prompted to re-read a whole year’s worth of WGD and he avoids anything contentious and doesn’t take criticism too well as far as I can see. I have been to one of his ‘shows’ and he was OK. I find his blog somewhat tedious much of the time. Repetitious etc. I was struck at how he was so upset about a homosexual ‘outing’ another homosexual when Theresa May was PM and how he could never think of behaving like that AND YET he makes so allusion to the ordeal undertaken by Mr Salmond because of a different sort of orchestrated ‘outing’ by a group of women. It struck me that he has narrow empathy and/or dual standards.
      But for research, analysis , writing skills, wit and sheer capacity for hard work, Wings is way ahead of the pack (along with Craig Murray:-)) . Thanks a million.

    125. holymacmoses says:

      Mist001 says:
      30 September, 2020 at 9:20 pm
      As I’ve been saying the past couple of nights, for Scotland to gain its independence, then like it or not, it needs the help of the English.

      Hi there,
      An even better way is for the English to demand their own independence and that can be easily encouraged, as we have seen from the Brexit fiasco. WM has done a ‘job’ on Scotland to such an extent that the ordinary folk in England don’t even notice Scotland and certainly are of the opinion that we’re a waste of time and space and that they would be well rid. A few nudges in that direction and England’s ‘green and pleasant’ land will be free:-)

    126. Hatuey says:

      Another prediction; Westminster will throw Sturgeon a bone in the next few days. They might do it through Starmer. It’ll hint at the probability of Scotland being granted permission to hold a referendum, conditional on this, that, and the next thing happening first… the usual crud.

      Westminster knows better than any of us that Sturgeon staying in power is the path of least resistance when it comes to stopping Scottish independence.

      This is how neo-colonialism works. It’s a foundation stone.

    127. Mist001 says:

      @ holymacmoses

      I posted almost an identical idea on here a few weeks ago which was totally ignored. All it needs is to turn the English against us and eventually, pressure will mount on the UK government to hold a referendum and of course, the English would vote to leave the union.

      It’s exactly the same strategy as was used for Brexit.

    128. Skip_NC says:

      Meg Merrilees, apparently, the Biden campaign confirmed it as InshAllah after the debate. When I listened to a clip this morning (our TV was playing up last night so we didn’t get to see it live) I was unconvinced and I did wonder if he said something like “It’s the law.” However, see this tweet from a NPR reporter. NPR is a public service broadcaster worthy of the title. https://twitter.com/asmamk/status/1311170761688846336?s=20.

      Of course, you could just have told me I was talking pish (see 8:46pm).

    129. Hatuey says:

      Hamish Kirk says:
      30 September, 2020 at 6:34 pm

      “Has anyone else spotted the similarity of WGD to “Squealer” in Orwell’s book ?”

      I actually think he’s more like Boxer the horse. They could cart him off to the glue factory and he’d still be mumbling about the angelic purity of Sturgeon and her vision…

      When you put blind loyalty before principle, you either end up a fascist or a gullible fool that gets abused and exploited.

      So it goes…

    130. Alf Baird says:

      Tinto Chiel @ 9.06

      Michael Russell should maybe have focused more on the UN than the EU countries (also given the unhelpful EU position on Catalonia), and perhaps establish some form of permanent Scotland delegation at the UN also with an aim for a UN Listing for (Scotland’s) Decolonization with C24, which is the UN Committee dedicated to ending “the scourge of colonization”. Although Scotland is in a treaty-based alliance, it is quite easy to demonstrate that within that UK alliance the nation and its people are mistreated as a colony. I received a nice reply from the UN Secretary General to whom I sent a copy of my book ‘Doun-Hauden’. Any UN member state may propose Scotland’s listing for decolonization – which is the same as independence. So, another indy route/option the SNP ScotGov has tended to ignore in its S30 preoccupation. When the FM addressed the UN a while back she mainly talked about gender issues apparently, ignoring the priority for national liberation, which seems ridiculous.

    131. Big Jock says:

      Mist. That wouldn’t work.

      WM know they need our oil, whisky, land, Faslane, water, fishing. So they would never allow the English a referendum.

      The English people themselves. Have been brainwashed into believing Scotland is a drain on them. But the powers that be know the truth.

      So no matter how much the English resent Scotland. Their masters wouldn’t lose their best assett for all the tea in China.

    132. ScottieDog says:

      “ As I’ve been saying the past couple of nights, for Scotland to gain its independence, then like it or not, it needs the help of the English.”

      We should get hold of a bus, paint it with “how much we cost the English tax payer”,
      and drive it round the counties. Call it the Barnett bus 🙂

    133. Mist001 says:

      @ Big Jock

      If that’s the case, then Scotland will never gain its independence through the ballot box. You’re talking about a call to arms, an insurrection.

      And the Scots simply aren’t committed enough for that.

    134. Stuart MacKay says:

      Mist001

      Yeah, that sounds like a plan. Away troublesome Scots with your oil; with your renewable energy; with your deepwater ports for nuclear submarines; away with you wide open spaces for bombing and missile testing ranges; away with your position North Atlantic that is vital to the Americans; away with your large area of ocean full of fish and even more oil; away with your instantly recognisable drinks and all that high quality food; away with all that space that will become quite hospitable when global warming starts to bite. We want none of that.

      How clueless can you get.

    135. Dan says:

      @Sandy Merry

      So you agree that there appears to be something rotten in the party.
      That “something” has been highlighted for some considerable time by many folk but there has been a reluctance by the party to begin to work together and address / resolve the issue.
      The fact it has been allowed to fester and escalate to where we now find ourselves shows the party, that are the cause of the issue, are not interested in dealing with this as they blank pretty much every approach made to them by concerned members.

      Some see highlighting this ongoing situation as damaging, where as others see it as the only feasible way they can exert pressure that will get noticed. I am in the latter group and this is the reason why:
      If you are a frontline activist promoting the positive attributes of either the SNP or Indy, it is extremely difficult and awkward to be put in a position of attempting to snakeoil sell your way out of the various contentious issues when conversing with up the curve individuals and their concerns, as said matters are pretty much indefensible on various levels.

      The other reason for wanting it sorted out sooner rather than some can kicked time in the future, is that many people already live in difficult and economically precarious situations as covered by this earlier post.

      Stéphane Séchaud says: at 5:58 pm

      I commented on that article to remind the author that the Tory dystopia they claim is such a risk from our criticism of the party of governance in Scotland has actually been a reality for us plebs for a decade already. And the fact that they tolerate that reality demonstrates how privileged and comfortable they are in that dystopia.

      What does it say about a party that controls the Scottish Government Administration if they feel the electorate has to wait and suffer the consequences of Westminster’s actions to shock them into seeing the light, rather than actually campaigning to enlighten and educate the population so they can have the option to determine our future before actually having to endure the hardship, and the inherent difficulties of us even getting back to where we are now after losing our EU citizenship, further erosion of our rights, and a Holyrood with reduced powers.

    136. Dan says:

      ScottieDog at 9:50 pm

      The idea of #AlfGarnettConsequentials has been suggested on here previously. 😉

    137. bscotfree says:

      WhoRattledYourCage @4:53

      ”As a gay man with a ‘New Scot’ husband, both minorities highly prized seemingly over all other groups of the Scottish public by the FM – I can see why he might defend Ms. Sturgeon so vociferously.”

      Think you’ve nailed it. I used to read WGD back in 2014 but it later became repetitive and boring (not entirely PK’s fault as Sturgeon’s refusal to pursue indy resulted in nothing new to write about). WOS has always been superb and I also have high regard for Grouse Beater’s essays which are very informative and entertaining.

      Stuart continues to reveal how the SNP and Holyrood government have been corrupted from within by a party leadership which actively avoids any move for scottish independence and prevents scrutiny of its actions.

      Angus MacNeil, Kenny MacAskill, Philippa Whitford and Joanna Cherry have publicly raised concerns and asked questions only to be ignored. The majority of SNP MPs and MSPs (who must know the score) remain silent as mice letting this situation get worse. Loyalty is admirable but not in this circumstance. They are complicit.

      Sturgeon is personally culpable for the situation that Scots find ourselves in. Perhaps Murrell has been the actual leader all along but such speculation dosen’t matter at this stage. She and her acolytes must all be removed from positions of power and influence.

      A leadership challenge is needed. With genuine leadership the SNP would then be able to perform its core purpose. We know these are two viable routes to independence:

      1) A referendum vote without S30.
      or
      2) A plebiscite vote in Scotland/Holyrood.

      Mandate for independence:
      a) Abandon the S30 route.
      b) Assert competence of Scottish Parliament over constitutional matters.
      c) Recall MPs to join with MSPs in a National Convention.
      d) Propose dissolution of the Union via (1) or (2) above.

      I have previously voted SNP1 and 2 to no good effect. Next time I will vote ISP on the list. I am not willing to vote SNP1 unless there is a new leadership.

      Brexit and the Internal Market Bill are reasons enough to end this cursed union.

    138. JGedd says:

      @Tinto

      ‘I remain mystified as to why WGD seems to have been largely silent on the Salmond Affair and issues such as the authoritarian GRA and Hate Crime Bill’

      I think anyone on that site who ventures to bring up those subjects is given short shrift which either suits the followers of the blog or else they have taken the hint & have realised that they are delicate subjects, too incendiary & explosive.

      Like their host, the regulars seem to be avoiding those subjects, which might well be an indication that it does worry them or else they simply want to avoid anything controversial that might rock their world.

      I am puzzled too about WGD’s stance as an SNP loyalist. He always seemed to me to be pretty shrewd & perceptive, more likely to be sceptical & questioning than an adherent.

    139. Alec Lomax says:

      How did the independence movement manage without the SNP ?
      Oh, it didn’t exist (other than the demented Busbys).

    140. Bob Mack says:

      @A!ex Lomax,

      No Alex, it has existed for a !ong time. Bruce, Wallace Charles Stewart weren’t members of the SNP as I recall.

    141. Big Jock says:

      Alec- There was always a small populace who wanted independence. Going right back to Thomas Muir in the 18th Century.

      It took the SNP until 2007 to reach the breakthrough. Before that. They were largely a protest party. But the independence movement always existed.

      The SNP reached its peak when Salmond won a majority in 2011. Ever since 2014 it lost its way. The movement and the party were in perfect harmony in 2014.

      Since Sturgeon took over. The movement has drifted away from the party. We do need to bring it back.

      We need each other. How we do this is cut out the cancer from the head. Murrell needs to go and followed by Sturgeon. Both should step down.

      Personally I have just lost all respect for Nicola. I have absolutely no faith in her.

    142. cirsium says:

      @Dan, 9.56
      What does it say about a party that controls the Scottish Administration if they feel the electorate has to wait and suffer the consequences of Westminster’s actions to shock them into seeing the light, rather than actually campaigning to enlighten and educate the population so they can have the option to determine our future before actually having to endure the hardship,

      Exactly.

    143. Helen Yates says:

      Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive, that was my first thought when I heard Mundell call the FM a liar today, it’s all going to come crashing down around them soon and not before time, even Scotland tonight is doing a piece on it tonight.

    144. robertknight says:

      Alec Lomax @10:07

      “How did the independence movement manage without the SNP ? Oh, it didn’t exist”

      Oh, FFS Alec…

      Do those seeking Indy exist because of the SNP, or does the SNP exist because of those seeking Indy?

      It’s not a difficult question, really.

    145. Big Jock says:

      Robert- Exactly.

      Did the SNP invent independence?

      It was actually a bunch of student nationalists who started the party. Same ones that took back the Stone of Destiny.

    146. Derek Rogers says:

      @Sandy Merry, 9:09 pm
      “Once there is a substantial SNP majority in Parliament and we have a clearer view of the way forward to Independence then by all means lance the boil.”

      I would really like to think this was right, but (a) how? – there’s no Scottiosh election for another five years – and (b) the SNP will do everything in its power to ensure that we *don’t* have a clearer view of the way forward to independence.

      Indy voters have a very unpalatable choice at the upcoming election: vote SNP and see nothing happen, or vote not-SNP and resign ourselves to a longer but better focussed struggle. The second is the only realistic option.

      On which point, it now occurs to me, I strongly recommend @Alf Baird at 8.22’s book “Doun-Hauden: The Socio-Political Determinants of Scottish Independence”:

      https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doun-Hauden-Socio-Political-Determinants-Scottish-Independence/dp/B086Y6MMH2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=book+alfred+baird&qid=1601501459&sr=8-1

      It makes all Rev. Stu’s points about the Scottish Government and SNP not being committed to independence very forcefully and with compelling detail, and sketches out the things that need to be done to generate a compelling campaign. Alf, you’re a menace – my copy arrived today and cost me hours of work-time [smiley].

    147. Beaker says:

      @Alf Baird says:
      30 September, 2020 at 9:41 pm
      Tinto Chiel @ 9.06
      “Michael Russell should maybe have focused more on the UN than the EU countries”

      Neither the UN or the EU are going to get involved. The world currently has more pressing issues.

    148. Lizg says:

      Dave Somerville @ 10.38
      Well you couldn’t have been around they Yes movement for very long Dave or else no paid very much attention.
      Because if that comment is no ment to be Homophobic then it’s an astoundingly ignorant one.
      WGD being openly gay as I’m pretty sure the Rev will be the first to tell ye has very little to do with his political position.
      Like it or lump it both Paul and the Rev hold the positions they do honestly and it has not a thing to do with whatever imaginary community you think either of them belongs too.
      You may be some kind of fool Dave but you’ll no find much company here for that shit

    149. Big Jock says:

      Interesting update on the Keatings Section 30 case.

      Apparently QC Oneil acting for Martin Keatings. Has requested to see the SGs so called draft Indy ref bill. Apparently this was to move the Section 30 from the theoretical to the tangible request of authority.

      They have been met with delay on this. Which then questions whether the draft bill even exists. If it doesn’t,Nicola is in deep shit!

      Speculation at this stage. The SG are delaying because no bill exists or simply to disrupt the case. Playing for time!

    150. Willie says:

      To change the thread if I may the news today that in England the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) had initially asked officers to hold off downloading the COVID contact tracing app on both personal and work devices pending a technical assessment is ominous.

      Ominous because it seems more than clear that this technology, despite what they say, has enormous potential to track and record individual whereabouts and who they have met. Indeed, when there is a march or demonstration police secure tower dumps of all the phones passing by a mast. And that, together with facial recognition cameras, CCTV and vehicle real time ANPR tracking, gives a small insight into how extensively as subjects we are watched.

      And with COVID the cover electronic pass laws in our new apartheid state are soon to become a reality.

    151. Big Jock says:

      Liz,agree- As much as I disagree with WGD. I don’t think for a moment it has anything to do with his sexuality.

      It shouldn’t even be mentioned, irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

    152. CameronB Brodie says:

      If only Scotland’s legal Establishment wasn’t so institutionally Tory in outlook and approach to the law, Scots might be able to enjoy the benefits of democracy and an equitable political economy. Unfortunately, our justice system is intensely neo-liberal in outlook and structure, and our senior law officers appear criminally hostile to the principles and justice of the Common law. They certainly appear “ambivalent” to “natural justice” and “Natural law”.

      The Political Quarterly, Volume 89, Issue 1, January-March 2018
      Administrative Justice in the Wake of I, Daniel Blake

      Abstract

      This article argues that Ken Loach’s film, I, Daniel Blake, invites deep reflection on the relationship between the individual and the state, and, more particularly, on the role of administrative justice in restoring a re-imagined sense of citizenship.

      Drawing on earlier debates from the 1950s, as well as on more recent advocacy of the ‘connected society’, the article proposes that to meet such an ambition, administrative justice must be recognised as an overarching set of principles and values, rooted in a framework of human rights and with a reinvigorated public-sector ombud-institution at its centre.

      In this way, administrative justice might serve as an effective and restorative counterweight to more legalistic options for responding to public grievance, whether the result of routine encounters with the state or of a major breakdown in trust, such as that occasioned by ‘Grenfell Tower’.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.12432

    153. Willie says:

      And on another topic can anyone explain to me why Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister was writing to all SNP members through the party mailing system enclosing a download link to the COVID app.

      Maybe Nicola was just being pragmatic but if she feels that she can deploy the party computer – data base system which holds huge levels of data on not just members, but on voters too, then the boundary between government data and a political party’s data is actually non existent.

      Think about that in the light of what is coming out.

    154. Big Jock says:

      Cameron- Ironic as well.

      Scotland’s independent legal system survived the Act Of Union, because it was so important. The current Tories want to amalgamate it into one British legal system.

      It would make sense for every legal professional in Scotland, to be natural independence supporters. It’s not. That’s due to the class system that exists the higher up the food chain you go.

    155. Big Jock says:

      Willie – It would have been a robot sending those texts on a Sturgeon template.

      However I do agree that there appears to be duplicity involved here.

    156. Willie says:

      And then to change topic again consider whether actors within the SNP are selectively restricting communication.

      And what of the integrity of the electronic voting systems. What visibility is there on that. If they can try to politically assassinate people like Alec Salmond, or rig the deselection of Joanna Cherry, or rig NEC meetings, or use a rigged vetting system to either promote or reject candidates, then can anyone have any faith ballots – electronic or otherwise. How do you know your vote will be counted, given all that has been going on.

      Time for a clear out.

    157. Dave Somerville says:

      My reference to Wee Ginger Dug being Gay, it wasn’t meant as any kind of insult.

      But it does explain his undying support for Sturgeon, who is also Gay.

      That is the only point in was making,,,and surely I am allowed an opinion.

    158. Big Jock says:

      Sturgeon is gay? When did that happen??

    159. Dave Somerville says:

      O/T

      Looking at tomorrow’s weather on ITV, and and just made out that tiny smudge at the top of England was in fact Scotland.

      ITV still running with the very tilted map of the UK, where Cornwall has a larger land mass than that of the whole of Scotland.

      England just don’t want to be made to look like the same size as Scotland.

      I think you call it,,, an Inferiority complex.

    160. Duncan Clark says:

      Bob Mack @ 30 September, 2020 at 4:31 pm

      Was Spion Kop where a scout, possibly a Lovat Scout, informed the commanders that there were hidden enemy snipers, only to be rebuked for implying that the enemy would never do something that ‘wasn’t cricket’?

      As you said, this then went badly.

      Does it all sound at bit too familiar?

    161. CameronB Brodie says:

      Big Jock
      What’s even more ironic is Scots law is based on Roman law, which as you might expect, fully embraced Natural law. This is what makes Scots law compatible with the Common law, though our law officers appear ignorant of this fact, and determined to empty Scots law of any connection with the Natural law. As well as the potential for Scots law to support justice in Scotland.

      Roman Law, Scots Law and Legal History
      Selected Essays

      https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-roman-law-scots-law-and-legal-history.html

    162. Hatuey says:

      I don’t know what I find more boring, the gayness of Scottish politicians or Dave Somerville’s opinion of them…

      I know, Dave, I know… I’m a “snowflake bastard” and you are a straight talking hard guy that happens to know everything.

      Anyway, according to The Express, ScotGov has been having secret conversations with the EU over fishing and stuff. I find that hard to believe.

    163. Angry Weegie says:

      Pete Wishart may not be the most useless MP, but he is certainly the one most prepared to demonstrate his uselessness. I have already expressed an opinion of his efforts

      https://angryweegie.wordpress.com/2020/09/29/im-frustrated/

    164. Big Jock says:

      I think the only rumour I heard about Sturgeon. Is that she has an an S & M portrait of herself in their kitchen.

      Murrell does all the cleaning and cooking, and that’s just the SNP books! Lol.

    165. Alf Baird says:

      Derek Rogers @ 10.27

      Cheers Derek, hope you enjoy the book.

      Beaker @10.52

      Unlike the EU, the UN actually has a committee (C24) devoted to decolonisation/independence. Scotland’s decolonisation/ independence also has implications for numerous other nations and peoples seeking to become independent and hence UN member states. Scottish independence perhaps represents the final ending of the British empire/’internal’ colonies.

      Cameron @ 11.07

      Rev Stu’s previous recent investigations of the ‘Crown’ rather suggested the Scottish ‘justice system’ may be colonial in nature (i.e. Holyrood has limited/zero authority). Oppression of the natives might not therefore be unexpected.

    166. Dave Somerville says:

      Trust me big jock,,,I have it in good authority that she is Gay,,,and what is so wrong with being Gay Jock???

      You are almost saying that it is in some way offensive to be Gay.

      We live in a diverse community Big Jock,,,it no big deal,,, times have moved on.

      We are awe Jock Thamsons Bairns, are we not?

    167. Liz g says:

      Dave Somerville @ 11.21
      Then read the room Dave

    168. Liz g says:

      Big Jock
      He’s baiting us … the Rev removed his comment
      I’m leaving it here my friend 🙂

    169. Big Jock says:

      Looks like Dave’s been on the electric soup again!

    170. CameronB Brodie says:

      Alf Baird
      It’s a very long time since I was trained to de-colonise British culture, which as you will be aware, has been shaped by exclusionary and rascsit legal practice as much as any overseas colony was. Scots law has definitely been colonised by British nationalist ideology, and deformed by constitutional legal practice that is hostile towards the Natural law. And I bet a lot of our senior law officers are delighted with this state of affairs. ;(

      Natural Law in Scotland, 1625-1850
      Part of Natural Law, 1625-1850: An International Research Network

      https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/naturallawinscotland1625to1850/

    171. Dave Somerville says:

      Listening to Sturgeon on Peston there,,, not one mention of the “I” word.

      Sturgeon is a little piece of Ayrshire shit, a Fraud.

      She wouldn’t know Independence if it jumped up and skelped her on the face.

    172. Terry says:

      Thanks for the laugh!

      Dan says:
      30 September, 2020 at 6:14 pm
      kapelmeister says: at 5:32 pm

      “Pete Wishart says “Can I just say I will never leave Scotland undefended…” ”

      Aye, he could stand on the north side of Coldstream bridge over the Tweed belting out Runrig JockRock tunes. That would probably do a better job of defending Scotland from pauchling invaders from the south than him being in Westminster

    173. Beaker says:

      @Alf Baird says:
      30 September, 2020 at 11:50 pm
      Beaker @10.52
      “Unlike the EU, the UN actually has a committee (C24) devoted to decolonisation/independence. Scotland’s decolonisation/ independence also has implications for numerous other nations and peoples seeking to become independent and hence UN member states. Scottish independence perhaps represents the final ending of the British empire/’internal’ colonies.”

      Maybe so, but using the argument that Scotland is merely a colony of England isn’t really going to work these days. COVID restrictions notwithstanding, the Scot are allowed to do what everyone else in the UK can. If people are so convinced that the UN is going to jump in and tell England to let Scotland be independent, then why has the likes of Joanna Cherry not brought a legal case?

    174. CameronB Brodie says:

      If our legal Establishment were not so blatantly culturally biased and incapable of defending the rule-of-law, Scot would not be getting FORCEFULLY removed from the EU to satisfy the demands of right-wing and authoritarian English xenophobia and cultural exceptionalism. Are our law officers not a bit embarrassed, or do they simply lack self-awareness and any comprehension of shame?

      Natural Law and Moral Philosophy: From Grotius to the Scottish Enlightenment
      https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Natural_Law_and_Moral_Philosophy.html?id=luwipM3Mg-oC&redir_esc=y

    175. Dave Somerville says:

      CamB

      Did you forget,,,we have already left the EU.

      We left the EU on the 1st January 2020.

    176. CameronB Brodie says:

      Dave Somerville
      We are still under the protection of the EU’s legal jurisdiction and Charter of Fundamental Rights until the end of the year, though that won’t help us as our legal Establishment appear to believe Westminster is the ultimate source of legal authority. Such is the depth of their intellectual colonisation, and their ambivalence towards the justice of the Natural law tradition.

      International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, Vol. 76, 2015 – Issue 4
      Spinoza, Hume, and the fate of the natural law tradition

      Abstract

      This paper explores the common ground in the views on natural law, justice and sociopolitical development in Hume and Spinoza. Spinoza develops a radically revisionary position in the natural law debate, building upon the bold equation of right and power. Hume is best interpreted as offering a skeptical-empirical reworking of traditional natural law theories, which maintains much of the practical purport of these theories, while providing it with a new, metaphysically less firm, but also less problematic, foundation.

      What the two philosophers have in common is that they formulate realist revisions of the natural law tradition in the light of their more general naturalistic, secular philosophical commitments. Both philosophers, moreover, point to the slow development of man’s insight in the laws of nature, arising through a gradual accumulation of experiential insights. These insights are never wholly ‘liberated’ from the historical and imaginative perspective in which they arise.

      Accordingly, although rational progress brings the systems of justice and politics of different groups of people closer to each other, they necessarily retain, sometimes fundamentally incompatible, divergences. In the tradition of Machiavellian political realism, therefore, both Spinoza and Hume plead for judging political orders according to their own merits: do they, in their own specific ways, bring about a sufficient degree of order and liberty?

      Keywords:
      Spinoza, Hume, natural law tradition, naturalism, sociability

      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21692327.2015.1136235?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=rjpt20

    177. twathater says:

      @ Beaker 12.33am IMO it’s not asking the UN or the EU to come riding to our defence or otherwise, It is about illustrating and educating the UN, EU and International community that we are a nation and country involved in a Treaty Of Union with another country, but unfortunately the other country in that union has and is breaching the AGREEMENTS of that Treaty so therefore with the recognition of the UN,EU and international community that these breaches have occurred Scotland has no option but to declare the Treaty dissolved
      This is why Breeks, Lorna Campbell and others are so enraged that NS HAS NOT GONE THIS ROUTE

    178. PacMan says:

      Dave Somerville.

      You seem to obsess a lot about Gays.

      Is there something you want to tell us?

    179. PacMan says:

      WhoRattledYourCage says: 30 September, 2020 at 4:53 pm

      As a gay man with a ‘New Scot’ husband, both minorities highly prized seemingly over all other groups of the Scottish public by the FM – I can see why he might defend Ms. Sturgeon so vociferously.

      Even though you have made such a silly statement, I doubt very much that WGD is defending Sturgeon because of his sexuality.

    180. PacMan says:

      Willie says: 30 September, 2020 at 11:02 pm

      To change the thread if I may the news today that in England the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) had initially asked officers to hold off downloading the COVID contact tracing app on both personal and work devices pending a technical assessment is ominous.

      Ominous because it seems more than clear that this technology, despite what they say, has enormous potential to track and record individual whereabouts and who they have met. Indeed, when there is a march or demonstration police secure tower dumps of all the phones passing by a mast. And that, together with facial recognition cameras, CCTV and vehicle real time ANPR tracking, gives a small insight into how extensively as subjects we are watched.

      And with COVID the cover electronic pass laws in our new apartheid state are soon to become a reality.

      Looking at countries who have been successful with the virus like Vietnam and South Korea, they have done this because they have built up their health infrastructure over the years due to suffering from past pandemics but they have also done this through rigorous test and tracking as well aggressive on individuals privacy and personal freedoms.

      Western countries, including here in the UK are failing to cope with the virus and are pinning their hopes on a miracle vaccine as a way of getting out of this mess.

      I’m doubtful that is going to work and I fear the alternative may be to go down a more authoritarian route like you mention Willie. The way things are going, it may be happily accepted by the public so they can go back to the pubs and drink to all hours in the morning as well as their house parties afterwards.

    181. PacMan says:

      Dave Somerville says: 30 September, 2020 at 11:21 pm

      My reference to Wee Ginger Dug being Gay, it wasn’t meant as any kind of insult.

      But it does explain his undying support for Sturgeon, who is also Gay.

      That is the only point in was making,,,and surely I am allowed an opinion.

      So let me get this straight. You are saying that an openly gay blogger is supporting a politician because of her alleged according to you?

      Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

    182. J Galt says:

      PacMan@7.30am

      Not only does it not make sense it crosses a line which I would hope the host disapproves of.

      And I say that as someone who reluctantly and with sadness, accepts that the analysis of the current situation as regards the SNP presented in this blog, is more or less correct.

    183. Big Jock says:

      Someone picked up on what Boris said in WM yesterday , when challenged about the power grab.

      He said:” Power was coming back to Edinburgh”. Very careful words there. Not Holyrood , not the Scottish parliament- Edinburgh. So we know that he means Alister Jack’s new London office HQ.

      This is the truth. When Bowie talks of a rebalance of devolution, he means the Tories running devolved matters direct from the new HQ in Edinburgh.

      3000 civil servants in there folks. What do you think their purpose is!

      This should have made the SNP act immediately, but still we wait and not a shred of action.

    184. gullaneno4 says:

      Sitting in the stand at Murrayfield with three minutes to go I said to my young grandson that I could smell defeat.
      Sure enough Italy score a try to win in the 89th minute.

      Sadly for the Independence movement I can smell that Scotland will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

      We will only win with a united movement on the major issues that matter to the majority, examining belly fluff is not the way.

    185. Big Jock says:

      Gull – Here’s the thing. We don’t even appear to be still in the game. It’s like we have given up! Like we have asked our back row to move aside.

      You can’t win a battle if you let your enemy take your land without landing a blow. What in hells name is Nicola doing?

    186. ScottieDog says:

      “ The idea of #AlfGarnettConsequentials has been suggested on here previously. ?”

      Love it!

      Folk also suggesting AUOB drive Through on twitter I noticed.

    187. Dave Somerville says:

      What a stooshie from the old proods brigade, because someone mentioned the Wee Ginger Dug and Sturgeon are Gay.

      Get a life.

      I couldn’t care less what people’s sexual orientation is.

      Live and let live guys.

      Because the leader of the SNP and her biggest fan are Gay is neither here nor there.

    188. Dave Somerville says:

      Scottie dog 8.36 am

      I mentioned a few days asking if AUOB could organise a Demo for outside Bute House to see if we could get the Murrells to vacate the building.

      So hopefully things are beginning to happen on that front.

      Get these fraudsters out of Scottish Politics for good.

    189. Socrates MacSporran says:

      It is a pity the Rev does not have a like/dislike function for btl comments on this site.

      I would so like to have given a thumbs-up or an up vote to “Terry’s” post about Pete Wishart at 12.25am. It made me smile.

      Also “gullaneno4’s” comment about sitting in the stand at Murrayfield, waiting for Italy to score. I reported on that game – I think the entire press corps membership was also waiting for that late Italian try. There was a lot of re-writing of copy going on, even before the final try.

      It’s a Scottish thing: “Jings, we’re winning – quick, do something daft.”

    190. stuart mctavish says:

      Holymacmoses @6,59pm

      The hysteria around covid-19 has undoubtedly become a mental disease and, unless and to extent the figures are being fiddled, if the CMO (amongst others) cannot see that 7 deaths from over 7000 positive cases in the last 28 days, and a record low total deaths last week of 916, is actually good news from a public health perspective then perhaps some of his colleagues in the psychiatry branch need to organise a more targetted form of lockdown in the coming weeks.

    191. wull says:

      Scotland is NOT a colony, and never has been. It cannot be ‘decolonised’ if it has never been colonised. The problem is that the present UK Government is trying to make Scotland into a colony. In other words, they are determined to abolish the old Union, that goes back to 1707.

      For all its faults, and despite the atrocious way it was originally brought into existence, the 1707 Treaty makes the nature of that Union abundantly clear. In doing so, it prevents what happened then from ever being interpreted as a colonisation of one part of the British Isles by another.

      In terms of Scotland’s international profile, whether talking to the EU or the UN or the USA, or indeed any other country or area of the world, this is the point that has to be emphasised. It has to be explained to these international and national bodies that a political crime is currently being perpetrated within the United Kingdom. A huge and fundamentally illegal attempt is under way, at this very minute, to colonise a country that has never been colonised before.

      Those outside the UK, including all governing bodies and nation states, need to be made aware of this reality, and have these facts brought before them. The Treaty of Union is the founding constitutional document of the UK.It is being torn up in front of our eyes, without the consent of one of the two parties that signed it. One of those parties is trying to enforce a colonisation of the other.

      The Scottish government, and all other genuinely Scottish organs of civil society, ought to be continually pointing out on the international stage the true nature of this new imperial aggression. It ought to be telling the whole world that this illicit attempt to drastically change the status of Scotland is not simply a domestic matter of a particular autonomous nation-state (the UK), but a clear breach of international law. All international bodies, and indeed each member nation of the UN, ought to be made aware of what is really happening.

      Westminster’s attempt to force a change of status on Scotland, against the clearly stated wishes of the Scottish people, is an attempt to annihilate the Scottish nation. This act of aggression needs to be publicly denounced in every possible forum.

      If the whole world acquiesces in this Westminster project, then the whole world will be complicit in bringing into existence a new rogue state. One which has, at its basis, complete contempt for the rule of law, which it deliberately and explicitly disregards.

      This is anything but a small matter of internal domestic politics in the UK. To outsiders it may at first look like that, and that is how the Westminster propaganda machine will continually present it to them. But the nascent rogue state that is thus seeking to be born, spews out this propaganda – as it always has done, continually pretending that the UK is synonymous with England, and England alone – only in order to pull the wool over everyone else’s eyes. Well, it is time the whole world woke up to the deception that is being used to blind them, before it is too late. Even for their own sake.

      Contrary to that lying propaganda, which fills the putrid air that all the British Parties at Westminster breathe and spout, this is a much more serious matter than it seems. Even internationally. What this new, imperialistic, and essentially English government is trying to impose on Scotland has major ramifications for the legal framework within which the world operates.

      Therefore everyone – the whole world – ought to be concerned. And it is up to us Scots, and our Scottish government, to make everyone, including all operators on the international stage, fully aware of these facts of the matter.

      If the world lets rogue states get away with doing whatever they want to whomsoever they want, as and whenever they wish, the rule of law will not survive. It will no longer exist either within nations, or between them.

      If such lawlessness seems to be the way the world is increasingly heading, and that its momentum needs to be pushed back at every opportunity, in every instance, everywhere. Otherwise it will all end up in general conflagration. War, of every kind – low-level, high-level, every-level – everywhere, and everything goes up in smoke, until nothing is left.

      Nowhere is insignificant. Scotland is NOT insignificant. When a butterfly moves its wings in the Amazon it affects the whole planet. Our responsibility, as the Scottish nation, is not just to Scotland and the Scots, but to the whole world. Ignore injustice anywhere, and you promote it everywhere.

      Ignore injustice on our own doorstep, and we culpably neglect not only ourselves but our neighbours – all of them, everywhere on our planet. We have something positive to contribute to the whole. We can’t just sit back, do nothing, ignore that potential positive contribution and allow it be trampled underfoot by forces that are inherently illicit and unjust. There is no virtue in letting the world go to pot. Or our small patch of that world either.

      Paradoxically, we need to preserve the Treaty of Union of 1707, the foundation document(s) of the United Kingdom, if we are ever to exercise our right to disengage from that Treaty and become an independent country once again. Paradoxically, it is that Treaty which guarantees our ability to desist from the current set-up, allowing us to stop being a country in a union with another country, which is what we currently are. If we let Westminster rip up that Treaty, it will be ourselves and our country that is being shredded. And chucked in the bin.

      But they can’t do it against our will. The law was perfectly clear in that respect in the late 13th and early 14th Century, the paradigm moment for Scotland’s perpetual struggle for survival. The principle was well argued by the Scottish lawyers of that time, in the days of Balliol and Bruce, and Wallace and Wishart, and Lamberton and William of Eaglesham and all the rest. Even in 1707, for all the perfidy that was involved, the Scottish lawyers who drew up the Treaty knew what they were doing to preserve Scotland as a non-colonised political reality. The principle is still the same today. It has not changed in all these hundreds of years. Anything imposed by force and fear is illicit and invalid.

      Never say Scotland is trying to liberate itself from colonisation. Decolonisation is not the issue. To pretend that that is what this is about would be a denial not only of Scottish history, but of the reality of what Scotland actually is.

      Westminster is trying to bin Scotland, by lies, subterfuge, spreading fear and, above all, force. Incredibly, nothing much has changed in 700 and more years. England is once again trying to extinguish Scotland. The aim is to reduce Scotland to absolute nothingness (annihilation), turning it into a non-entity, so that it has no being of its own or in itself, and exists only as a Brigadoon theme park for the benefit and jollification of others. This is clean contrary to the Treaty of Union. It is imperialism and colonialism in full swing. That is why they want that Treaty torn up and everlastingly binned. It is an obstacle to their designs. Edward I rides again.

      Legality is an obstacle to their designs. So, what do they do? Just what Edward did. They ignore law, and trample on it. They go down the illegal route, and deliberately so. Then they dress it all up, to make it look as if what they were doing was legal, with all kinds of chicanery and legal sophistry and obfuscation.

      Edward was a barrack-room lawyer pretending to be the new Justinian. Ignoring reality. Pulling it exactly towards whatever he wanted and desired – ‘the covetous king’, as he was rightly called. The covetous ruler who (with the help of his lawyers) invented patently false legal arguments to justify his intrinsically unjust acts of aggression against his neighbour.

      In more recent terminology you would call this ‘the triumph of the will’. If that doesn’t ring a bell, or send a shiver slithering down your spine, it should.

      Edward I? Boris Johnson? What’s the difference?

      Legally, however – and therefore practically as well – they can’t succeed in their project to abolish Scotland without our consent. Scotland’s consent, that is. The consent of the Scots. And no true Scot is ever going to voluntarily chuck themselves (or their country) in the bin.

      Boris the binman has to be stopped.

      Those who live by binning others will end up being binned – stuffed truly in the bin, once and for all – themselves.

      There might be a ‘home truth’ in that last statement too. For us Scots in Scotland, that is, in the present but soon-passing difficulties in which we find ourselves.

      These difficulties look very bad, and are so. Yet they are comparatively small if we set them against those which the Scots had to face at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th Century. But those Scots did come through it all, and they won. And so will we.

      Never give in; never despair. Don’t listen to lying propaganda, and never concede to it. Don’t let yourself be internally colonised. We are not trying to decolonise Scotland, which is a legal impossibility; the purpose of our struggle is to prevent a country that has never been colonised from being colonised now, by an unjust government of a neighbouring country with which, at present, we have a Treaty of Union.

      Give yourself a shake; know you are in the right; and allow yourself that wee bit swagger, born not of insecurity or fear, but of an inner confidence that is quiet, strong and sure. Try, try, try again: the goal is too important for us ever to let go of it. Whatever the setbacks along the way, we will get there. Independence is still very much on its way, and very near indeed. Then the real struggle begin, for a fair and free Scotland, a better place, with a contribution to make to others, everywhere. Scotland is our home – ours, not somebody else’s – and the world is our oyster.

      Not only something from which we derive enrichment, but something which we enrich, with our presence among the nations of the world. Pearls are to be valued, and shared.

    192. Vronsky says:

      I was a bit shocked by that piece from WGD. I seldom read his blog as I consider him a pundit or satirist rather than a journalist. His occasional pieces on gaelic language and culture are factual and interesting, tbf, but that’s about it.

      Of late I’ve noticed him sliding towards a rather conservative position. My SNP, right or wrong! Shame.

    193. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      I just started reading David Torrance’s biography of Alex Salmond, which I have never read before. And yes, I know the author is dodgy. Just curious, and got it in a cancer charity shop. On page 7, after Salmond is elected FM, it says “Nicola Sturgeon, resplendent in a red suit, looked elatedly shell-shocked. Moira Salmond, already thinking about the possibilities of coalition, said she (would) rather have a Nicola than a Nicol as her husband’s deputy first minister.”

      Wonder what Mrs. Salmond thinks of that subject now. Her unreported anguish during the whole alphabet cur fit-up is something that the women who undertook to destroy her husband never seem to acknowledge,or even have thought aboot.

      It’s all very feminist. And Sturgeon wearing a colour signifying danger…fits right in, sadly.

    194. Gary45% says:

      Is this site about Independence or clowns going on about someone’s sexuality?
      Move on or post on the Daily Mail site.

    195. Just read through the BTL comments. It must be reassuring to have such erudite confirmation that your world view by 100 or so clackers is the correct one, the only one that makes sense, why can’t the rest of us see it?
      I seriously worry about the tone of this piece.

    196. Breeks says:

      wull says:
      1 October, 2020 at 9:00 am
      Scotland is NOT a colony, and never has been…

      I agree with every word wull.

      When the nightmare of Brexit was crashing down around our ears, I took great heart from knowing that Scotland’s unconstitutional subjugation would represent the death of the Union. Little did I imagine that Scotland‘s Independence would be sold down the river by a corrupt and Constitutionally illiterate SNP Government…

      Further progress from where we are now does NOT require yet more manipulated democracy, but in my opinion, the starting point must be the Constitutional impeachment of Sturgeon’s idiotic and gutless administration.

      Failing that, Sturgeon and her cabal need sacked via SNP Conference with utmost urgency.

      Of the two, I would prefer Impeachment, because that would re-set the Constitutional parameters surrounding Brexit and Scotland’s unconstitutional subjugation, and reverse the asinine precedents set by Nicola Sturgeon overruling the Scottish electorate.

    197. Dave Somerville says:

      Gary 45%

      I don’t know if you have accepted that the leader of the Independence Movenent in Scotland (Sturgeon) is Gay or not.

      I personally don’t have a problem with Sturgeon and Wee Ginger Dug being Gay,,,but you obviously do.

      Get over it Gary,,,we are all Jock Thamsons Bairns.

    198. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      NOTICE: that’s quite enough chat about people’s sexual orientation. This isn’t an outing site, we’ll leave that sort of shit to Angela Haggerty.

    199. Breeks says:

      https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1311581354769944576

      Here is what Europe does when confronted with a deliberate violation of International Law.

      What does Scotland do? Rolls over, and says we’ll prevent our 2020 unconstitutional subjugation with a 2021 mandate to maybe think about having a referendum before 2027. The perpetually wet and ineffective SNP Government makes me sick.

    200. Gary45% says:

      Using yet another name? You’ve been found out.
      Its Jock Tamson’s Bairns ya mug.

    201. TB says:

      I had to laugh at the “The rest of the column just repeats the same nonsense over and over, presumably in the hope of bludgeoning the reader into submission with repetition” bit.

      That’s his style, all right. His blog’s entire output is a churning repetition of, basically, two articles – “Boris Johnson Bad”, and “Tories Bad”. The Dug is the Neil Oliver of Scottish Independence. Totally irrelevant.

    202. Patsy Millar says:

      Excellent and I must admit the humour does help – very much needed. Still not being notified of new posts by mail despite requesting it every time I post a comment!

    203. Alf Baird says:

      Wul @ 0900 / Breeks @ 0950

      Constitutionally Scotland is not a colony; however, politically and hence in all practical terms Scotland is treated as a colony, even by the SNP who appear content to administer and accommodate what is effectively colonial governance on behalf of the ‘Administrative Power’.

      The definition of a colony is quite clear and as The Corries once said, ‘if the shoe fits wear it’:

      https://newsnet.scot/commentary/brexit-vote-underline-scotland-not-country-colony/

    204. ephemeraldeception says:

      “‘eventually’ they would have to capitulate…”

      It should be obvious that that could only arise after sufficient legal, governmental or public pressure brought about a change. Even Brexit and BoJo hasn’t begun to tip the scales.

      This means ScotGov instead needs to be proactive (in new approached tactics and strategy) which is not the case. And/Or the Public has to come up with something.

      Various public groups are seeking other ways and the SNP is somewhat split. Stu is pushing for change in SNP Governance itself but is just a start – it might just get us ‘Meet the new boss same as the old boss’.

      All we can do is keep plugging away and we can apply the same logic to move the Scottish Gov — we need to apply pressure to them to move and we need to use various approaches. Things do seem to be moving in the right direction…but its just so slow and agonizing.

      I // we need to forget about westminster all together. Its not broken, its broken as fuck. What we do have to worry about though is their spooks. And who socialises with whom to

    205. Breeks says:

      Alf Baird says:
      1 October, 2020 at 10:31 am

      Wul @ 0900 / Breeks @ 0950

      Constitutionally Scotland is not a colony; however…

      That’s my whole point Alf.

      We are NOT a colony, but hostage to a “leadership” that will not act to defend our Scottish Constitution.

      There is a fundamental deception about a political party professing to fight for Scottish Independence when it is actively embroiled in the illicit subjugation of our Nation, and turns a blind eye to Westminster’s colonial encroachment.

      That’s not leadership, but saying what it is, won’t get past the profanity filters.

    206. Gregory Beekman says:

      I think Sturgeon should stay as FM and SNP leader until after the 2021 election.

      If we start a leadership battle now, I think it will only harm our chances of getting an SNP majority in 2021.

      It’s after that election that everyone will see what Sturgeon is truly made of because Brexit will be done and we’ll be preparing for mass covid vaccinations by then. So she’ll have no excuses – nor will Boris.

      Which means she either goes full metal jacket for independence or she just doesn’t bother. And if she doesn’t bother, then I think everyone will want rid of her – even WGD. And I think she’ll be got rid of pretty quickly if that’s the case.

      That’s my two groats worth, at any rate.

    207. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Which means she either goes full metal jacket for independence or she just doesn’t bother. And if she doesn’t bother, then I think everyone will want rid of her”

      It’ll be too late by then, though. Even if she was replaced at that point we’d be years from another election.

    208. Lochside says:

      Alf Baird ‘s analysis is correct: De facto Scotland has been allowed, by corrupt politicians and its institutions to become a colony. De Jure it is an equal nation in an international treaty of Union with England, but nobody is telling the world that.

      Because the SNP gave up asserting that fact some years ago, and our legal system subordinated and self harmed by accepting English judicial rule over it via the illegal Supreme Court.

      The 2014 ‘Referendum’ was an unpardonable act of folly by Alec Salmond because it allowed us, the Scots, to vote ourselves into a subordinate colony, by affirming the Union and lesser status. And we did it by allowing our majority of indigenous votes to be outvoted by our predatory oppressors’s settlers ( confirmed by statistical evidence).

    209. CameronB Brodie says:

      The current SNP will help nobody but themselves and the Tories, as neither party respects the Common law. If the FM wasn’t such a narrow minded and parochial authoritarian, Scots would be able to remain in the EU and enjoy the benefits of democracy. Instead, we have been stripped of our EU identity, and constitutional right to have legal rights.

      So fuck you very much FM, I’m sure I’ll enjoyed the further deepening of my deprivation and insecurity.

    210. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Colonel Yadaftie going for the throat re lack of evidence submitted to the Salmond inquiry and Murrells WhatsApp messages.

    211. Polly says:

      Gregory Beekman says:
      1 October, 2020 at 12:09 pm
      I think Sturgeon should stay as FM and SNP leader until after the 2021 election.

      I thought that too until she came out fighting for Spear. That very bad lack of judgement though changed my mind. If she can willingly show herself to be such a naked hypocrite trying to take a moral stand this late in the day for politics and the country after allowing such abuse of Joan McAlpine and other women, including Cherry and Rowling, then she proves her judgement in other things is totally compromised and unstable.

      Had she kept quiet about Spear I’d have continued to think like you that since many still believe in her, she’s even quite popular with unionists because of covid, leave her in place as long as possible until we get a strong showing in the election push for referendum. But by coming out batting for Spear she either didn’t realise how bad that would look or didn’t care – either way judgement like that is a danger to anything we need to achieve.

    212. Ian McCubbin says:

      Well let’s hope no more S30 requests, debates anywhere.
      Since the outset of this not campaign for Independence, I have continually adovated Self determination by any other means. None of 71 countries who have escaped WM rule did it by tge polite request for referendum then held and won said referendum.

      Now we need a leader in the repaired car to take us there by legal declaration on tge grounds of the several breaches of Scotland Act and 1707 act of union.

    213. CameronB Brodie says:

      Polly
      I’ve tried to encourage folk to disregard the judgment of politicians who deny practical science, as being entirely UNRELIABLE. Though the FM’s stance is entirely undemocratic, I don’t blame her for her subourdinate and submissive stance towards Westminster’s ill-founded legal authority. We have all grown up in an environment that is saturated with the semiotics of methodological nationalism.

      That means our minds have been colonised and conditioned so as to unquestioningly respect Westminster, and to consider British nationalism as being wholesome and natural. Subsequently, we have been conditioned not to respect the Natural law, and have so been disabled in our capacity to support the Common law.

      I would have hoped the FM night have had some common sense though, and a respect for the rule-of-law. Even if she lacks the ability to support it, and appear to only have access to extremely poor quality legal advice.

      Btw, I left a reply for you last night.

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-government-in-hiding/comment-page-1/#comment-2568461

    214. Gregory Beekman says:

      @Rev. Stuart Campbell at 12:21 pm
      “It’ll be too late by then, though. Even if she was replaced at that point we’d be years from another election.”

      I don’t understand that logic. If the election campaign is for another indyref then that should still stand after a leadership change, especially if that change took place because the old leader wasn’t honouring the indyref commitment she’d been voted in to pursue.

    215. Gregory Beekman says:

      @Polly at 12:39pm

      I understand where you are coming from and think the FM was on bad form there (plus her unwillingness to stand up for anyone the media attack and she instead just throws them out of the party despite their innocence).

      Despite those flaws obvious to us, I still think we’re too close to the election for a leadership change. After the election, though, I think the gloves will come off and the current SNP leadership will take a very-public hammering.

      But I just don’t see who’d lead us into this election now other than Sturgeon (unless by some miracle she’s deposed by Salmond!).

    216. cirsium says:

      @PacMan, 7.22

      Looking at countries who have been successful with the virus like Vietnam and South Korea, they have done this because they have built up their health infrastructure over the years due to suffering from past pandemics

      These countries are also making use of an array of proven anti-viral medicines developed over years of experience. Why are Western governments not using anti-viral medicines? Why are Western governments not making use of the expertise of countries like South Korea, Vietnam or Cuba?

    217. Margaret Lindsay says:

      I’ve went right off that wee dug ( not Crumpet).

    218. Alf Baird says:

      Lochside/Cameron: Blackford’s 48 nationalist MP’s need to walk the walk, perhaps tear up a copy of the ToU on the way out, and re-establish a Scottish state parliament.

    219. Peter C says:

      Ah, the wee ginger dug. Another blogging outfit (Scot Goes Pop, is one too) where the blogger is pretty much looking for ‘official’ sanction from the SNP so he can get a meal-ticket in the ‘journalism’ world. Gave up on that unthinking apologist for SNP quite some time ago — can’t say I miss his brand of wittering mindlessness much.

    220. CameronB Brodie says:

      Alf Baird
      To do otherwise is to support constitutional criminality. Berxit is Westminster’s attempt to over-ride the Common law, and use its’ culturally assumed legislative authority to remove rights guaranteed to Scots under international law. That is simply not compatible with the rule-of-law, as international law stands above national law. Westminster has already accepted this principle of international legal practice (see Kosovo).

      THE MODERN LAW REVIEW ~~ Volume 48 January 1985 No. 1
      COMMON LAW AND STATUTE LAW

      I PROPOSE in this lecture to address a question which has attracted very little attention in our legal literature’ although it is, I believe, of considerable theoretical, and potentially also some practical importance. The question concerns the relationship between the common law and statute law.

      Does our law constitute, in some sense, a single coherent, integral body of law, or does it consist of two separate entities, two streams running on parallel lines one of which occasionally feeds into the other, but which are destined for ever to retain their separate identities? In posing this question, I must make it clear that I am not concerned with the question how well common law and statute law fit together, but with the logically prior question, of how they fit together.

      All lawyers, of course, know that large areas of both the common law and the statute law are a shambles, but is it one shambles or are there two? This may seem a very theoretical, or even metaphysical question, but there are a number of important practical issues involved here, particularly when it has once become accepted that the common law is a dynamic, developing body of law just as much as statute law.

      It may well be that the reason these issues have attracted so little attention hitherto is that until very recently the prevailing orthodoxy of English law was that the judges had no power to change the law. But now that this fairy tale has been abandoned, the relationship between common law and statute law must be seen as the relationship between two developing and moving bodies of law; and the way in which they interact on each other becomes a matter of no little importance.

      I

      Now there is one respect in which, when a statute is passed, it becomes part of a large ongoing enterprise, just as a new piece of case law does. Obviously, it may reverse or modify existing law; but less obviously it takes a great deal of existing law for granted.

      Very few statutes are self-contained instruments even when they deal with a remote or esoteric branch of the law. At the very least they are subject to the rules of interpretation, and hence to the provisions of the Interpretation Act. But in addition, most statutes attract huge bodies of existing law – both statute and common law – in a wide variety of ways.

      For example, there is the relationship of the statute to the courts: a statute is law, and prima facie matters of law fall within the jurisdiction of the courts. If it is a matter of public law, judicial review may be available, and the whole body of law governing judicial review may thus be attracted by the Act. Alternatively, if the Act creates private rights, huge bodies of civil law may be attracted.

      Rules of general application drawn from the substantive law of contract or tort or restitution or trusts may become relevant. Other statutes, where appropriate, such as, for instance, the Contributory Negligence Act or the Frustrated Contracts Act, may become applicable, via the common law rules which they amend, and which may themselves be drawn within the orbit of an Act creating civil liabilities.

      Or again, the Act may create offences. At once, the whole body of general principles of criminal law becomes relevant: rules concerning the criminal capacity of minors, rules concerning the criminal responsibility of secondary parties, rules concerning sentencing, all these will become part of the machinery for the enforcement of the new Act without one word being said about them.

      Beyond and behind all these rules of substantive law, there lie still further bodies of rules abut enforcement of the law: apart from rules of jurisdiction, procedure and evidence, there are the powers of the police, the powers of prison governors and sheriffs, and in the case of civil liabilities a whole battery of enforcement mechanisms such as garnishee orders, attachment of earnings orders and bankruptcy laws-which of course bring in their train yet further rules about the powers and procedure of the courts with bankruptcy jurisdiction….

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1985.tb00823.x

    221. Muscleguy says:

      I gave up on WGD a few months ago now over the GRA thing. Why a gay man who the TRA’s say must be transphobic since he is exclusively same sex attracted would champion on it. Add in that he has become an SNP fanboi/Sturgeon Groupie par excellence fully signed up to The National’s eternal quest to manage the Yes campaign’s furstrations and expectations.

      I gave up even chiding them over it when I had a subscription which I had to give up for economic reasons. It was read it or eat time. £7 buys a lot of food at Aldi. Now my economic prospects are looking a bit better I wouldn’t take out a new subscription.

      I get more actual Scottish news every morning gratis from Source Direct than the National provides which is just full of opinion and politics and nothing else. Nothing else happens in Scotland, apparently. We’re probably supposed to subscribe to the stil rabidly unionist stablemate the Herald for that, hah!

    222. Gregory Beekman says:

      @Muscleguy

      Yeah, you’re right – The National is all hot air with little actual news. A very poor paper, sadly.

    223. Christian Schmidt says:

      I think it is likely to be wrong that there is “no material, practical or meaningful difference of any sort” between the 2 requests and another one if the SNP wins next year. Last time round the Tories manages to get the press to report the issue as an ‘she says, he says’ issue – they reported what Sturgeon and Johnson said and left it at that. I think it is quite likely that the next time the news will report it as Sturgeon making a fair request. And then Johnson may not be able to resist, because too many Tories feel if they don’t, they may lose votes and power in England. (Note that Starmer has already effectively conceeded the point.)

    224. Christian Schmidt says:

      I think it is likely to be wrong that there is “no material, practical or meaningful difference of any sort” between the 2 requests and another one if the SNP wins next year. Last time round the Tories manages to get the press to report the issue as an ‘she says, he says’ issue – they reported what Sturgeon and Johnson said and left it at that. I think it is quite likely that the next time the news will report it as Sturgeon making a fair request. And then Johnson may not be able to resist, because too many Tories feel if they don’t, they may lose votes and power in England. (Note that Starmer has already effectively conceded the point.)

    225. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “And then Johnson may not be able to resist, because too many Tories feel if they don’t, they may lose votes and power in England. “

      What? Eh? Whose votes would he lose?

    226. Polly says:

      @ Cameron

      Thanks Cameron. 🙂

    227. James Barr Gardner says:

      Demographics, Demographics, Demographics !

      Scottish Independence, Scottish Independence, Scottish Independence !

      Irish Unification, Irish Unification, Irish Unification !



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




    ↑ Top